    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     CASE-BY-CASE: RETURNING PAROLE TO ITS
                               PROPER PURPOSE
    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                           OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS,
                               AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                    AND THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 15, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-22

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-405 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                     Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
    Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Vice       Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi,
        Chair                                Ranking Member
    Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Eric Swalwell, California
    Michael Guest, Mississippi           J. Luis Correa, California
    Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida           Shri Thanedar, Michigan
    August Pfluger, Texas                Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
    Andrew R. Garbarino, New York        Daniel S. Goldman, New York
    Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
    Tony Gonzales, Texas                 Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
    Morgan Luttrell, Texas               LaMonica McIver, New Jersey
    Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Julie Johnson, Texas, Vice Ranking
    Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma                  Member
    Elijah Crane, Arizona                Pablo Jose Hernandez, Puerto Rico
    Andrew Ogles, Tennessee              Nellie Pou, New Jersey
    Sheri Biggs, South Carolina          Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
    Gabe Evans, Colorado                 Al Green, Texas
    Ryan Mackenzie, Pennsylvania         Vacancy
    Brad Knott, North Carolina
                        Eric Heighberger, Staff Director
                      Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                           Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk
                                     ------

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                       Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma, Chairman
    Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Shri Thanedar, Michigan, Ranking
    Dale W. Strong, Alabama                  Member
    Andrew Ogles, Tennessee              Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
    Brad Knott, North Carolina           Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
    Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee (ex     Vacant
        officio)                         Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
                                             (ex officio)
                      Vacancy, Subcommittee Staff Director
               Lisa Canini, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
                                     ------

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT

                      Michael Guest, Mississippi, Chairman
    Tony Gonzales, Texas                 J. Luis Correa, California,
    Elijah Crane, Arizona                    Ranking Member
    Andrew Ogles, Tennessee              Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
    Sheri Biggs, South Carolina          Julie Johnson, Texas
    Brad Knott, North Carolina           Vacant
    Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee (ex     Vacant
        officio)                         Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
                                             (ex officio)
                    Natasha Eby, Subcommittee Staff Director
           Brieana Marticorena, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   Statements

    The Honorable Josh Brecheen, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Oklahoma, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight,
      Investigations, and Accountability:
      Oral Statement.................................................     1
      Prepared Statement.............................................     4
    The Honorable Shri Thanedar, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability:
      Oral Statement.................................................     6
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7
    The Honorable Michael Guest, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Border
      Security and Enforcement:
      Oral Statement.................................................     7
      Prepared Statement.............................................     9
    The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Border Security and Enforcement................................    10
    The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
      From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      Homeland Security:
      Prepared Statement.............................................    12

                                   Witnesses

    Mr. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Senior Fellow for Immigration and
      Homeland Security, Center for Renewing America:
      Oral Statement.................................................    13
      Prepared Statement.............................................    14
    Mr. Steven A. Camarota, Ph.D., Director of Research, Center for
      Immigration Studies:
      Oral Statement.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    17
    Mr. David J. Bier, Director of Immigration Studies, CATO
      Institute:
      Oral Statement.................................................    24
      Prepared Statement.............................................    26
    Mr. Charles Marino, Private Citizen, Former Senior Law
      Enforcement Advisor, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:*
      Prepared Statement.............................................    93

                                 For the Record

    The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Border Security and Enforcement:
      Article, June 19, 2025, CBS News...............................    50
      Analysis, July 13, 2025, CNN...................................    52

    * Mr. Marino was unable to attend and has submitted written
      testimony via the Appendix.
      Statement of Church World Service..............................    53
      Statement of Refugees International............................    54
      Analysis, June 26, 2025, CNN...................................    55
      Excerpt From Report From the Pew Research Center...............    58
      Article, May 19, 2025, Harvest Public Media....................    62
      Article, 15 Jul 2025, The Guardian.............................    64
      Article, January 10, 2025, Wisconsin Examiner..................    67
      Blog Post From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities......    71
      Article, March 26, 2025, Boundless.............................    73
    The Honorable Troy A. Carter, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Louisiana:
      Decision, August 14, 2020......................................    80
    The Honorable Shri Thanedar, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability:
      Statement of the AFL-CIO.......................................    91

                                    Appendix

    Prepared Statement of Charles Marino.............................    93

              CASE-BY-CASE: RETURNING PAROLE TO ITS PROPER PURPOSE

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 15, 2025

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Committee on Homeland Security,
                Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and
                                        Accountability, and the
               Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in
    room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Josh Brecheen
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and
    Accountability] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brecheen, Guest, Strong, Crane,
    Knott, Thanedar, Correa, Carter, and Johnson.
        Mr. Brecheen. The Committee on Homeland Security,
    Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, Accountability and
    the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement will come
    to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
    committee in recess at any time, any point.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the
    consequences of the Biden administration's abuse of immigration
    parole and how Congress and the Trump administration can work
    to address those consequences.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        Good afternoon again. Welcome to the Subcommittee on
    Oversight, Investigations, Accountability and the Subcommittee
    on Border Security and Enforcement's joint hearing on returning
    immigration parole to its proper statutory purpose.
        First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here
    today.
        This hearing was originally planned for April 8, however
    due to last-minute and unforeseen circumstances, it had to be
    postponed until today. We appreciate our witnesses
    understanding and grateful you can be here to talk about this
    important matter.
        On the note of witnesses, unfortunately, due to a flight
    cancellation, one of our witnesses, Charles Marino, will not be
    able to join us today.
        I would like to welcome the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Carter, who will serve on the Oversight, Investigations, and
    Accountability Subcommittee for the 119th Congress, and we look
    forward to working with you.
        We are here today because Congress must find a legislative
    answer to prevent the future abuse of parole, whether that
    means changing the standard for parole, expediting removal of
    paroles, or eliminating parole access to welfare benefits. We
    must act so that another administration cannot repeat or, even
    worse, expand what occurred in the Biden-Harris time period.
        From February 2021 to February 2025, under the Biden-Harris
    administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered
    more than 11 million illegal aliens nationwide. According to
    our witnesses today, nearly 3 million individuals who had no
    legal reason to be in the United States were allowed--through
    an unlawful mass parole program were paroled into and by an
    overwhelmed Border Patrol.
        We know--we don't know how many people actually entered
    through these various unlawful mass parole programs because the
    Biden-Harris administration refused to give us numbers and
    data, and that's even after former Chairman Green issued a
    subpoena for the data.
        Why are they hiding the numbers? Because parole was out of
    control. It would have been a political disaster if the
    American people knew how bad it was. They abused this authority
    in support of an open-ended borders agenda.
        Congress created immigration parole to provide temporary
    entry into small numbers of aliens on a case-by-case basis. It
    started 60 years ago, and it was designed to be for a
    significant public benefit, this case-by-case temporary pause
    of normal processing, or a urgent humanitarian reason.
        Presidents and Cabinet-level officers in the past have used
    it to enable essential witnesses to cross the border, testify
    at criminal hearings, or allow illegals with dire medical
    conditions to receive aid in American hospitals. One former
    senior ICE official has said that he paroled just 2 individuals
    in his entire career.
        No administration abused parole to such a degree and with
    such flagrant disregard for Congressional limitation as
    compared to the Biden-Harris administration. While that
    administration and then, at the time, Secretary Mayorkas
    refused to provide Congress with clear information, their
    playbook was clear. The administration exceedingly expanded
    existing parole programs, such as the Cuban Family
    Reunification Program, to an amount that strained DHS screening
    and vetting capabilities.
        Second, the Biden-Harris administration reintroduced
    ineffective parole programs that the first Trump administration
    ended, like the Central American Minors Program. The Trump
    administration ended these because they served no purpose other
    than promoting greater illegal immigration and encouraging the
    exploitation of unaccompanied minors.
        Third, the Biden-Harris administration just invented new
    parole programs to release individuals from Afghanistan, Cuba,
    Nicaragua, Venezuela, Colombia, Haiti, into the interior.
    Slapping parole on an inadmissible alien's file, releasing them
    into the interior, doesn't magically make one less than
    admissible. It just means you're not following the law as
    intended.
        The parole vetting was so inadequate that one DHS Inspector
    General report found that 3 Afghan parolees had derogatory
    information related to felonies in the United States, and at
    least one had an indication of terrorism-related activity. An
    additional Afghan national who received parole through
    Operation Allies Welcome was arrested in my home State in
    Oklahoma City for plotting an election-day terrorist attack for
    ISIS.
        While Republican Members of this committee and millions
    nationwide recognize the national security threat of providing
    parole to poorly-vetted immigrants, the Biden-Harris
    administration surged making it even easier for more
    individuals to apply for parole through a CB One application.
    We even found that, during the administration, the cartels
    hijacked that CB One app to create deployments for would-be
    parole, for a fee of course, so that the administration parole
    program was helping cartels pocket more dollars from desperate
    individuals.
        The Biden-Harris administration also raised the legal
    requirement from granting parole, allowing the entry of the
    individuals if they could find a sponsor who could financially
    support them once within the United States, even though the law
    requires parole to be granted only on a case-by-case basis for
    urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. By
    law, that is what it stated before it was upended.
        Even when an internal DHS report indicated thousands of
    potential parole sponsors were filing fraudulent applications
    and supporting financial statements with illegal income, the
    Biden-Harris administration continued accepting applications
    after just a month-long process pause in their review of the
    program. That did not last.
        If this wasn't about enough, the DHS Inspector General
    published a report this month stating that, during the Biden-
    Harris administration, DHS did not have a process to address
    parole expiration. Furthermore, DHS did not prioritize taking
    enforcement action for parolees to remain in the United States
    after their parole had expired, usually in 1-year or a 2-year
    time period. The report concluded DHS had no assurances that
    parolees were lawfully present in the United States after their
    parole expired.
        When you apply these findings with the escalated millions
    of parolees let into the country during the Biden-Harris
    administration, it's very troubling that the administration
    flagrantly abused parole and has serious consequences that
    continues for the American people.
        While illegal immigration suffers a huge financial strain
    to the American taxpayer, parolees are especially expensive
    because they are eventually eligible for Federal welfare
    benefits. One analysis found, at the beginning of January
    2026--that's 6 months away--the Biden-Harris parole calamity
    will cost about $3 billion a year in welfare benefits per 1
    million parolees. Three billion dollars a year for just 1
    million. We know that there's--we believe--3 million. So as the
    time period kicks on, we're looking at $9 billion, which is--
    that's a State budget. That's an entire State budget. That's
    just the quantifiable cost.
        American citizens face serious national security and public
    safety costs from the lack of screening and vetting these
    parolees. The stories are becoming too many to count. Parolees
    have been charged and convicted of serious crimes, including
    terrorism, murder, rape, and sexual assault of children.
    Thankfully, the Trump administration has made it clear that
    inadmissible aliens hiding behind the fig leaf of parole can no
    longer hide under the protection of temporary parole and remain
    in the country.
        On March 21 of this year, President Trump announced his
    administration will revoke the parole status for 532,000, that
    includes the program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans,
    Venezuelans, more commonly known as the CHNV program. By
    returning parole to its proper purpose, the Trump
    administration can announce to the world and prospective
    immigrants that parole status cannot be gifted unlawfully and
    cheaply.
        More needs to be done. We're here today to determine how we
    can begin to undue these devastating impacts that illegal
    paroling did for untold numbers of inadmissible aliens into
    America and what that impact will be on our States and local
    communities. We must protect the taxpayer. We must protect the
    American people. We must protect our sovereignty. We need to
    further limit and clarify Executive parole authority to prevent
    future abuses.
        [The statement of Chairman Brecheen follows:]
                      Statement of Chairman Josh Brecheen
                                 July 15, 2025
        Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight,
    Investigations, and Accountability and the Subcommittee on Border
    Security and Enforcement's joint hearing on returning immigration
    parole to its proper, statutory purpose.
        First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today.
    This hearing was originally planned for April 8; however, due to last-
    minute, unforeseen circumstances, it had to be postponed to today. We
    appreciate your understanding; and we are grateful you can be here
    today to talk about this important matter.
        Second, I would like to welcome the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Carter, who will serve on the Oversight, Investigations, and
    Accountability subcommittee for the 119th Congress. I look forward to
    working with you.
        We are here today because Congress must find a legislative answer
    to prevent the future abuse of parole, whether that means changing the
    standard for parole, expediting removal of parolees, or eliminating
    parolee access to welfare benefits. We must act so that another
    administration cannot just repeat, or even worse, expand, the Biden-
    Harris parole programs.
        From February 2021 to February 2025, under the Biden-Harris
    administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered more
    than 11 million illegal aliens nationwide.
        According to our witness today, nearly 3 million individuals who
    had no legal reason to be in the United States, were allowed in through
    unlawful mass-parole programs, or simply just paroled in by an
    overwhelmed Border Patrol.
        However, we don't know how many people actually entered through
    these various unlawful mass-parole programs because the Biden-Harris
    administration refused to give us numbers and data. That's even after
    Chairman Green issued a subpoena for the data.
        Why were they hiding the numbers? Because parole was out of
    control, and it would be a political disaster if the American people
    knew how the administration was abusing this authority in support of
    its open-borders agenda.
        Congress created immigration parole to provide temporary entry to
    small numbers of aliens on a case-by-case basis, for a significant
    public benefit or urgent humanitarian reason.
        For example, Presidents and Cabinet-level officers have used parole
    to enable essential witnesses to cross the border and testify at
    criminal hearings or to allow aliens with dire medical conditions to
    receive aid in American hospitals. One former senior ICE official has
    said that he paroled just 2 individuals in his entire tenure.
        No administration, however, abused parole to such a degree and with
    such a flagrant disregard for Congressional limitations than the Biden-
    Harris administration. While the Biden-Harris administration and then-
    Secretary Mayorkas refused to provide Congress with information, their
    playbook was clear.
        First, the Biden-Harris administration excessively expanded
    existing parole programs, such as the Cuban Family Reunification
    program, to an amount that strained DHS's screening and vetting
    capabilities.
        Second, the Biden-Harris administration re-introduced ineffective
    parole programs that the first Trump administration ended, like the
    Central American Minors Program. The Trump administration ended these
    because they served no purpose other than promoting greater illegal
    immigration and encouraging the exploitation of unaccompanied minors.
        Third, the Biden-Harris administration just invented new parole
    programs to release individuals from Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua,
    Venezuela, Colombia, and Haiti into the interior. Slapping ``parole''
    on an inadmissible alien's file and releasing him into the interior
    doesn't magically make him any less inadmissible--it just means you are
    not following the law as intended.
        The parolee vetting was so inadequate that one DHS Inspector
    General report found that 3 Afghan parolees had derogatory information
    related to felonies in the United States, and at least 1 had an
    indication of terrorism-related activity.
        An additional Afghan national, who received parole through
    Operation Allies Welcome, was arrested in Oklahoma City for plotting an
    election day terrorist attack for ISIS.
        While Republican Members of this committee, and millions
    nationwide, recognized the national security threat of providing parole
    to poorly-vetted immigrants, the Biden-Harris administration surged
    along by making it even easier for individuals to apply for parole
    through the CBP One application.
        We even found out during the administration that the cartels had
    hijacked the CBP One app to create appointments for would-be parolees,
    all for a fee, of course--so the administration's parole program was
    helping the cartels pocket more dollars from desperate individuals.
        The Biden-Harris administration also erased the legal requirements
    for granting parole--allowing entry to individuals if they could simply
    find a sponsor who could financially support them once within the
    United States, even though the law requires parole be granted only on a
    case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant
    public benefit.
        Even when an internal DHS report indicated that thousands of
    potential parole sponsors were filling out fraudulent applications and
    supporting their financial statements with illegal income, the Biden-
    Harris administration continued accepting applications after just a
    month-long pause to review the program.
        If all of this wasn't bad enough, the DHS Inspector General
    published a report this month stating that during the Biden-Harris
    administration, DHS did not have a process to address parole
    expiration. Furthermore, DHS did not prioritize taking enforcement
    action for parolees who remained in the United States after their
    parole had expired.
        The report concluded that DHS had no assurance that parolees were
    lawfully present in the United States after their parole expired. When
    you apply these findings to the estimated millions of parolees let into
    the country during the Biden-Harris administration, it is troubling.
        The Biden-Harris administration's flagrant abuse of its limited
    parole authority had serious consequences for the American public.
        While illegal immigration itself is a huge financial strain on the
    American taxpayer, parolees are especially expensive because they are
    eventually eligible for many Federal welfare benefits.
        One analysis found that beginning in January 2026, the Biden-Harris
    parole calamity will cost about $3 billion a year in welfare benefits
    per 1 million parolees. Three billion dollars a year. Even if they pay
    some limited taxes, the burdens they impose on our resources always
    outweigh their contributions.
        That's just the quantifiable cost. American citizens face serious
    national security and public safety costs from the lack of screening
    and vetting of these parolees.
        The stories are becoming too many to count, but parolees have been
    charged and convicted of serious crimes including terrorism, murder,
    rape, and sexual assault of children.
        Thankfully, the Trump administration has made it clear that
    inadmissible aliens hiding behind the fig leaf of parole can no longer
    hide under the protection of temporary parole to remain in the country.
        On March 21, President Trump announced that his administration
    would revoke parole status for 532,000 individuals who received parole
    through the Parole Programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and
    Venezuelans, more commonly known as the CHNV program.
        By returning parole to its proper purpose, the Trump administration
    can announce to the world, and to prospective immigrants that parole
    status cannot be gifted so cheaply.
        But more needs to be done. We are here today to determine how we
    can begin to undo the devastating impacts that illegally paroling
    untold numbers of inadmissible aliens into America has had on our
    States and local communities. We must protect the American people,
    their sovereignty, and their hard-earned tax dollars.
        We need to further limit and clarify the Executive's parole
    authority to prevent future abuses.

        Mr. Brecheen. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee for Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability,
    the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Thanedar, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon to all of
    you.
        First of all, I want to welcome the gentleman from
    Louisiana, Representative Carter. Thank you for joining the
    committee. We are honored to have you and honored to have your
    expertise.
        We're supposed--we're here today to examine the use of
    parole. Let's cut to the chase. President Trump has already
    ended all parole programs; yet another cruel step in his
    immigration agenda. President Trump and Republicans are only
    interested in cruelty, chaos, and deflection. Republicans are
    really using this hearing to distract from the recent passage
    of their one big ugly bill that is going to cut Medicaid and
    SNAP while increasing the national debt by trillions of
    dollars.
        Because Republicans don't want to face the future they
    created, though millions of Americans lose health care and food
    assistance, they prefer to live in the past and perpetuate
    false claims about President Biden's use of parole programs.
        Since Republicans seem to enjoy history so much, let's go
    back to 1956. That's when President Eisenhower first used
    parole to help 30,000 Hungarians come to the United States
    after a failed revolt against communism.
        Parole has been used by every Republican and Democratic
    administration since it is a valuable tool to help those in
    urgent humanitarian situations. Parole programs also reduce
    illegal border crossing, increase the U.S. work force, and grow
    our economy.
        Given the benefits, the public might be asking why Trump is
    terminating parole programs. Is it simply because he's on a
    revenge and a retribution tour? Is it because he hasn't done
    enough already to shatter the economy? Or is it because he
    needs to turn parolees into undocumented migrants that cosplay
    Kristi can then shackle and deport to a prison in El Salvador
    for a photo op.
        Trump and Noem are not focused on just violent criminals.
    They're arresting and deporting hardworking immigrants who wash
    dishes, pick crops, and construct homes. This administration is
    so desperate to achieve its goal of 3,000 arrests a day, it is
    targeting U.S. citizens and lawful residents exercising their
    First Amendment rights, all while ignoring court orders.
        If my Republican colleagues want to investigate immigration
    abuses, there is no need to relitigate false claims from the
    past. President Trump's daily actions are a continual assault
    on the Constitution that warrant Congressional oversight. The
    American people are waiting for Republicans to stand up to the
    mad king.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Thanedar follows:]
                   Statement of Ranking Member Shri Thanedar
                                 July 15, 2025
        We're supposedly here today to examine the use of parole--let's cut
    to the chase. President Trump has already ended all parole programs,
    another cruel step in his immigration agenda.
        President Trump and Republicans are only interested in cruelty,
    chaos, and deflection.
        Republicans are really using this hearing to distract from the
    recent passage of their one big, ugly bill that is going to cut
    Medicare while increasing the national debt by trillions. Because
    Republicans don't want to face the future they created where millions
    of Americans lose health care and food assistance, they prefer to live
    in the past and perpetuate false claim about President Biden's use of
    parole programs.
        Since Republicans seem to enjoy history so much, let's go back to
    1956. That's when President Eisenhower first used parole to help 30,000
    Hungarians come to the United States after a failed revolt against
    communism. Parole has been used by every Republican and Democratic
    administration since. It is a valuable tool to help those in urgent
    humanitarian situations. Parole programs also reduce illegal border
    crossings, increase the U.S. workforce, and grow our economy. Given the
    benefits, the public might be asking why Trump is terminating parole
    programs.
        Is it simply because he is on a revenge and retribution tour? Is it
    because he hasn't done enough already to shatter the economy? Or is it
    because he needs to turn parolees into undocumented migrants that
    Secretary Noem can then shackle and deport to a prison in El Salvador
    for a photo op?
        Trump and Noem are not focused on just violent criminals, they are
    arresting and deporting hard-working immigrants who wash dishes, pick
    crops, and construct homes. This administration is so desperate to
    achieve its goal of 3,000 arrests a day, it is targeting U.S. citizens,
    lawful residents, and university students exercising their first
    amendment rights all while ignoring court orders.
        If my Republican colleagues want to investigate immigration abuses,
    there is no need to relitigate false claims from the past. President
    Trump's daily actions are a continual assault on the Constitution that
    warrant Congressional oversight. The American people are waiting for
    Republicans to stand up to the mad king.

        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        I now recognize the Chairman for the Subcommittee on Border
    Security and Enforcement, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
    Michael Guest, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This afternoon, our hearing will provide a critical
    opportunity to investigate how the Biden-Harris administration
    systematically weakened our national border security and at the
    same time intentionally facilitated the influx of millions of
    inadmissible aliens in the United States through the unlawful
    use of mass parole.
        As members of the Legislative branch, it is our duty to
    determine how and why the Biden-Harris administration abused
    its authority to grant parole meant to be applied only on a
    case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian needs or significant
    public benefit to justify the mass release of between 2 and 3
    million inadmissible aliens into our country.
        However, the Biden-Harris mass parole programs, though
    stopped by the Trump administration, continue to impose
    significant financial cost on the American public and generate
    increased public safety threats.
        During his time in office, former President Biden's open
    policies incentivized illegal immigration, signaling to the
    world that our borders were open. In response, people from
    around the world fluttered across our borders and overran our
    communities. This resulted in historic never-before-seen
    apprehension numbers.
        To combat the bad optics of the growing border crisis and
    to try to cover up the true scale of illegal immigrants
    entering the United States, the Biden-Harris administration
    created multiple mass parole programs to hide the truth from
    the American people and to quickly release individuals into the
    interior. These programs were deliberately designed to conceal
    and downplay the true scope of our border crisis.
        One of the ways the former administration misled the public
    was through the conversion of a little-known program originally
    designed to schedule cargo inspections into one of the most
    abused programs in our Nation's history. The CBP One app was
    used in a manner never authorized by Congress to create a fast-
    track pathway for parole into the interior of the country. The
    implementation of CB One mass parole program resulted in nearly
    1 million illegal aliens entering this country.
        This committee found that the individuals who applied for
    entry in the United States using the CBP One app were
    ultimately released into the interior at least 95 percent of
    the time. Additionally, more than half a million other
    inadmissible aliens were granted parole under the mass parole
    program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. The
    Trump administration has wisely ended both of these program by
    Executive Order, but the fallout remains.
        Earlier this year, DHS Office of Inspector General released
    a review of specific Biden-Harris administration parole
    programs, confirming that the previous administration had no
    plan to remove aliens whose parole had expired. That meant that
    there are potentially hundreds of thousands of inadmissible
    aliens who may still be at large in a country long after their
    parole has expired.
        To make matters worse, many of these aliens and those who
    sponsor their entry were not properly vetted. Both the CHNV
    program and the CBP One appointments had to be paused due to
    suspected rampant fraud. The consequences of these reckless and
    unlawful parole programs have been devastating, and the
    American public has paid the price.
        One horrifying example is the brutal murder of 22-year-old
    Laken Riley, an Augusta University student, at the hands of an
    illegal alien from Venezuela who was paroled into the country
    by the Biden-Harris administration. More recently, an Afghan
    national who was paroled into the United States in 2021 was
    arrested for plotting an attack in the name of ISIS on election
    day 2024. This arrest and Laken's tragic death should be a
    wake-up call to lawmakers that we must be serious about
    preventing future abuse of our immigration law.
        In closing, Congress has a responsibility to examine what
    steps should be taken to mitigate the on-going financial and
    public safety threats enabled by the previous administration's
    abuse of parole. There is no scenario in which paroling
    millions of inadmissible aliens in the country is consistent
    with current law. We must never allow this to happen again. We
    must work together to ensure that future administrations can
    never again jeopardize our Nation's safety and sovereignty. We
    must implement legislative solutions that will guarantee
    American security for generations to come.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
        With that I yield back.
        [The statement of Chairman Guest follows:]

                      Statement of Chairman Michael Guest

                                 July 15, 2025

        This hearing will provide a critical opportunity to
    investigate how the Biden-Harris administration systematically
    weakened our Nation's border security and, at the same time,
    intentionally facilitated the influx of millions of
    inadmissible aliens into the United States through the unlawful
    use of mass parole.
        As Members of the Legislative branch, it is our duty to
    determine how and why the Biden-Harris administration abused
    its authority to grant parole--meant to be applied ``only on a
    case-by-case basis'', for ``urgent humanitarian reason'' or
    ``significant public benefit''--to justify the mass releases of
    between 2-3 million inadmissible aliens into our country.
        However, the Biden-Harris mass-parole programs, though
    stopped by the Trump administration, continue to impose
    significant financial costs on the American people and generate
    increased public safety threats.
        During his time in office, former President Biden's open-
    border policies incentivized illegal immigration, signaling to
    the world that our borders were open.
        In response, people from around the world flooded across
    our border and overran border communities. This resulted in
    historic, never-before-seen apprehension numbers.
        To combat the bad optics of the growing border crisis and
    to try to cover up the true scale of illegal immigrants
    entering the United States, the Biden-Harris administration
    created multiple mass-parole programs to hide the truth from
    the American people and to quickly release individuals into the
    interior. These programs were deliberately designed to conceal
    and downplay the true scope of our border crisis.
        One of the ways the former administration misled the public
    was through the conversion of a little-known program originally
    designed to schedule cargo inspections into one of the most
    abused programs in our Nation's history. The ``CBP One app''
    was used in a manner never authorized by Congress to create a
    fast-track pathway for parole into the interior of the country.
        The implementation of the CBP One mass-parole program
    resulted in nearly 1 million aliens entering the country. This
    committee found that individuals who applied for entry into the
    United States using the CBP One App were ultimately released
    into the interior at least 95 percent of the time.
        Additionally, more than 500,000 other inadmissible aliens
    were granted parole under the mass-parole program for Cubans,
    Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
        The Trump administration has wisely ended both these
    programs by Executive Order, but the fallout remains. Earlier
    this month, the DHS Office of Inspector General released a
    review of specific Biden-Harris administration parole programs,
    confirming the previous administration had no plan to remove
    aliens whose parole had expired. That means that there are
    potentially hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens who
    may still be at large in the country long after their parole
    has expired.
        To make matters worse, many of these aliens--and those who
    ``sponsored'' their entry--were not properly vetted. Both the
    CHNV program and CBP One appointments had to be briefly paused
    due to suspected rampant fraud.
        The consequences of these reckless and unlawful parole
    programs have been devastating, and Americans have paid the
    price.
        One horrifying example is the brutal murder of 22-year-old
    Laken Riley, an Augusta University student, at the hands of an
    illegal alien from Venezuela who was paroled into the country
    by Biden and Harris.
        More recently, an Afghan national, who was paroled into the
    United States in 2021, was arrested for plotting an attack in
    the name of ISIS on Election Day in 2024.
        This arrest and Laken's tragic death should be a wake-up
    call to lawmakers that we must be serious about preventing
    future abuse of our immigration laws.
        In closing, Congress has a responsibility to examine what
    steps should be taken to mitigate the on-going financial and
    public safety threats enabled by the previous administration's
    abuse of parole.
        There is no scenario in which paroling millions of
    inadmissible aliens into the country is consistent with the
    law.
        We must never allow this to happen again.
        We must work together to ensure that future administrations
    can never again jeopardize our Nation's safety and sovereignty.
        We must implement legislative solutions that will guarantee
    American security for generations to come. I look forward to
    suggestions from our witnesses today.
        With that, I yield back.

        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Chairman Guest.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member for the Subcommittee on
    Border Security and Enforcement, the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Lou Correa, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here today. Concur, words just said, need
    legislation to guarantee to support American security, American
    prosperity too.
        I'm going to ask, what happened? What's going on, folks?
    President Trump got elected. Said he was going to deport
    criminals, those that have been in the country less than 2
    years and those with orders of deportation.
        Last I looked, 70 percent of the individuals being deported
    right now don't fit any of those categories. They're
    essentially hardworking individuals, many individuals that have
    been in this country 25, 30 years.
        My district, just a few weeks ago, man been here 25 years,
    not a ticket to his name, not a traffic ticket, was apprehended
    by ICE. He's a gardener. Three children, all serving in the
    U.S. Marine Corps. Let me repeat, man held by ICE, 25 years in
    this country, not a ticket to his name, not a traffic ticket,
    apprehended, he has 3 children in the U.S. Marine Corps.
        Now, I don't know about you, but we make movies about
    people like that. We give people like that a tour of the White
    House. Patriots. He raised 3 patriots that were ready to make
    the ultimate sacrifice for this country. What do you say to
    those 3 Marines? Spirit to corps. Keep up the good attitude.
    Everything's going to be OK tomorrow. A lot of people in that
    situation.
        I know the President understands that this policy is
    hurting this Nation economically. Just a couple of weeks ago he
    came on and said, I'm going to suspend the deportation of those
    that work at farms, those that work in hospitality industry.
    Two days later he said, I was just kidding, never mind, we're
    going to continue to sweep them up.
        You know, each one of us represents a different part of the
    country, a different State. I'll tell you a little bit about
    California, and I've said this before, so please excuse me for
    repeating myself. It's important to note. California, a big
    portion of our work force is undocumented. As a State, we've
    done everything we can to document those workers--driver's
    licenses, other things that we need to do.
        As a result today, California is the fourth-largest economy
    in the world. If we deregulate a little bit, we could be No. 3
    in the world. No. 1 nationally on agriculture. Fifty to 70
    percent of those workers are undocumented. We feed a lot of
    parts of this country and the rest of the world.
        We're also No. 1 in manufacturing in Southern California.
    It's not Pittsburgh, it's not Michigan. It's Southern
    California. Manufacturing sector of the United States. Center
    of manufacturing in the United States. Guess what? A lot of
    those workers are what? Undocumented.
        I thought we were supposed to do some nearshoring to bring
    back a lot of those jobs from other parts of the world. That's
    what we were supposed to be doing.
        Let's talk about venture capital. Guess what State really
    has about 60 to 70 percent of the venture capital today?
    California. Talk about high tech. Silicon Valley. A lot of
    those workers are, guess what? Visa holders. Overstayed visa.
    India, China, Europe. We attract the best and brightest. We
    have the best biotech in the world right now. We invent the
    best medicines in the world right now in California.
        As a result of that, folks, we pay $100 billion more in
    taxes to the Federal Government than we get back. I hear
    statements, burden; well, no, we are the net donor to the
    Federal Government. Now the Federal Government is going to tell
    us how to run the economy in the State of California. Is that
    what I'm hearing today?
        Stop a minute and not talk about undocumented. Let's talk
    about American citizens. I live in Orange County. Not Los
    Angeles, Orange County. We have the National Guard downtown.
    OK? Almost had the Marines there. Sheriff Barnes, who's been in
    this committee, testified, OK? He's told me, I didn't call for
    back-up. Local police, I didn't call for back-up. Why are they
    here? They're messing things up, work that we've done for
    public safety for the last 30 years. When they leave, we got a
    mess to fix. We didn't call for them.
        Go downtown Santa Ana right now where I live. It's
    peaceful. Why is the National Guard there? American citizens,
    right now, American citizens afraid of going out on the
    streets. Parents telling their kids, take your birth
    certificate, take a passport. Are you kidding me? Is this
    America or is this a communist country? American citizens.
        Just 2 weeks ago, female attorney, American-born citizen,
    walking down the park, there was a raid going on, turned
    around, they took her in too, arrested her. Never been so
    frightened in her life. She said, masked men grabbed me, put me
    in a van with no windows, took me in a holding cell that I had
    no idea where I was going. Few hours later she was let go. Why?
    Was she profiled? Thought you weren't supposed to be doing
    that.
        OK. Home Depot. Heard another story. An off-duty police
    officer walking into Home Depot, they were about to grab him.
    He turned around and said, back off, I got a concealed weapon.
    Can you imagine what we almost had? Almost had a shootout
    there, because you have masked individuals--and I have no idea
    who they are, I have no idea what training they have, about to
    grab somebody without even a warning. These are our streets in
    the United States of America. What are we coming to?
        You know, the other day, President Trump was meeting with
    President Bukele, said, quote--the President--home-growns are
    next. You got to build about 5 more of these places. This place
    is not big enough.
        So we're sending American citizens now to foreign prisons?
    Forget about green card holders. I will tell you, I have told
    them, do not leave the country. You will not be let in. What
    are we coming to, folks? What is going on?
        California is the fourth-largest economy in the world. Our
    ag industry is getting devastated. We won't even talk about the
    trade at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, the biggest
    ports we have in this country. I think the trade is down 30, 40
    percent.
        This hearing is about parole, but I think the bigger issue
    is about immigration policy. My colleague just said we need to
    protect--legislate, protect American security. We've also
    needed immigration reform for a long time. It's not only
    California.
        I've got some articles here talking about the Wisconsin
    dairy farmers. Seventy percent of the work force is
    undocumented. So get rid of those workers, and I guess our milk
    will be less expensive, I would imagine, if you can get it at
    all.
        Another one here. ``Immigrants Contribute Greatly to the
    Social Security's Trust Fund Solvency.'' They pay into Social
    Security, never get a dime back. Labor and immigration reform.
    Many dairy farmers struggle to recruit, retain native workers
    despite higher wages and benefits. But I guess you want to take
    our graduate students and now tell them to go milk the cows and
    take care of the cows. That's what we're saying.
        This is an interesting one. Little bit off point. ``Irish
    tourist jailed by ICE for months after overstaying the U.S.--
    his visa--by 3 days.'' By the way, tourism is a big industry in
    my district. They're down 20 or 30 percent.
        Dairy farms are vulnerable to Trump's mass deportation
    threats. The industry hopes to get a pass.
        All you have to do is read the newspapers every day. I'm
    not quite sure where we got off on this track. We're supposed
    to deport criminals.
        I can tell you, back home, I've talked to people who
    believed the President when he said he was going after these 3
    sets: criminals, overstays, those who have less than 2 years.
    Now, going after hard workers. Our economy is going to suffer,
    inflation, shortages.
        Maybe the President doesn't know what's going on. He needs
    to know that ICE is doing more than maybe he knows we're doing.
        Look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses
    today. Mr. Chair, take over the gavel.
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman yields.
        Other Members of the committee are reminded opening
    statements may be submitted for the record.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
                 Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
                                 July 15, 2025
        Republicans are not interested in ``Returning Parole to its Proper
    Purpose'' as their hearing title suggests. I say that because the
    proper purpose of parole under Republican and Democratic
    administrations has always been to help people in desperate need. But
    Donald Trump and Republicans are only interested in cruelty, chaos, and
    deflection. The truth of the matter is that Donald Trump has
    essentially ended lawful parole and closed legal pathways for people to
    seek safety in the United States.
        I'd like to see Cosplay Kristi or one of the many Republican
    Members auditioning for Chairman go walk the streets of Haiti and tell
    me it is ``safe.'' Republicans on this committee do not care if the
    policies they support harm the American people and undermine homeland
    security. All they care about is stroking Donald Trump's ego and
    ``owning the libs.'' The damage they have done is shameful. It is so
    shameful, in fact, that their own Chairman was spending time in Guyana
    before he resigned. But he made sure to return to vote for the Big Ugly
    Bill that will hurt his constituents.
        American citizens will go hungry and die from treatable illnesses
    while future generations drown in debt because Republicans voted to gut
    SNAP and Medicaid in Trump's Big Ugly Bill that increases the Federal
    deficit to historic highs.
        American farms are in crisis and food is rotting in the ground
    while homeless veterans starve on the streets because Donald Trump has
    targeted farm workers for deportation and cut the Nation's agency
    reducing homelessness. Grocery prices are up, and consumer confidence
    is down because of Trump tariffs and Trumpflation.
        Do you see a pattern here? The Trump administration has its hand
    around the necks of the American People, and Republicans in this body
    are cheering him on. Not just that, but even when the administration
    does admit something went wrong, it is never their fault. The Secretary
    of Defense leaked Classified war plans to a journalist. Republicans
    called it an accident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported a
    man who had protected legal status granted by an immigration court.
    Trump's Press Secretary called it a clerical error. The Federal
    Government fired the employees who maintain our nuclear weapons.
    Republicans said oops, just another accident.
        It's no wonder that these people are rehashing their tired talking
    points about parole and the Biden administration. Republicans simply
    cannot take responsibility for the present or for their President.
        They are stuck in the past. It is time for my colleagues to get
    over their unhealthy obsession with Joe Biden and focus on the
    present--and their failed President.

        Mr. Brecheen. I'm pleased to have a panel of expert
    witnesses before us today on this very important topic. I ask
    that our witnesses please rise and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Brecheen. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
    have answered in the affirmative.
        Thank you.
        I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses.
        Mr. Ken Cuccinelli is a senior fellow at the Center for
    Renewing America; Dr. Steven Camarota is the director of
    research at the Center for Immigration Studies; Dr. David Bier
    is the director of immigration studies at the CATO Institute.
        I thank the witnesses for being here today. I now recognize
    Mr. Ken Cuccinelli for 5 minutes of his opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, SENIOR FELLOW FOR
     IMMIGRATION AND HOMELAND SECURITY, CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA

        Mr. Cuccinelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairmen, and Ranking
    Members, and Members of the committee. I will try not to repeat
    some of the data some of you have already talked about. I would
    go straight to the statute that provides legal authority for
    the granting of parole. There's only one statute. It's INA
    section 212(d)(5)(A). Particularly it says, ``The Secretary of
    Homeland Security may, in his discretion parole in the United
    States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe
    only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or
    significant public benefit.'' For conditions. For conditions.
        This is a change in 1996 in the Illegal Immigration Reform
    and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which was passed on an
    overwhelmingly bipartisan basis on a voice vote in the Senate
    and by over a--or approximately a 10-to-1 margin in the House.
        This was the first time the case-by-case requirement was
    included in the parole statute. So the example of President
    Eisenhower from 1956 was executed under the 1952 version of the
    parole statute which did not include the case-by-case language.
        Congress intentionally narrowed the parole authority in
    1996 to require decisions on parole to be on a case-by-case
    basis. Only on a case-by-case basis, to quote the statute. That
    is the most significant change in this statute in the 1996
    amendments. Again, it passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan
    basis.
        Despite that rather obvious limitation, the Biden
    administration created a series of new immigration admission
    arrangements without Congressional approval, essentially making
    its own law, using the parole authority, sometimes explicitly
    and sometimes implicitly.
        The 2 words were used together in some of these statements
    already made today, ``parole programs''. Well, parole program
    is an oxymoron. Parole is intended to be exercised on a case-
    by-case basis. You said so as an institution almost 30 years
    ago.
        The restrictions added to the parole authority in 1996 have
    never been fully litigated. Such a case was in process at the
    transition from the Biden administration to the Trump
    administration, but the case was withdrawn by the Trump
    administration, and the district court ruling was vacated and
    dismissed. So we'll have our discussion here today, but there
    is not a high court ruling to point to interpreting the
    application of the case-by-case language. Normally, basic
    statutory interpretation, you go to the plain language of the
    statute, unless it's in some way unclear. Well, only on a case-
    by-case basis strikes me as extremely clear.
        But if Congress truly wants case-by-case to be applied one
    case at a time, then, clearly, even more explicit restrictions
    should be put in place. My suggestion would be a pick a number
    low enough that any competent Secretary of Homeland Security
    would want to be particular with each parole slot. I would
    suggest something around 3,000 a year. At that level, there
    would be no point in setting up so-called, but misnamed,
    programmatic parole arrangements, as they would reach annual
    limits so fast they wouldn't be useful for those purposes.
        America's reaping the financial and security costs of
    former President Biden's unprecedented and illegal importation
    of millions of illegal aliens, 2\1/2\ to 3 million, it depends
    how you'd like to count them, using the parole power. We will
    literally be paying those prices for decades to come.
        I know parole reform is noted. I think it was by
    Congressman Correa that parole reform is just but one of the
    immigration tasks you have before you and that require Congress
    attention if it's ever to be set on a proper long-term footing.
    But I'm happy to join you today and address this subject and
    answer any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cuccinelli follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Honorable Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
                                 July 15, 2025
        Two-and-a-half million people, on a so-called ``case-by-case''
    basis? The loose application and use of parole to effectively create
    new immigration entry pathways for illegal aliens who do not qualify to
    enter the United States legally.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the committee, thank
    you for your interest and concern regarding the growth in mass-scale
    abuses of immigration parole authority, most particularly during the
    Biden administration.
        While exact numbers are subject to debate due to fluid definitions
    that have changed as convenient to accomplish open-borders goals,
    roughly 2.5 million illegal aliens were granted parole by the Biden
    administration, thus making parole authority one of the most important
    tools in support of an open-borders policy based on raw entries.
        In the most conservative reasonable terms, parole was granted by
    the Biden administration to groups of individuals (not on a case-by-
    case basis) as follows:
    Program-Category//Estimated Number Paroled
    Afghan Evacuees--76,000
    Ukrainians (U4U)--171,000
    CHNV Program--435,000
    CBP One Parole--400,000+
    Border Parole (Mass)--1.2 to 1.4 million
    CAM Program--Several thousand

    TOTAL--2.3 to 2.5 million

        The statute that provides legal authority for the granting of
    parole by the Secretary of Homeland Security is INA  212(d)(5)(A),
    which provides as follows:

    ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may, . . . in his discretion
    parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he
    may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian
    reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission
    to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be
    regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such
    parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security,
    have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the
    custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall
    continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other
    applicant for admission to the United States.''

        The language you see bolded above was passed by Congress in 1996 as
    part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
    (IIRIRA), which was passed on a broad and bi-partisan basis. This
    language substantially narrowed the parole authority existing prior to
    the passage of the IIRIRA. The 1996 language narrowed the statutory
    parole language that had been in place since 1952. Critically, the
    addition of ``only on a case-by-case basis'' was the first time that
    Congress had clarified that it intended that parole NOT be used for
    groups of people, but only for individual cases, considered one at a
    time.
        Despite that rather obvious limitation, the Biden administration
    created a series of new immigration admission arrangements without
    Congressional approval--essentially making its own law--using the
    parole authority, sometimes explicitly and other times implicitly.
        The restrictions added to the parole authority in 1996 have never
    been fully litigated. Such a case was in process at the transition from
    the Biden administration to the Trump administration, but the case was
    withdrawn by the Trump administration and the District Court ruling was
    vacated and dismissed.
        If Congress truly wants ``case-by-case'' to be applied one case at
    a time, then clearly additional explicit restrictions should be put in
    place. My suggestion would be to pick a number low enough that any
    competent Secretary of Homeland Security would want to be particular
    with each parole slot. I would suggest something in the 3-5,000 range.
    At that level, there would be no point in setting up so-called, but
    misnamed, ``programmatic parole'' arrangements, as they would reach
    annual limits so fast that they would not be useful for such purpose.
        One might reasonably ask, what about those poor Hungarians facing
    the Soviets under Eisenhower? Or other such large-scale, but obviously
    righteous ``urgent humanitarian reasons''? The answer to that is found
    in the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Refugee Act of
    1980.
        In a situation like the Hungarians following the Soviet crackdown
    in 1956, the President now has broad authority to set and change the
    number of refugees that may enter the United States in a given year.
    The President's authority to change the number reflects Congress'
    determination that flexibility was required to meet exactly that kind
    of sudden refugee crisis. Thus, such a tool is available for
    circumstances that meet refugee/asylum requirements, but not just for a
    general increase in letting in otherwise ineligible individuals.
        America is reaping the financial and security costs of former-
    President Joe Biden's unprecedented and illegal importation of millions
    of illegal aliens, and we will for literally decades. Parole reform is
    but one immigration task that requires Congress' attention if it is
    ever to be set on a proper long-term footing.
        I am happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Cuccinelli. That was
    excellent. You hit your time mark. You're seasoned in this. I
    appreciate that.
        I want to now recognize Dr. Camarota for 5 minutes for his
    opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,
                     CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

        Mr. Camarota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
    subcommittee, for having me here today. I'm Steve Camarota,
    director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
        As many of you pointed out, the Immigration and Nationality
    Act gives the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to
    grant parole on a case-by-case basis for a limited number of
    people, for a limited time, to individual aliens for urgent
    humanitarian reasons or because they would create a significant
    benefit.
        It's not a program to be used en masse. Yet, published data
    indicates that the Biden administration released nearly 2.9
    million people into the United States using parole. It's very
    hard to see how parole granted on this scale could have been
    done on a case-by-case basis. Now, my testimony will focus
    specifically on the fiscal implications of this.
        Prior research is very clear that educational attainment at
    arrival is a key determinant of immigrants' fiscal impact
    because it not only determines what types of jobs they'll do,
    but also their likely income, and their tax payments, and use
    of social services.
        Census Bureau data indicates that 1 out of every 4 recent
    immigrants from the top parolee-sending countries lack a high
    school diploma, compared to just 6 percent for the U.S.-born.
    Also, new adult parolees are significantly less likely to have
    a college degree than the U.S.-born. As a result, the average
    wages of newly-arrived immigrant men from these top parole-
    sending countries is only 44 percent that of U.S.-born men.
    Further, half of households headed by new immigrants from the
    top parolee countries access at least one welfare program.
    That's nearly twice the rate of the U.S.-born.
        Now, the budget reconciliation legislation that just passed
    states that parolees will no longer be, quote/unquote,
    qualified aliens after 1 year of residence. Qualified aliens
    have to live in the United States for 5 years to be directly
    eligible for many welfare programs. But my analysis of Census
    Bureau data showing high welfare use is confined to parolee
    countries who have lived in the United States for less than 5
    years. So the designation of qualified alien is not the reason
    for the heavy use of welfare programs. So the removal of that
    designation isn't going to make much difference.
        The reason so many parolees use means-tested programs is,
    first, many are poor and have low income; second, they can
    receive benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children; third, all
    low-income residents of the United States can access some
    programs regardless of legal status. Finally, some States give
    benefits to otherwise ineligible aliens.
        In addition to traditional welfare, 40 percent of
    households headed by recent immigrants, again, from the top
    parolee-sending countries, are poor enough to receive cash
    payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit. Parolees have work
    authorization and Social Security numbers and for the most part
    so they can get the EITC. Again, the Big Beautiful Bill doesn't
    change any of this.
        Now, to be sure, immigrants from top parolee-sending
    countries with work authorization most certainly do pay some
    taxes. However, on average, parolee head of households have
    only 47 percent of the Federal tax liability of U.S.-born
    households.
        Now, having said this, the low average tax payment or high
    use of welfare by parolees should not be seen as some kind of
    moral failing on their part. Instead, the fiscal dream they
    create simply reflects the reality of the modern American job
    market, our progressive system of taxation, coupled with an
    extensive social safety net.
        It should also be pointed out that immigrant men from the
    main parolee-sending countries have relatively high rates of
    work. But that does not preclude use of welfare in any way, nor
    does it mean their average tax contributions will be large.
        Now, to be sure, by working and consuming in the United
    States, parolees do make the U.S. economy bigger. But it is a
    common mistake to confuse this with their tax contributions.
    Almost all of the increased economic activity they create goes
    to the parolees themselves in the form of wages, as it should,
    since they're the ones doing the work.
        In conclusion, the decision by the prior administration to
    grant parole on a massive scale will have significant negative
    fiscal impact for years to come, given all we know about the
    educational attainment of parolees.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Steven A. Camarota
                                 July 15, 2025
        The decision by the Biden administration to parole nearly 3 million
    otherwise inadmissible aliens into the country represents a profound
    distortion of the intent of the program, which is supposed to be used
    on a limited case-by-case basis due to compelling humanitarian need or
    because of a significant benefit to the United States. My testimony
    will focus on the fiscal consequences of this policy. The limited
    information available indicates that recent parolees are almost
    certainly a net fiscal drain--creating more in costs than they pay in
    taxes. This is primarily due to their relatively low average education
    levels, resulting in low average earnings and tax payments. Their lower
    average incomes allow a large share to qualify for means-tested
    programs. About half of households headed by newly-arrived immigrants
    from the primary parolee-sending countries receive welfare. Recent male
    parolees have a relatively high rate of work. However, given the
    realities of the modern American economy, our extensive social safety
    net, and progressive system of taxation, allowing large numbers of
    less-educated people into the country unavoidably creates fiscal costs.
    This fact should be a key consideration when formulating policy.
        Key Findings:
       The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that an
            unprecedented 2.86 million people were granted parole during
            the Biden administration.
       The enormous scale of parole during the prior administration
            makes it very hard to believe that most grants of parole were
            made on a case-by-case basis as the law requires.
       Educational attainment is a key determinant of income, tax
            payments, and use of means-tested programs. New adult
            immigrants from virtually every top parolee-sending country are
            significantly less educated than U.S.-born adults.
       The average wages of newly-arrived adult immigrant men from
            most of the primary parolee-sending countries are less than
            half those of U.S.-born men.
       Households headed by recent immigrants from virtually every
            major parolee-sending country have substantially higher welfare
            use than U.S.-born households. On average, about half of
            households headed by immigrants from the top parolee-sending
            countries access one or more welfare programs--nearly twice the
            rate of U.S.-born households.
       Parolees are able to access welfare for a number of reasons:
            First, some have U.S.-born children. Second, those paroled for
            at least 1 year are considered ``qualified aliens'', with the
            welfare eligibility of new lawful permanent residents, while
            others have immediate access. Third, all residents can access
            some programs (e.g. WIC and Medicaid for pregnant women).
            Fourth, some States offer welfare to otherwise ineligible
            aliens.
       In addition to traditional welfare programs, 40 percent of
            households headed by recent immigrants from the primary
            parolee-sending countries have incomes low enough to receive
            the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Those receiving the EITC
            pay no Federal income tax and instead receive a cash payment.
       Immigrants from the top parolee-sending countries do pay
            taxes, including Federal income and payroll taxes. However, on
            average parolee-headed households have only about 47 percent
            the Federal tax liability of native-headed households.
       The fiscal drain created by high welfare use and lower
            average tax contributions by immigrants from parolee-sending
            countries is not caused by low rates of work. Working-age men
            (18 to 64) from parolee-sending countries generally have rates
            of work that match or exceed those of U.S.-born men.
       By working and consuming, parolees add tens of billions of
            dollars to the Nation's GDP each year, but this is not a
            measure of their tax contributions or the benefits they create
            for Americans. Almost all of the increase in economic activity
            they create goes to the parolees themselves in the form of
            wages.
                                  introduction
        The Immigration and Nationality Act remains the country's
    foundational immigration law. That law allows the attorney general to
    ``parole'' aliens into the United States. It states: ``The Secretary of
    Homeland Security may . . . in his discretion parole into the United
    States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a
    case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant
    public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States,
    but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of
    the alien.''\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
    https://uscode.house.gov/
    view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-
    section1182.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to note that the law is clear that it is not a
    program to be used en masse but instead parole is to be granted only on
    a case-by-case basis. Moreover, those granted parole are not considered
    to be formally admitted to the country. Further, when the reason for
    the parole no longer exists, the parolee should be returned to DHS
    custody, and the alien is to be dealt with in the same way as any other
    person trying to be admitted into the United States. Center for
    Immigration Studies Resident Fellow in Law and Policy Andrew Arthur's
    publication ``Biden Has Paroled In Two Million-Plus Inadmissible
    Aliens'' provides a valuable overview of the Biden administration's
    approach to parole.\2\ For the history of parole and the legal
    framework surrounding it, see Center legal fellow George Fishman's
    detailed analysis entitled ``The Pernicious Perversion of Parole: A 70-
    year battle between Congress and the president''.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Andrew R. Arthur, ``Biden Has Paroled in Two Million-Plus
    Inadmissible Aliens'', Center for Immigration Studies, June 21, 2024
    https://cis.org/Arthur/Biden-Has-Paroled-Two-MillionPlus-Inadmissible-
    Aliens.
        \3\ George Fishman, ``The Pernicious Perversion of Parole: A 70-
    year battle between Congress and the president'', Center for
    Immigration Studies, February 16, 2022 https://cis.org/Report/
    Pernicious-Perversion-Parole#2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Parolees are eligible to apply for employment authorization (8
    C.F.R.  274a.12(c)(11)). Further, after 1 year, those granted parole
    are eligible for Federal welfare benefits to the same extent as any
    lawful permanent residents (8 U.S.C.  1613(a), 1641(b)(4)). Due to
    specific policies and legal provisions, most parolees from Cuba, Haiti,
    Afghanistan, and Ukraine have much more immediate access to welfare
    programs.\4\ This eligibility for means-tested programs has important
    implications for public coffers. As we will see, recent immigrants from
    the primary parolee-sending countries make heavy use of the Nation's
    welfare system. As a result, there is every reason to believe this will
    be the case for recent parolees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022, and
    Additional Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 (ASA)
    provided the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) with specific
    appropriations to provide parolees from Afghans with welfare benefits.
    See also ``Benefits for Afghan Humanitarian Parolees'', Administration
    for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 2023 https:/
    /acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/orr/Benefits-for-Afghan-
    Humanitarian-Parolees.pdf. The Additional Ukraine Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, 2022 (AUSAA) provided funding for welfare for
    parolees from Ukraine. See also, ``Ukrainian Humanitarian Parolees
    Eligible for ORR Benefits and Services'', Administration for Children
    and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, March 2023 https://
    acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/orr/PL-22-13-Ukrainian-
    Humanitarian-Parolees-Eligible-for-ORR-Benefits-and-Services.pdf. Cuban
    and Haitians granted parole under the Cuban Haitian Entrance Act are
    eligible immediately for most Federal benefits. See ``ACF's Office of
    Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Benefits for Cuban/Haitian Entrants'',
    Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee
    Resettlement, December 2022 https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/
    documents/orr/Benefits-for-Cuban-Haitian-Entrants.pdf. For more
    discussion, see Andrew Arthur, ``The Welfare Giveaway in Biden's Cuban
    and Haitian Parole and Release Programs'', Center for Immigration
    Studies, December 12, 2023 https://cis.org/Arthur/Welfare-Giveaway-
    Bidens-Cuban-and-Haitian-Parole-and-Release-Programs. See also George
    Fishman, ``Parole with Benefits: A million Biden parolees march toward
    a multi-billion-dollar welfare `parole payday' '', Center for
    Immigration Studies, April 13, 2023 https://cis.org/Report/Parole-
    Benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         number of parolees under biden
        The Government does not make it easy to determine how many people
    were granted parole in recent years. In a recent analysis, my colleague
    at the Center for Immigration Studies Andrew Arthur estimated that 2.86
    million illegal immigrants had been granted parole during the Biden
    presidency.\5\ He is a former immigration judge and a leading expert on
    parole and the administrative data documenting its scale. To date,
    Arthur has compiled the most complete estimate of parole during the
    prior administration. At some point the Government may release its own
    comprehensive report on the number of individuals granted parole during
    the Biden administration. For this testimony, I will rely on Arthur's
    analysis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Andrew R. Arthur, ``Did Joe Biden Really Parole In Nearly 3
    Million Aliens? A review of the stats--and the Trump administration
    response'', Center for Immigration Studies, May 28, 2025 https://
    cis.org/Arthur/Did-Joe-Biden-Really-Parole-Nearly-3-Million-Aliens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Andrew Arthur's Analysis.--His analysis is mainly based on the
    Excel spreadsheets at the DHS Office of Homeland Security Statistics
    (OHSS) website, as well as published reports by Customs and Border
    Protection (CBP).\6\ Based on these sources, Arthur finds 2.86 million
    individuals were granted parole from February 2021, when President
    Biden took office, to January 2025, when he left. This breaks down by
    year in the following fashion: 58,730 in fiscal year 2021; 721,671 in
    fiscal year 2022; 1,087,267 in fiscal year 2023 and 897,794 in fiscal
    year 2024. These figures include Afghans granted parole as part of
    ``Operation Allies Welcome/Refuge'' following the chaotic evacuation
    from Afghanistan and Ukrainians released as part of Uniting for
    Ukraine.\7\ Arthur observes that ``Congress largely acquiesced'' to
    these actions, but he adds that Congress ``never OKed border
    releases''. His estimate also includes inadmissible aliens granted
    parole during the Biden presidency as part of the CHNV program for
    Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The ``Immigration Enforcement and Legal Processes Monthly
    Tables'', OHSS website. https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/
    immigration-enforcement/immigration-enforcement-and-legal-processes-
    monthly. See page 4 (PDF page 8) in ``Parole Requests Fiscal Year 2022,
    Report to Congress'', July 12, 2023, Department of Homeland Security.
    www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/
    23_0712_cbp_fy22_parole_requests.pdf. See page 6 in ``Parole Requests
    Fiscal Year 2023, Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2023 Report to
    Congress'', April 3, 2024, Department of Homeland Security www.dhs.gov/
    sites/default/files/2024-07/2024_0403_dmo_plcy_parole_requests_q4.pdf.
    As he explains in his blog, Arthur's estimates also make adjustments to
    avoid double counting.
        \7\ DHS Operation Allies Welcome website (https://www.dhs.gov/
    archive/operation-allies-welcome) and Uniting for Ukraine website
    (https://www.dhs.gov/archive/uniting-ukraine).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      the fiscal impact of recent parolees
        Educational attainment.--One of the largest and most important
    studies on the fiscal impact of immigrants was a 2017 study by the
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That study
    found that the education level of immigrants is a key factor that
    determines fiscal impact.\8\ A 2024 Manhattan Institute study also
    concludes that educational attainment is the key factor that determines
    an immigrant's net fiscal impact.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ ``The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration'',
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017,
    https://doi.org/10.17226/23550.
        \9\ Daniel Di Martino, ``The Lifetime Fiscal Impact of
    Immigrants,'' Manhattan Institute, September 2024. https://
    media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/the-lifetime-fiscal-
    impact-of-immigrants.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The reasons for this are straightforward. Education determines what
    type of jobs immigrants typically do and their resulting incomes.
    Income matters enormously because it affects both tax payments and
    eligibility for means-tested Government programs. Unfortunately, it is
    not possible to estimate the education level of recent parolees
    precisely, mainly because that information is not collected by the
    Government from parolees. However, it is possible to use Census Bureau
    data, particularly the Current Population Survey, to estimate the
    education level of recently-arrived immigrants from the primary
    parolee-sending countries.\10\ Due to sample size limitations the
    results for some individual countries reported should be interpreted
    with caution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ The 9 countries we report education and other data for in this
    testimony reflect the limited information available from the Parole
    Requests reports cited above and Border Patrol data showing the country
    of birth and the fiscal year of border encounters in recent years.
    Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Venezuela in particular are included in our
    list because the Biden administration specifically used parole to admit
    large numbers of individuals from these countries. However, the 9
    countries we do report data for do not represent the comprehensive list
    of all the countries parolees have come from.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Education Level by Countries.--Table 1 reports the education level
    of recent immigrants from countries that account for a large share of
    parolees. Again, we do not have a perfect representative sample of
    parolees. What can be said from Census Bureau data collected in 2024 is
    that, in general, new immigrants from the countries that make up much
    of the parolee population are significantly less educated than are the
    U.S.-born.
        As the table shows, while it is not the case for all countries,
    relative to the U.S.-born a much larger share of new adult immigrants
    from parolee countries do not have even a high school diploma. For the
    most part, recent immigrants from parolee countries tend to be
    significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree than the U.S.-
    born. The lower level of education of immigrants from the primary
    parolee-sending countries has important fiscal implications.

        Parolee Employment and Income.--The first column in Table 2 reports
    the share of recently-arrived, working-age (18 to 64) immigrant men
    from the top parolee-sending countries who are employed. In general,
    immigrant men from these countries have relatively high rates of work.
    However, the second column in the table shows that employed immigrants
    from these countries earn significantly lower average wages than U.S.-
    born men. The third column in Table 2 reports income from all sources,
    not just wages, for recently-arrived men from parolee countries. For
    the most part, new immigrant men from these countries have
    significantly lower average incomes than U.S.-born men. The same is
    true on the right side of the table when all adults are considered.
    This is not surprising, given the large share with modest levels of
    education.
        The significantly lower average wages and income of immigrants from
    these countries means they will almost certainly pay significantly less
    in taxes than the U.S.-born. Income is a key determinant of tax
    liability. Of course, we would expect the income of parolees to rise
    over time if they are allowed to stay in the country. However, when we
    look at all immigrants from these same countries, not just recent
    arrivals, we still find that their average wages and incomes are much
    lower than the U.S.-born.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Table 2 shows that recent immigrant men from the top parolee-
    sending countries earn 40 percent as much as U.S.-born adult men. All
    immigrant men from these same countries, not just the recently arrived,
    earn 57 percent as much. This is a clear indication that more-
    established immigrants from these countries do earn more than their
    newly-arrived counterparts, but their wages still lag significantly
    behind their U.S.-born male counterparts.

        Parolee Use of Welfare Programs.--Welfare use is an important
    indicator of fiscal impact because not only are the programs themselves
    costly, but those receiving them generally pay little to no Federal or
    State income tax as well. Table 3 shows that, compared to the U.S.-
    born, households headed by recently-arrived immigrants from the primary
    parolee-sending countries have much higher use of welfare, with the
    exception of new immigrants from Haiti. In addition to traditional
    welfare, Table 3 shows that households headed by recent immigrants from
    parolee-sending countries, for the most part, have incomes low enough
    to qualify for cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
    compared to the U.S.-born. The EITC is the Nation's largest means-
    tested cash anti-poverty program for workers. Table 4 only reports
    those with incomes low enough to receive cash payments. Not everyone
    eligible for the program receives it. However, because parolees have
    work authorization and valid Social Security numbers it seems very
    likely that most parolees who are eligible for the EITC receive it.

        Putting aside Haiti, households headed by recent immigrants from
    parolee countries make extensive use of the welfare system and EITC. It
    may seem surprising that these households have such high welfare use,
    given that they are newly-arrived in the country. But a number of
    factors explain this situation. First, some of these households have at
    least one U.S.-born child, who have full welfare eligibility. Second,
    those granted parole from Cuba, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Ukraine have
    the same access to the welfare system as legal immigrants do in most
    cases. Third, as already mentioned, all parolees gain welfare
    eligibility after 1 year of residence in the United States. Fourth, all
    individuals in the United States, including parolees, are eligible for
    certain programs such as WIC, free/subsidized school meals, and
    Medicaid for pregnant women. Fifth, some States offer welfare programs
    to aliens ineligible for Federally-funded welfare.
        All of these factors, coupled with the large share of parolees with
    modest levels of education, and resulting low incomes, mean many
    qualify for welfare. In addition, there is a large welfare bureaucracy
    whose job it is to help those eligible for programs navigate the
    system. Finally, welfare costs are by no means the only costs parolees
    will create. Public education is one of the largest costs. We know that
    20.8 percent of recent immigrants form the top parolee-sending
    countries are school-age (5 to 17).\12\ Applying this percentage to the
    2.8 million estimate of parolees in the country means that there are
    roughly 582,000 parolees in schools. In the United States, average
    expenditure per pupil is $17,700 a year.\13\ This translates into more
    than $10 billion a year spent by public schools on parolees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ This is based on analysis of the October, November, and
    December Current Population Survey for the top parolee-sending
    countries used throughout this report.
        \13\ Melanie Hanson, ``U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics'',
    Education Data Initiative, February 8, 2025. https://educationdata.org/
    public-education-spending-statistics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Average Tax Payments.--Table 4 provides estimated Federal tax
    payments for the primary parolee-sending countries. Overall, the table
    shows that on average households headed by immigrants from these
    countries generally have much lower median incomes and Federal income
    tax liability. This is less true for Social Security and Medicaid
    taxes. This is partly because immigrant households often have more
    workers than U.S.-born households, even if the average earnings of
    those workers are significantly lower. The Federal tax liability of
    recently-arrived immigrants from the primary parolee-sending countries
    overall are roughly one-third that of households headed by the U.S.-
    born on average. The leading parolee-sending countries make extensive
    use of welfare, but they also pay significantly less in Federal taxes.
    This makes it almost certain that paroles are a net fiscal drain.

        The Federal income figures are those calculated in the 2024 survey
    by the Census Bureau and represent liability, not actual tax payments.
    Further, payroll taxes are calculated as a simple percentage of
    earnings. If immigrants from these countries are less likely to comply
    with tax laws, then their actual payments would be less. However, these
    individuals are eligible for work authorization, so the overwhelming
    majority should be paid on the books and thus subject to income and
    payroll taxes.
        Impact on Size of the U.S. Economy.--Using the 2.86 million
    parolees under President Biden as a starting point, it is possible to
    very roughly estimate the impact of parolees on the overall size of the
    U.S. economy. Based on Census Bureau data, 59.4 percent are working,
    earning a little less than $31,000 (see Table 2). Their labor income
    adds something like $52 billion per year to the U.S. GDP.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ The figures for the share of recent immigrants employed from
    the major parolee countries come from an analysis of the fourth quarter
    monthly Current Population Survey from 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But there are 3 things to keep in mind about this number. First the
    estimate does not consider the possibility that adding parolees to the
    labor market may reduce the wages and employment opportunities or have
    any other adverse impact on U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants. This
    estimate does not consider the possibility that adding these workers
    may complement rather than compete with workers already in the country.
    Second, the size of the addition to the American economy is very small
    relative to U.S. GDP of roughly $30 trillion. Third, although some may
    call the larger GDP that parolees create a ``benefit'' or
    ``contribution'' to America, it is not a measure of their tax
    contributions, nor does it represent the benefits they create for the
    U.S.-born. Almost all of the increase in economic activity immigrants
    in general or parolees in particular create goes to the parolees
    themselves in the form of wages--as it should, since they are the ones
    doing the work. There is no clear evidence showing immigration
    substantially increases the per capita GDP of the U.S.-born. Per capita
    GDP is what determines how well-off a society is.
                                   conclusion
        It is understandable many Americans focus on the plight of those
    who have left their homelands in search of a better life in the United
    States. But seeing the millions of individuals who arrived at our
    Nation's border in the last 4 years, or who wish to leave their home
    countries more generally, as simply desperate people facing desperate
    circumstances, fails to appreciate that they are also rational risk-
    takers who are responding to the incentives we create. By handing out
    parole in a fashion never before contemplated at the border or even
    flying inadmissible aliens into the country, the Biden administration
    encouraged ever-larger numbers of people to seek entry into the United
    States, creating the border crisis and pushing the overall level of
    immigration to levels never before seen.
        Elected leaders are supposed to act in the best interest of the
    American people. By encouraging so many inadmissible aliens to come to
    the border by misusing parole, the Biden administration created a
    cascading series of consequences for the American people. My testimony
    today focused only on the scale of parole during the prior
    administration and the negative fiscal impact it almost certainly
    creates.
        Prior research makes it clear that by adding large numbers of
    people to the country with modest levels of education, which parole has
    done, creates a net fiscal drain--taxes paid minus costs. That said,
    there is no evidence that parolees are lazy or that most come to get
    welfare. Rather, the limited data available on new immigrants from the
    top parolee-sending countries indicate they have lower levels of
    education than the U.S.-born. As a result, although many work, they
    tend to have modest incomes and make relatively modest tax
    contributions. At the same time, the data indicates that they make
    extensive use of the welfare system. All of this means they are a net
    fiscal drain on public coffers.
        To avoid this situation in the future, parole needs to be used only
    as originally intended--as a limited program for a small number of
    otherwise inadmissible aliens on a case-by-case basis. Enforcing the
    law and sending as many parolees back to their home countries as
    possible will help avoid fiscal costs in the future. If the huge number
    of parolees currently living in the country are allowed to stay, so
    will the fiscal drain they create.

        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Dr. Camarota.
        I now recognize Mr. Bier for 5 minutes for his opening
    statement.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID J. BIER, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION STUDIES,
                             CATO INSTITUTE

        Mr. Bier. Chairmen, Ranking Members, and distinguished
    Members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify.
        For nearly half a century, the CATO Institute has produced
    original research showing that people, whatever their ancestry,
    background, or birthplace, benefit the United States. Sadly,
    the U.S. immigration system is outdated, approving just 3
    percent of immigrants seeking legal, permanent residence last
    year. This fact has made temporary statuses like parole even
    more important as a way for legal entry.
        Since 1952 when Congress created the parole category,
    administrations have invoked this authority at least 126 times.
    Millions have entered legally as parolees and have contributed
    greatly to our country for decades.
        The parole processes created under the last administration
    were no different. The Congressional Budget Office estimates
    indicate that recent parolees will lower U.S. debt by more than
    half a trillion over the course of a decade. The current
    administration admits these recent parole processes were lawful
    and case-by-case and that they reduced illegal immigration, but
    it terminated them anyway, and tore up promises to 1.5 million
    legal immigrants, stripping them of status with no warning.
        This chaos typifies the administration's mass deportation
    policy, which consists of 3 basic pillars. No. 1, strip people
    of legal status and U.S. citizenship; No. 2, arrest based on
    convenience and profiling, not threats; and No. 3, deport
    without due process.
        First pillar. Parolees, temporary protected status holders,
    thousands of international students, and even some green card
    holders who haven't committed any crimes are having their
    status stripped away. They are even attempting to take away
    U.S. citizenship from many U.S.-born babies and threatening to
    do the same to many naturalized citizens. In some cases, they
    are taking away people's status explicitly to retaliate against
    their free speech.
        Millions losing their status isn't fixing illegal
    immigration. But that's not their goal. Their goal is to
    increase targets for deportation paid for by us, the taxpayer.
        Second pillar. Target based on convenience, not threat. ICE
    isn't prioritizing the worst of the worst. Parolees were and
    are continuously vetted. They aren't threats. They're just
    convenient targets. That's why ICE is rounding up those who are
    complying with the asylum process, attending court hearings,
    and not committing any crimes. Two-thirds of those detained by
    ICE this year have no criminal conviction. None. Just 7 percent
    have a violent conviction.
        ICE agents themselves are sounding the alarm. Quantity over
    quality, said one agent. Deprioritizing the real threats.
    Indeed, the White House has explicitly ordered them to stop
    focusing on serious criminals and conduct indiscriminate random
    round-ups at bus stops, parking lots, at Home Depot, and even
    churches.
        ICE is arresting over 10 times as many noncriminals on the
    streets as even under the first Trump administration in 2017.
    But you can't see someone's legal status. So this means blatant
    illegal profiling in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As one
    court has already found, they are detaining U.S. citizens for
    street interrogations and then wrongfully arresting them if
    they refuse to talk.
        Third pillar. After detaining without reasonable basis,
    they're deporting without due process. In March, the
    administration grabbed more than 50 people who entered America
    legally, never violated any law, it threw them on a plane and
    sent them to a foreign torture prison without a trial or so
    much as a hearing and in violation of a court order.
        The Supreme Court has already found these expulsions were
    unconstitutional. But DHS, it disagrees. The President is
    violating court orders openly filed in U.S. law and violating
    the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, and Fourteenth
    amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
        President Trump can certainly make America poor, weaker,
    and less safe with his feckless, chaotic deportation crusade,
    but he cannot ignore the Constitution. The Constitution is our
    law of defense against tyranny. It's the one law we all should
    agree needs to be higher.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bier follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of David J. Bier
                                 July 15, 2024
        Chairmen Brecheen and Guest, Ranking Members Thanedar and Correa,
    and distinguished Members of the subcommittees, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify.
        My name is David Bier. I am the director of immigration studies at
    the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research organization
    in Washington, DC. For nearly half a century, the Cato Institute has
    produced original immigration research showing that a freer, more
    orderly, and more lawful immigration system benefits Americans. People
    are the ultimate resource. In a free country, immigrants can contribute
    to their new homes, making the United States a better, more powerful,
    and more prosperous place.
        One legal way for immigrants to enter and participate in U.S.
    society is parole, an immigration category first created by Congress in
    the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Over the decades since
    then, millions of individuals have entered this country as parolees.
    Although parole is a temporary status, it allows immigrants to adjust
    to lawful permanent residence if they are eligible through another
    pathway, which many thousands of parolees have done. Many former
    parolees are now Americans and continue to contribute to their new
    home. It is an essential and important feature of America's legal
    immigration system.
        Congress should:
       protect current parolees from the President's mass
            deportation efforts;
       reinstitute the parole processes suspended by the President;
            and
       expand those processes to give more people a viable legal
            option to immigrate legally to the United States.
         president biden's use of parole has deep historical precedent.
        Although President Biden utilized parole in various important ways,
    his use of parole was not unique. The Executive branch has implemented
    case-by-case categorical parole programs more than 126 times since
    1952, when Congress created the parole authority.\1\ Here are several
    noteworthy instances:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ David J. Bier, ``126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A Historical
    Review of Immigration Parole Orders,'' Cato at Liberty (blog), July 17,
    2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Parole from detention (1954-1980).--On November 12, 1954,
            Ellis Island and several other Immigration and Naturalization
            Service (INS) detention centers were closed, and detainees were
            paroled into the United States. The number of detained
            immigrants decreased from a monthly average of 225 to less than
            40.\2\ Paroles were carried out under section 212(d)(5) of the
            Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INS promulgated a
            regulation on January 8, 1958, authorizing this practice of
            parole from ports of entry rather than detention.\3\ From 1954
            until 1981, ``most undocumented aliens detained at the border
            were paroled into the United States.''\4\ Even after 1982, when
            the use of parole was narrowed, its use continued ``when
            detention is impossible or impractical.''\5\ The INS associate
            commissioner testified in 1964 that closing the detention
            facilities met the requirement of the parole statute because
            ``it created a better image of the American Government and
            American public.''\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, US
    Department of Justice, 1956.
        \3\ Fed. Reg. Volume 23 Number 5, January 8, 1958.
        \4\ ``Highlights of Selected Recent Court Decisions,'' I&N
    Reporter, October 1957.
        \5\ Hearing on Detention of Aliens in Bureau of Prison Facilities,
    Before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil
    Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. (June
    23, 1982).
        \6\ Study of Population and Immigration Problems, Before the
    Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 1, (May 15, 1963)
    (Statement of Mario T. Noto, Associate Commissioner, Immigration and
    Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Hungarian parole (1956-1958).--On November 13, 1956, in
            response to the failed revolution against communists in
            Hungary, President Eisenhower ordered that 5,000 Hungarians be
            paroled into the United States.\7\ On December 1, 1956, he
            increased the limit to 15,000 Hungarians before removing the
            cap entirely on January 2, 1957.\8\ By June 30, 1957, 27,435
            parolees had entered, totaling 31,915 by 1958.\9\ For context,
            only 109 immigrants were admitted from Hungary in 1956, and
            just 321,625 immigrants were admitted worldwide. The Justice
            Department stated in 1957 that this was ``the first time that
            the parole provision has been applied to relatively large
            numbers of people.'' Several U.S. charitable organizations
            helped prepare parole applications and assisted in finding
            housing and jobs for them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    U.S. Department of Justice, 1957.
        \8\ Page 162, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United
    States, 85th Cong. 1st. Sess. 1957.
        \9\ LeMont Eaton, ``Hungarian Parolee Inspection Program,'' I&N
    Reporter, April 1960.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Cuban parole (1959-1973)Starting on January 1, 1959,
            following the communist revolution, the Eisenhower
            administration used parole to allow a ``small percentage'' of
            Cubans who had left the island and entered the United States
            illegally. By June 1962, the number of Cubans on parole
            increased to 62,500. Overall, about 107,116 Cubans were paroled
            into the United States from 1959 to 1965. Starting on December
            1, 1965, based on a November 6, 1965 memorandum of
            understanding with the Cuban government, the Johnson
            administration operated daily ``Freedom Flights'' from Cuba to
            Miami.\10\ During their operation, 281,317 Cubans were paroled
            into the United States.\11\ At its peak in 1971, 46,670 Cubans
            arrived via parole,\12\ compared to 361,972 total immigrants
            worldwide that year. Congressional appropriations funded the
            flights. In May 1972, the Cuban government suspended the
            flights, which were permanently terminated on April 6, 1973.
            The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 made it possible for Cuban
            parolees entering after 1959, including future parolees, to
            adjust their status to legal permanent residents after 2 years
            in the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ ``Cuba and United States: Agreement on Refugees,''
    International Legal Materials 4, no. 6 (1965): 1118-1127.
        \11\ Charlotte J. Moore, ``Review of U.S. Refugee Resettlement
    Programs and Policies. A Report. Revised,'' Congressional Research
    Service, 1980.
        \12\ Charlotte J. Moore, ``Review of U.S. Refugee Resettlement
    Programs and Policies. A Report. Revised,'' Congressional Research
    Service, 1980.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian parole (1975-1980).--On
            April 18, 1975, the President authorized a large-scale
            evacuation to Guam using parole. In fiscal year 1975 alone,
            about 135,000 individuals received parole.\13\ Congress funded
            (partially retroactively) the processing under the Indochina
            Migration and Refugee Assistance Act.\14\ In August 1975, the
            program was expanded to include Cambodians and Vietnamese with
            special connections to the United States, and on May 6, 1977,
            an additional 11,000 were authorized from Vietnam, Cambodia, or
            Laos.\15\ From 1975 until mid-1980--when the Refugee Act was
            enacted and replaced the parole programs--more than 330,000
            Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians were paroled into the
            United States.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Refugee Admissions by Region, Fiscal Year 1975 through
    September 30, 2022, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration,
    October 5, 2022.
        \14\ The Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975,
    Pub. L. 94-23, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1975.
        \15\ Elmer B. Staats, ``Domestic Resettlement of Indochinese
    Refugees: Struggle for Self-Reliance,'' Department of Health,
    Education, and Welfare, May 10, 1977.
        \16\ ``Hearings, Reports, and Prints of the Senate Committee on the
    Judiciary,'' U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Soviet/Moscow refugee parole (1988-present).--In August
            1988, the attorney general overturned the presumption that
            Soviet Jews qualified as refugees. On December 8, 1988, he
            established a ``public interest'' parole program for 2,000
            Soviets each month who were denied refugee status.\17\ Parolees
            needed to have sponsors in the United States and were not
            eligible for refugee benefits.\18\ A total of 7,652 individuals
            were paroled in fiscal year 1989.\19\ About 17,000 Soviets were
            paroled from 1992 to 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Ruth Marcus, ``U.S. Moves to Ease Soviet Emigres' Way,''
    Washington Post, December 8, 1988.
        \18\ Hearings on Foreign Operation, Export Financing, and Related
    Programs Appropriations for 1990, Before a Subcommittee of the
    Committee on Appropriations, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).
        \19\ Hearing on U.S. Refugee Programs for 1991, Before the Senate
    Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (October 3, 1990).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Cuban Migration Accord paroles (1994-2003).--On September 9,
            1994, the United States and Cuba signed an agreement to pursue
            policies aimed at reducing illegal immigration, including the
            United States maintaining a minimum of 20,000 legal admissions
            of Cubans per year.\20\ In order to meet this quota, the United
            States created the Special Cuban Migration Program to grant
            parole to about 5,000 Cubans annually through a lottery.\21\
            Around 75,000 Cubans were paroled under these programs from
            1994 to 2003 (the last year for which statistics are
            available).\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ ``Migration and Refugees,'' Communique between the United
    States of America and Cuba, September 9, 1994.
        \21\ Immigration and Naturalization Service, ``INS ANNOUNCES SECOND
    CUBAN MIGRATION PROGRAM,'' 73 No. 11 Interpreter Releases 319
    Interpreter Releases, Thomson Reuters Practical Law March 18, 1996.
        \22\ David J. Bier, ``126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A
    Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders,'' Cato at Liberty
    (blog), July 17, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Cuban Wet Foot, Dry Foot parole (1995-2017).--On May 2,
            1995, the U.S. Government announced that it would not parole
            any Cubans intercepted at sea, even if within U.S. waters, but
            it would parole anyone on U.S. soil or arriving at a port of
            entry.\23\ The INS and later Customs and Border Protection
            field manual stated that Cuban asylum seekers ``may be paroled
            directly from the port of entry'' except for those who ``pose a
            criminal or terrorist threat.''\24\ Subsequently, the number of
            Cubans paroled at ports of entry (mainly along the Southwest
            Border) increased significantly. From 2004 to 2016, 226,000
            Cubans were paroled at U.S. land borders.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ President William J. Clinton, ``Joint Statement with the
    Republic of Cuba on the Normalization of Migration'', May 2, 1995.
        \24\ Inspectors Field Manual, Part A, US Customs and Border
    Protection, 2010.
        \25\ David J. Bier, ``126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A
    Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders,'' Cato at Liberty
    (blog), July 17, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Visa Waiver Program parole (2000).--The authorization for
            the Visa Waiver Program expired in April 2000, so the Attorney
            General authorized all Visa Waiver Program entries under the
            parole authority.\26\ Visa Waiver Program travelers were
            paroled into the United States from late April to September
            2000 (approximately 8 million times).\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Abigail F. Kolker, ``Visa Waiver Program,'' Congressional
    Research Service, October 15, 2024.
        \27\ ``2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service,'' Department of Justice, September 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Family reunification paroles (2007-2017, 2021-2025).--On
            November 21, 2007, the DHS established a new parole program for
            any Cuban with an approved family-based petition for legal
            permanent residence. On December 18, 2014, DHS implemented a
            new parole program for any Haitian with an approved family-
            based immigrant visa petition if they have a priority date
            within 2 years of being current.\28\ On August 2, 2019, DHS
            announced it would terminate the program but would extend the
            parole of current participants.\29\ On October 12, 2021, it
            reversed its decision and continued the program.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ ``Implementation of Haitian Family Reunification Parole
    Program,'' US Citizenship and Immigration Services, December 18, 2024.
        \29\ ``USCIS to End Certain Categorial Parole Programs,'' US
    Citizenship and Immigration Services, August 2, 2019.
        \30\ ``The Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program,'' US
    Citizenship and Immigration Services, October 12, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Biden administration's effort to use parole was not unique in
    purpose, approach, or volume. There is no basis for describing it as
    unprecedented or unlawful.
        The statute envisions case-by-case categorical parole.
        Allowing qualified immigrants to enter the United States using
    parole is unquestionably legal. Congress established this authority.
    Section (d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states:

    ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may . . . in his discretion parole
    into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may
    prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons
    or significant public benefit any alien . . . ''\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ 8 U.S.C. 1882(d)(5)(A)).

        In 1996, Congress added the phrase ``case-by-case basis,'' and some
    people erroneously claim that ``case-by-case'' means that the Secretary
    of Homeland Security cannot designate any categories of people as
    eligible to apply for parole. However, that is obviously incorrect.
        1. The Secretary of Homeland Security must define categories
            eligible to apply for parole. The statute does not specify the
            meaning of ``urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
            benefit,'' so the Secretary of Homeland Security needs to
            determine the categories of individuals who meet those
            requirements and will be considered for parole on a case-by-
            case basis. A case-by-case basis means that they are evaluated
            individually once they establish eligibility to apply. As the
            Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel
            explained in June 2001:

        ``Designating, whether by regulation or policy, a class whose
            members generally would be considered appropriate candidates
            for parole does not conflict with the `case-by-case' decision
            requirement, since the adjudicator must individually determine
            whether a person is a member of the class and whether there are
            any reasons not to exercise the parole authority in the
            particular case.''\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ ``Expert Declaration of Yael Schacher,'' Civil Action No.
    6:23-CV-00007, United States District Court, Southern District of
    Texas, Victoria Division, June 20, 2023.

        2. Before 1996, categorical parole processes were administered on a
            case-by-case basis. Parole has historically been both
            categorical and case-by-case. The Executive branch has ordered
            case-by-case categorical parole programs more than 126 times
            since 1952, when the parole authority was created.\33\ For
            example, the Cuban Migration Accord of 1994 included a case-by-
            case requirement even though it created a new category eligible
            to apply.\34\ This language was also used to describe parole
            decisions for Cubans in 1980 and Vietnamese in the 1970's.\35\
            If Congress had intended to eliminate all earlier categorical
            parole programs through the case-by-case language, it would not
            have used the same language that those programs had.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ David J. Bier, ``126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A
    Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders,'' Cato at Liberty
    (blog), July 17, 2023.
        \34\ ``U.S. Response to the 1994 Cuba Migration Crisis,'' US
    General Accounting Office National Security and International Affairs
    Division, September 1995.
        \35\ P. 38, Hearing on Caribbean Refugee Crisis, Cubans, and
    Haitians, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 96th
    Cong., 2d Sess. (May 12, 1980).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3. Congress specifically removed language in 1996 that limited
            parole to narrowly-defined circumstances. The initial House
            version of the 1996 law that became the Illegal Immigration
            Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act included language that
            defined ``urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
            benefit,'' but that bill never reached the floor of the
            House.\36\ This was done in response to concerns that it denied
            the President ``flexibility to deal with compelling immigration
            situations.''\37\ Congress also removed a provision that would
            have banned the use of parole for people denied refugee status.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ H.R. 2202, ``Immigration Control and Fiscal Responsibility Act
    of 1996,'' 104th Cong., 1st Sess., August 4, 1995.
        \37\ ``Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995,'' 104th
    Cong., 2d Sess., March 4, 1996.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated agreement with categorical
            uses of parole. For example, in 1966, Congress approved the
            adjustment of status to legal permanent residence for any Cuban
            paroled into the United States for over a year.\38\ In 1996,
            even as Cubans continued to be paroled into the United States
            and as the law added terms like ``case-by-case'' into the
            parole statute, Congress affirmed that the Cuban Adjustment Act
            should remain in effect until Cuba has a democratically-elected
            government.\39\ That same year, it also provided an adjustment
            of status for Polish and Hungarian parolees.\40\ In 2010, it
            extended this to include orphan parolees from Haiti.\41\ In
            2020, Congress expressed support for an on-going parole program
            for relatives of U.S. military members.\42\ In 2021, it
            extended certain refugee benefits to Afghan parolees,\43\ and
            in 2022, it did the same for Ukrainian parolees.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Initially 2 years.
        \39\ Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 104-208,
    September 30, 1996.
        \40\ Pub. L. 104-208, providing for adjustment of status of Polish
    and Hungarian parolees.
        \41\ Help HAITI Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-293), providing for
    adjustment of status of Haitian orphan parolees.
        \42\ The National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-
    92), expressing Congressional support for an on-going parole program
    for relatives of U.S. military members.
        \43\ The Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency
    Assistance Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-43), providing refugee benefits to
    Afghan parolees, explicitly appropriating money for those benefits, and
    directing the creation of a plan to process Afghan parole applications.
        \44\ The Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022
    (Pub. L. 117-128), providing refugee benefits to Ukrainian parolees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           the 2022-2024 parole processes were lawful and effective.
        When the U.S. Government expanded the use of parole in 2022, the
    United States was experiencing levels of illegal crossings not seen in
    decades. As part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce illegal
    immigration, the United States was negotiating with many countries to
    decrease flows to the U.S. borders.
       Ukrainian border parole at ports.--In February 2022, Russia
            invaded Ukraine, leading tens of thousands of Ukrainians to
            come to the U.S.-Mexico border seeking protection. Initially,
            Customs and Border Protection paroled the Ukrainians into the
            United States under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA.\45\ In
            April 2022, approximately 20,102 Ukrainians were paroled into
            the United States from the Southwest Border.\46\ This approach
            was clearly preferable to them crossing illegally and burdening
            Border Patrol.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Kevin Sieff, ``There are new migrants on the U.S.-Mexico
    border: Ukrainian refugees,'' Washington Post, April 2, 2022.
        \46\ ``Nationwide Encounters,'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
    last modified March 13, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Uniting for Ukraine parole sponsorship.--The administration
            rightly determined that it was even better for Ukrainians not
            to have to reach the U.S.-Mexico border at all. On April 27,
            2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the
            Uniting for Ukraine parole process. Through the U4U process,
            Ukrainians could apply for and obtain travel authorization in
            Europe and then fly to the United States to be paroled at
            airports, provided a U.S.-based sponsor pledged to support
            them. The legal basis for this parole was the urgent
            humanitarian crisis caused by the invasion of Ukraine,\47\ and
            no one challenged the action in court. The U4U process reduced
            Ukrainian arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border by over 99
            percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ Implementation of the Uniting for Ukraine Parole Process,
    Department of Homeland Security, April 27, 2022.

       Haitian border parole at ports.--After evidence showed that
            U.S.-Mexico ports of entry could handle higher flows of legal
            crossings of asylum seekers, the administration expanded access
            to ports for individuals referred to them by certain nonprofit
            organizations in 2022.\48\ Haitians were the most represented
            among those using this new process. This is not surprising
            because Haitian asylum seekers had traditionally entered
            legally at the U.S.-Mexico border until the Trump
            administration restricted and then eliminated their opportunity
            to do so.\49\ Some States requested a district court to block
            this new parole process,\50\ but it did not do so.\51\ Within
            months of opening the ports to Haitians, about 99 percent of
            all Haitians arriving at the Southwest Border were no longer
            crossing illegally.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ ``Fourth Declaration of Blas Nunez-Neto,'' Arizona v. Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention, November 10, 2022.
        \49\ David J. Bier, ``How the U.S. Created Cuban and Haitian
    Illegal Migration,'' Cato at Liberty (blog), February 15, 2022.
        \50\ David J. Bier, ``Some States Are Fighting in Court to Increase
    Illegal Immigration,'' Cato at Liberty (blog), November 2, 2022.
        \51\ State of Louisiana v. Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, November 14, 2024.

       Venezuelan parole sponsorship process.--Following the
            success of Uniting for Ukraine, DHS expanded the parole
            sponsorship program to include some Venezuelans in October
            2022.\52\ The main reason was the significant public benefit of
            ``enhancing the security of our border by reducing irregular
            migration of Venezuelan nationals.'' The process initially
            lowered illegal immigration dramatically. However, because the
            process was capped at such a low number and there were so many
            displaced Venezuelans, it did not meet enough of the demand to
            stop illegal immigration from Venezuela. Due to the long delays
            in travel authorization that quickly developed, many
            Venezuelans could not be convinced to wait (despite efforts
            from some of their friends who did wait).\53\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ ``An Implementation of a Parole Process for Venezuelans,''
    Department of Homeland Security, October 19, 2022.
        \53\ Julie Turkewitz, ``She Heeded Biden's Warning to Migrants.
    Will She Regret It?'' New York Times, October 24, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nonetheless, illegal immigration was lower than it would have been
    without the existing processes because many immigrants were diverted
    from crossing illegally. The Venezuelan experience highlights the need
    for Congress to establish durable, permanent options for legal
    migration so potential immigrants can credibly believe that these
    options will continue to exist.

       Parole sponsorship for Cubans and Nicaraguans.--In January
            2023, DHS announced the expansion of the Venezuelan parole
            process to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans--
            collectively, this process is known as the CHNV parole process.
            Again, the primary ``significant public benefit'' the
            Government cited was to reduce illegal immigration.\54\ In
            December 2023, Cuban and Nicaraguan illegal immigration had
            reached an unprecedented level, but the parole process clearly
            and immediately had an enormous and sustained impact on Cuban
            and Nicaraguan illegal immigration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ ``Implementation of a Parole Process for Cubans,'' Department
    of Homeland Security, January 9, 2023.

        It is not surprising that the Cubans quickly adopted the new
    process because they had historically always entered legally before the
    Trump administration terminated their right to request asylum at U.S.-
    Mexico ports of entry. As with Haitians, President Trump created the
    problem of Cuban illegal immigration, which had never existed before at
    the Southwest Border, by banning the legal way for them to enter.

       Parole through the CBP One app.--Alongside the expansion of
            the parole sponsorship process, the administration introduced a
            new system where anyone in Mexico could schedule an appointment
            to apply for parole at a port of entry using the CBP One mobile
            application.\55\ Given that CBP had been denying asylum to
            those who crossed illegally, the CBP One appointment scheduling
            process was the only way for the United States to comply with
            sections 208 and 235 of the INA, which mandate processing
            immigrants for asylum.\56\ CBP One had a limit of 1,450
            appointments per day.\57\ About 4.2 percent of CBP appointments
            did not result in parole.\58\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ ``DHS Scheduling System for Safe, Orderly and Humane Border
    Processing Goes Live on CBP OneTM App,'' Department of
    Homeland Security, January 12, 2023.
        \56\ 8 U.S.C.  1225; 8 U.S.C.  1158.
        \57\ ``Fact Sheet: CBP One Facilitated Over 170,000 Appointments in
    Six Months, and Continues to be a Safe, Orderly, and Humane Tool for
    Border Management,'' Department of Homeland Security, August 3, 2023.
        \58\ ``New Documents Obtained by Homeland Majority Detail Shocking
    Abuse of CBP One App,'' Homeland Security Republicans, October 23,
    2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By the end of the Biden administration, the CBP One process became
    the main method for asylum seekers to enter in the United States. As a
    result of CBP One and earlier Haitian nonprofit referral programs, over
    1 million Haitians avoided having to cross the border illegally.\59\
    Due to the CHNV+U4U parole processes, nearly 780,000 immigrants avoided
    having to come to the border at all. Most CBP encounters from June to
    December 2024 involved people entering legally. By the end of Biden's
    term, in December 2024, overall Border Patrol arrests were 33 percent
    lower than when he took office.\60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ Immigration Enforcement and Legal Processes Monthly Tables,
    Office of Homeland Security Statistics, last updated January 16, 2025.
        \60\ Testimony of David J. Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at
    the Cato Institute, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee
    on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, January 22, 2025.

        By May 2024--before President Biden's last major Executive Action
    on the border and before the suspension of the CHNV program--illegal
    entries were down:
       by 80 percent for Venezuelans from their pre-parole level
            (September 2022);
       by 96 percent for Nicaraguans from their pre-parole level
            (December 2022);
       by 98 percent for Haitians from their pre-parole level (May
            2022); and
       by 99 percent for Cubans from their pre-parole level
            (December 2022).
        Several States led by the State of Texas challenged these parole
    processes in court. In March 2024, judge ruled that Texas ``has failed
    to prove that it suffered an injury-in-fact'' because immigration to
    and through the State of Texas declined due to the success of the
    parole process.\61\ In May 2024, the State of Texas later urged
    reconsideration in light of new facts, but the judge affirmed this
    ruling.\62\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ ``Memorandum Opinion and Order,'' State of Texas v. United
    States Department of Homeland Security, March 8, 2024.
        \62\ ``Memorandum Opinion and Order,'' State of Texas v. United
    States Department of Homeland Security, May 28, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although these parole processes were categorical, even the Trump
    administration's DHS agrees that ``potentially eligible beneficiaries
    were adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.''\63\ Moreover, the Trump
    administration's DHS acknowledged that ``these programs were
    accompanied by a significant decrease in CHNV encounters between
    Southwest Border POEs.''\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ ``Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians,
    Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans,'' Department of Homeland Security, March
    25, 2025.
        \64\ See footnote 34, ``Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans,
    Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans,'' Department of Homeland
    Security, March 25, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The parole processes were beneficial to the United States.
        The parole processes did more than change the categorization of
    immigrants from legal to illegal. They also eased a heavy burden on
    Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and State and local
    governments along the border.
       More predictable arrivals.--For instance, in September 2021,
            CBP encountered nearly 18,000 Haitians who crossed en masse at
            a single location in Del Rio, Texas. The crossings overwhelmed
            Border Patrol's processing capacity so much that they couldn't
            bring them into custody them for almost 2 weeks. Immigration
            and Customs Enforcement was required to shift half of all
            deportation flights to Haiti for 2 weeks.\65\ Everyone admitted
            through the CBP One app or via parole sponsorship must plan
            their arrival with CBP in advance, enabling CBP to predict when
            people will enter, which could have prevented the chaos in Del
            Rio but did prevent a reoccurrence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ Thomas Cartwright, ICE Air Flights, September 2021 and Last 12
    Months, Witness at the Border, October 8, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pre-arrange transportation in advance.--Border Patrol had to
            release people when its detention facilities reached capacity.
            Since individuals were released without notice and often
            without possessions, they couldn't easily find transportation
            to their final destination, causing huge backups at bus
            stations. ``We don't have enough private bus seats to get
            everyone out,'' McAllen, Texas City Manager Roy Rodriguez told
            The New York Post.\66\ Under CHNV, immigrants would pay for
            commercial flights directly to their final destination.\67\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ Marie Banks, `` `Not enough seats': Buses leaving Texas border
    town packed with illegal migrants,'' New York Post, July 22, 2021.
        \67\ ``CBP Releases December 2024 Monthly Update,'' Customs and
    Border Protection, January 14, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pre-arrange housing.--Immigrants who entered illegally often
            did not know if they would be released or deported, so they had
            no way to secure housing in advance. Under CHNV, sponsors
            promised to help find housing for the parolees, and the
            parolees had time to arrange housing before they arrived.\68\
            Throughout the duration of the CHNV program, the Biden
            administration checked in with New York City, Boston, Chicago,
            and Denver--cities that had chosen to house migrants--to see if
            CHNV immigrants were arriving in significant numbers. They were
            not. In fact, one survey of CHNV arrivals found that only 3
            percent relied on local organizations or the government for
            support.\69\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ Marcela Garcia, ``Haitians are desperately looking for
    sponsors in Boston,'' Boston Globe, March 3, 2023.
        \69\ ``Survey data show the administration's parole policy for the
    Americas is a successful model for new legal pathways,'' fwd.us,
    January 25, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pre-arrange jobs.--Another reason why CHNV parolees were
            likely not ending up in city shelters is that CHNV allowed
            parolees to immediately request authorization to work. Unlike
            those who entered illegally, CHNV and CBP One parolees could
            request employment authorization from DHS on their first day in
            the United States. Thanks to an act of Congress, U4U parolees
            didn't need to request permission to start working legally.\70\
            Many immigrants in city shelters said they just wanted to work
            but were prohibited from doing so. ``What I want the most is to
            work,'' an asylum seeker in New York named Patricia who was not
            paroled told CBS News.\71\ Meanwhile, parolees quickly found
            jobs and began contributing to the United States.\72\ One
            survey found that 88 percent of CHNV parolees intended to work
            once they received their permits.\73\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ ``Work Authorization for Ukrainians--Uniting for Ukraine
    Program,'' Reddy Neumann Brown PC, November 22, 2022.
        \71\ Camilo Montoya-Galvez, ``As cities struggle to house migrants,
    Biden administration resists proposals that officials say could help,''
    CBS News, August 22, 2023.
        \72\ ``Survey data show the administration's parole policy for the
    Americas is a successful model for new legal pathways,'' fwd.us,
    January 25, 2024.
        \73\ ``Survey data show the administration's parole policy for the
    Americas is a successful model for new legal pathways,'' fwd.us,
    January 25, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As of 2024, about three-quarters of a million parolees were already
    working in the United States, including 120,000 in construction,
    120,000 in hospitality, and 90,000 in manufacturing.\74\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \74\ ``Industries with critical labor shortages added hundreds of
    thousands of workers through immigration parole,'' fwd.us, March 26,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Due to increased immigration from people without traditional visas,
    such as asylum seekers, parolees, and illegal immigrants, the
    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the U.S. economy would
    be about $1.3 trillion larger in 2034 than it would have been without
    their contributions, and U.S. Federal debt held by the public would be
    nearly $1 trillion lower.\75\ The CBO also estimated that parolees made
    up the majority of the workers providing these economic benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ ``Effects of the Immigration Surge on the Federal Budget and
    the Economy,'' Congressional Budget Office, July 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the parole processes improved u.s. security and vetting.
        The parole processes improved vetting by allowing for more
    information checks prior to entry and for the implementation of
    enhanced screening for parolees.
        1. Every parolee is subject to biometric and biographic background
            screening prior to entry.--As DHS explained:

        ``There are distinct advantages to being able to vet more
            individuals before they arrive at the border so that we can
            stop individuals who could pose threats to national security or
            public safety even earlier in the process. The [CHNV] parole
            process will allow DHS to vet potential beneficiaries for
            national security and public safety purposes before they travel
            to the United States. As described below, the vetting will
            require prospective beneficiaries to upload a live photograph
            via an app. This will enhance the scope of the pre-travel
            vetting--thereby enabling DHS to better identify those with
            criminal records or other disqualifying information of concern
            and deny them travel before they arrive at our border,
            representing an improvement over the status quo.''\76\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \76\ ``Implementation of a Parole Process for Haitians,''
    Department of Homeland Security, January 9, 2023.

        2. The Biden administration implemented enhanced vetting for
            parolees.--Parolee vetting includes checks against National
            Crime Information Center data, Terrorism Screening Dataset,
            INTERPOL, and other U.S. Government sources. The Biden
            administration improved vetting in 2 ways: First, as part of
            the Afghan, Ukraine, and CHNV parole initiatives, the Biden
            administration also expanded vetting for parolees to include
            screening against Classified holdings for the first time from
            CBP's National Vetting Center, subjecting them to more rigorous
            checks than other travelers and immigrants to the United
            States.\77\ Second, it established recurrent continuous vetting
            against all the same U.S. holdings after the parolees entered
            the country.\78\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \77\ ``Uniting for Ukraine, Process Overview and Assessment,''
    Homeland Security Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, November 4,
    2024.
        \78\ ``DHS Has a Fragmented Process for Identifying and Resolving
    Derogatory Information for Operation Allies Welcome Parolees,'' DHS
    Office of the Inspector General, May 6, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3. The financial sponsor provided an additional check.--The purpose
            of the financial sponsor was to provide the parolee with
            someone in the United States who could help them if needed.
            However, having this financial sponsor also added an additional
            layer of vetting for applicants. Approximately 18 percent of
            parole sponsors were denied by DHS.\79\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \79\ ``Shock and Awe: Internal Homeland Security Report Proves that
    the Biden-Harris-Mayorkas CHNV Parole Program is Loaded with Fraud,''
    Federation for American Immigration Reform, August 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4. All applicants submitted their information on-line.--For the
            first time in U.S. immigration history, both applicants and
            sponsors submitted their information electronically, which
            enabled DHS to conduct unprecedentedly detailed fraud reviews
            of these processes.
         dhs never concluded there was massive fraud within the parole
                              sponsorship program.
        In 2024, enabled by the thorough electronic vetting enhancement in
    the parole process, DHS finalized an analysis of potential fraud
    inidicators among CHNV sponsor applications. This caused the
    administration to temporarily suspend processing until the
    investigation was completed.
       DHS fraud review did not conclude that there was ``massive
            fraud''.--Instead, it identified potential issues to
            investigate.
         Repeat sponsors were permitted under CHNV.--The main
                concern came from serial sponsors who had submitted dozens
                of applications for potential parolees. However, there was
                no limit to the number of individuals one could sponsor
                under the program.\80\ Many of these sponsors were proud of
                their philanthropic efforts and did not hide them.\81\ I
                personally know a wealthy individual who filed over 70
                sponsor applications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh, ``Biden's DHS Halting Migrant
    Program Raises Border Security Concerns,'' Reason, August 9, 2024.
        \81\ Gisela Salomon, Elliot Spagat, and Amy Taxin, ``Message from
    US asylum hopefuls: Financial sponsors needed,'' Associated Press,
    January 6, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Typographical errors in big data aren't a sign of fraud.--
                I have personally worked with large datasets of user text
                input, and it is universally the case that some individuals
                enter physical addresses where mailing addresses should be,
                accidentally replace the letter ``O'' with the number 0,
                invert numbers while typing quickly, and make similar
                typos. Similarly, in the context of millions of
                applications, some people unintentionally click ``yes''
                when they intended to click ``no.'' These errors are easily
                noticeable to someone reviewing them in context and are
                simply not evidence of fraud.
         DHS did not set a baseline rate for fraud in immigration
                processes in general.--There is no evidence to suggest that
                these processes experience more fraud than other
                immigration categories.
       DHS fraud review did not recommend ending the program.--
            Instead, it suggested implementing additional protocols to
            better verify the identities of individuals submitting
            supporter applications and to investigate the problems.\82\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \82\ Julia Ainsley, ``Biden administration to restart immigration
    program that was paused over fraud concerns,'' NBC News, August 29,
    2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS investigated the concerns and found no programmatic
            fraud problem.--DHS reviewed over 70,000 concerning sponsor
            applications and referred just 6 for criminal
            investigation.\83\ DHS concluded: ``In the majority of cases,
            these indicators were ultimately found to have a reasonable
            explanation and resolved. For example, a supporter had entered
            a typographic error when submitting their information on-
            line.''\84\ The Trump administration did not state that vetting
            was the reason for canceling the parole processes, and it has
            not identified any fraud.\85\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \83\ Julia Ainsley and Laura Strickler, ``Biden administration may
    soon restart immigration program that was paused for possible fraud,''
    NBC News, August 28, 2024.
        \84\ Julia Ainsley, ``Biden administration to restart immigration
    program that was paused over fraud concerns,'' NBC News, August 29,
    2024.
        \85\ ``Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians,
    Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans,'' Federal Register Volume 90 Number 56,
    March 25, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS did not find any fraud concerns related to parolees.--
            The issues it recommended investigating involved U.S. sponsors
            who would be in the United States, regardless of whether the
            parole process was in place. DHS review concluded that it did
            not identify any ``issues of concern relating to the screening
            and vetting of program beneficiaries.''\86\ Law enforcement has
            no evidence of any criminal threat patterns related to CHNV
            parolees. During the first 6 months of the Trump
            administration, not a single person has been prosecuted for
            fraud related to the CHNV parole process.\87\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \86\ Julia Ainsley, ``Biden administration to restart immigration
    program that was paused over fraud concerns,'' NBC News, August 29,
    2024.
        \87\ ``Declaration of Kika Scott,'' Svitlana Doe, et al., vs Kristi
    Noem, et al., July 1, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       CHNV nationals are less crime-prone than the U.S.
            population.--According to the Census Bureau's American
            Community Survey, immigrants--legal and illegal--are less
            likely to have committed serious crimes that led to their
            incarceration in the United States than the average U.S.-born
            person.\88\ The incarceration rate for Cubans, Haitians,
            Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans is also below the U.S.-born
            average, meaning they help lower the crime and victimization
            rates for Americans.\89\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \88\ Michelangelo Landgrave and Alex Nowrasteh, ``Illegal Immigrant
    Incarceration Rates, 2010-2023,'' Cato Institute Policy Analysis no.
    994, April 24, 2025.
        \89\ Alex Nowrasteh, ``Haitian Immigrants Have a Low Incarceration
    Rate,'' Cato at Liberty (blog), July 7, 2025.

    dhs's indiscriminate deportation of parolees is unjustified and unjust.
        Despite the success of the parole processes in reducing illegal
    immigration and integrating legal arrivals into the U.S. labor market,
    the Trump administration immediately suspended all new entries under
    CHNV and CBP One--completely removing the scheduling functionality from
    the CBP One app.\90\ This action stranded thousands of people who had
    already been accepted into those processes and canceled almost 2
    million sponsorships by legal U.S. residents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \90\ Thomas Graham, ``US asylum seekers in despair after Trump
    cancels CBP One App: `Start from zero again','' The Guardian, January
    23, 2025; ``Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Temporary
    Restraining Order,'' Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, et al. v.
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., January 29, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS is increasing illegal immigration by canceling CHNV and
            CBP One parole.--On March 25, 2025, DHS announced it was
            canceling the parole of all CHNV parolees en masse.\91\ DHS
            acknowledges that this abrupt cancellation of their parole will
            leave many parolees with ``no lawful basis to remain in the
            United States,'' thus increasing the number of people in the
            country illegally. On April 8, 2025, DHS revoked parole for
            nearly 1 million parolees who entered legally through the CBP
            One app.\92\ It did not provide any public notice of the
            decision, nor did it follow the legal requirement to revoke
            parole only when the Government determines that the purpose of
            the parole is complete.\93\ The DHS Office of Inspector General
            found that DHS had no way to track parolees or confirm their
            lawful status, yet the Department ended their parole early
            anyway.\94\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \91\ See footnote 4, ``Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans,
    Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans,'' Department of Homeland
    Security, March 25, 2025.
        \92\ Ali Bianco, ``DHS revokes parole for hundreds of thousands who
    entered via the CBP One app,'' Politico, April 8, 2025.
        \93\ ``Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Habeas Corpus,''
    Case No. 3:25-cv-965-SI, July 9, 2025; ``Memorandum & Order Granting in
    Part Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Stay of DHS's En Masse
    Truncation of All Valid Grants of CHNV Parole,'' Civil Action No. 1:25-
    cv-10495-IT, April 14, 2025.
        \94\ US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector
    General, ``DHS Needs to Improve Oversight of Parole Expiration for
    Select Humanitarian Parole Processes,'' July 2, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS is carrying out indiscriminate arrests of parolees.--The
            Trump administration is carrying out indiscriminate mass
            deportations of parolees who entered the United States legally
            under the Biden administration. DHS stated in its notice ending
            the parole that it ``intends to remove promptly aliens who
            entered the United States under the CHNV parole programs,''
            even though this increases the Department's burden compared to
            allowing them to leave voluntarily or continuing their
            parole.\95\ This is diverting resources away from arresting
            public safety threats. ICE has arrested and imprisoned:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \95\ See footnote 4, ``Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans,
    Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans,'' Department of Homeland
    Security, March 25, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         a Bronx high school student, Dylan Contreras, who entered
                legally using CBP One while attending his immigration court
                hearing.\96\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \96\ Briana Scalia, ``NYC public school student detained by ICE:
    Who is Dylan Contreras?'' FOX5 New York, May 30, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         a 6-year-old child with leukemia who had lawfully entered
                using the CBP One app and was attending his immigration
                court hearing with his mother.\97\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \97\ Corky Siemaszko, ``6-year-old Honduran boy with leukemia who
    had been seized by ICE is back in L.A.,'' NBC News, July 4, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         an Afghan who entered with parole and had a pending
                special immigrant visa application based on his long
                support for U.S. military activities in Afghanistan.\98\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \98\ Madeleine May and Hannah Marr, ``Afghan ally detained by ICE
    after attending immigration court hearing,'' CBS News, July 1, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         a 6-year-old boy and a 9-year-old girl who were paroled
                into the country with their mother were arrested and
                detained at their court hearing.\99\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \99\ Hallie Golden, ``Family sues over US detention in what may be
    first challenge to courthouse arrests involving kids,'' Associated
    Press, June 27, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS illegally blocked parolees from receiving any other
            status for months.--From February to June 2025, the Trump
            administration unlawfully delayed parolees' applications for
            permanent or temporary statuses to prevent them from getting an
            alternative status when it canceled their parole en masse in
            April and again in June.\100\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \100\ Camilo Montoya-Galvez, ``U.S. pauses immigration applications
    for certain migrants welcomed under Biden,'' CBS News, February 19,
    2025; ``Declaration of Kika Scott,'' Svitlana Doe, et al., vs Kristi
    Noem, et al., July 1, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS has stripped parolees of due process prior to removal.--
            DHS is now expelling parolees through expedited removal without
            granting them a hearing in immigration court.\101\ This means
            that any parolee in the country for less than 2 years receives
            no due process prior to removal and can be deported based
            solely on the decision of a low-level immigration agent. This
            decision violates numerous provisions of section 235 of the
            INA, which explicitly states that anyone ``admitted or paroled
            into the United States'' cannot be subject to expedited
            removal.\102\ The law also explicitly prohibits applying
            expedited removal to anyone from a Western Hemisphere country
            that lacks full diplomatic relations with the United States,
            which includes all Venezuelans.\103\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \101\ ``Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal,'' Department of
    Homeland Security, January 21, 2025.
        \102\ 8 USC  1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) (2025).
        \103\ 8 USC  1225(b)(1)(F) (2025); Jennifer Hansler, ``Venezuelan
    embassy run by opposition in US closes after Guaido ouster,'' CNN.com,
    January 6, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS is arresting parolees and sending them to prisons in
            Cuba and El Salvador.--The Trump administration has already
            sent parolees who never violated any laws in the United States
            or elsewhere to Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. For instance,
            Luis Alberto Castillo Rivera entered the United States on
            January 19, 2025, with a CBP One appointment but was sent to a
            prison in Cuba, even though he has no criminal record.\104\ DHS
            has even been sending parolees to El Salvador's notorious
            prison. For instance, former professional soccer player Jerce
            Reyes Barrios, who entered the United States via CBP One and
            has no criminal record in the United States or elsewhere, was
            illegally renditioned to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies
            Act in violation of a court order.\105\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \104\ ``Declaration of Luis Alberto Castillo Rivera,'' Center for
    Constitutional Rights, March 1, 2025.
        \105\ Armando Garcia, ``Man deported to El Salvador under Alien
    Enemies Act because of soccer logo tattoo: Attorney,'' ABC News, March
    20, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     how ending parole fits into the president's mass deportation strategy.
        Ending parole typifies the 4 parts of President Trump's mass
    deportation plan:
        1. Cancel lawful status or citizenship to open as many people as
            possible to deportation.--The wide-spread cancellation of
            parole demonstrates that mass deportation isn't just about
            ``illegal immigrants.'' President Trump also intends to deport
            those here lawfully and American citizens. This includes:
         terminating parole for 1.5 million people with parole;
         allowing ICE agents to arrest parolees who still have
                valid parole;
         banning asylum, and terminating Temporary Protected Status
                early for Venezuelans, Haitians, Afghans, Nepalese,
                Cameroonians, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans;\106\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \106\ Juliana Kim, ``DHS ends Temporary Protected Status for
    thousands from Nicaragua and Honduras,'' NPR.com, July 7, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         arresting and detaining legal permanent residents and
                students;
         attempting to deny the citizenship of U.S.-born children
                of people without permanent residence or U.S. citizenship.
        2. Arrest based on convenience rather than threat.--Arresting
            parolees shows how radically President Trump has deprioritized
            criminal threats to focus on already-vetted immigrants who
            haven't committed any crimes in the United States but have made
            their presence known, making them easy targets.
         On his first day in office, President Trump rescinded the
                requirement for Border Patrol and ICE to focus exclusively
                on recent border crossers and public safety threats.\107\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \107\ President Donald J. Trump, ``Protecting the American People
    Against Invasion,'' The White House, January 20, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         The White House set an arbitrary daily arrest quota,
                forcing ICE agents to prioritize noncriminals attending
                hearings over actual fugitives, requiring ``quantity over
                quality,'' as one ICE agent put it.\108\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \108\ Jennie Taer, ``Trump admin's 3,000 ICE arrests per day quota
    is taking focus off criminals and `killing morale': insiders,'' New
    York Post, June 17, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         The White House has mandated that ICE and Border Patrol
                stop creating lists of criminals to target and prioritize
                the arrest of immigrant workers who are going to their
                jobs, not committing crimes.\109\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \109\ Elizabeth Findell et al., ``The White House Marching Orders
    That Sparked the L.A. Migrant Crackdown,'' Wall Street Journal, June 9,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         By June, 71 percent of people booked into ICE's detention
                facilities this year were individuals without criminal
                convictions--just 7 percent had violent criminal
                convictions--and nearly half have no pending charge
                either.\110\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \110\ David J. Bier, ``ICE Is Arresting 1,100 Percent More
    Noncriminals on the Streets Than in 2017,'' Cato at Liberty (blog),
    June 24, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         ICE is currently arresting 6 times as many immigrants
                without any criminal convictions as they did in 2017--6,000
                per week.\111\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \111\ David J. Bier, ``ICE Is Arresting 1,100 Percent More
    Noncriminals on the Streets Than in 2017,'' Cato at Liberty (blog),
    June 24, 2025.

        3. Deport without due process.--The treatment of parolees is
            emblematic of the third aspect of the administration's mass
            deportation agenda.
         Dozens of parolees who entered the United States legally
                were among the Venezuelans that the administration
                illegally transported to El Salvador in March, using the
                Alien Enemies Act.\112\ Altogether, 50 legal immigrants,
                including 4 refugees, were sent to El Salvador without
                proper due process.\113\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \112\ David J. Bier, ``50+ Venezuelans Imprisoned in El Salvador
    Came to US Legally, Never Violated Immigration Law,'' Cato at Liberty
    (blog), May 19, 2025.
        \113\ David J. Bier, ``50+ Venezuelans Imprisoned in El Salvador
    Came to US Legally, Never Violated Immigration Law,'' Cato at Liberty
    (blog), May 19, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         The Trump administration also expanded the use of
                expedited removal into the interior of the United States,
                allowing low-level ICE agents to order people removed from
                the country without a hearing.\114\ This expansion violated
                the Administrative Procedure Act because the administration
                refused to allow any notice and public comment.\115\
                Moreover, it is illegal as applied to parolees who are
                specifically excluded from its use,\116\ and it cannot
                legally be applied to all Venezuelans because their
                government does not have full diplomatic relations with the
                United States.\117\ Yet the administration is subjecting
                parolees and Venezuelans to expedited removal anyway.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \114\ ``Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal,'' Federal
    Register Volume 90 Number 15, January 24, 2025.
        \115\ ``Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for a Stay of Agency
    Action Under 5 U.S.C.  705 to Preserve Status and Rights,'' Case No.
    1:25-cv-0872, July 1, 2025.
        \116\ 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) (2025).
        \117\ 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(F) (2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4. Divert resources from more important law enforcement agencies.--
            The Trump administration is redirecting up to Border Patrol,
            Homeland Security Investigations, up to 80 percent of the ATF
            agents, 25 percent of the DEA, thousands of FBI agents, and
            many other criminal law enforcement officers away from their
            criminal investigations to focus on low-level immigration
            enforcement.\118\ These cases include human trafficking, child
            exploitation, cyber crime, weapons export controls,
            intellectual property theft, and drugs. DEA admits its agents
            don't know how to handle immigration enforcement,\119\ and last
            month, the FBI decided it needed some of those terrorism
            investigators after all, effectively admitting it had
            irresponsibly compromised national security.\120\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \118\ Brad Heath et al., ``Exclusive: Thousands of agents diverted
    to Trump immigration crackdown,'' Reuters, March 22, 2025.
        \119\ Shelby Bremer, ``DEA special agent in charge of San Diego
    discusses immigration, US-Mexico border,'' NBC7 San Diego, March 8,
    2025.
        \120\ Ken Dilanian and Julia Ainsley, ``FBI returning agents to
    counterterrorism work after diverting them to immigration,'' NBC News,
    June 24, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      the committee should investigate president trump's unconstitutional
                                    actions.
        Although President Biden's use of parole was unquestionably lawful,
    President Trump has been involved in serious violations of the U.S.
    Constitution since the very first day of his presidency. President
    Trump is now attacking the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth,
    and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and the right of habeas
    corpus. The committee has a responsibility to investigate these and
    other abuses.
       President Trump declares that he is above U.S. law.--On his
            first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order
            that purports to allow him to suspend all U.S. immigration
            laws, which would deny due process to those accused of entering
            the country illegally.\121\ He states that he has ``inherent
            powers to control the borders of the United States'' that
            supersede U.S. immigration law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \121\ President Donald J. Trump, ``Guaranteeing the States
    Protection Against Invasion,'' January 20, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump asserts the power to suspend the First
            Amendment.--The Trump administration has repeatedly detained
            individuals, including lawful permanent residents, for
            exercising their free speech rights in the United States.\122\
            The Government has been clear that these actions were not
            connected to any criminal acts,\123\ and it has also arrested
            students for coauthoring opinion articles criticizing a foreign
            country's military actions, such as Fulbright scholar Rumeysa
            Ozturk from Tufts University.\124\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \122\ Bill Hutchinson, ``What we know about the foreign college
    students targeted for deportation,'' ABC News, April 6, 2025.
        \123\ Gabe Kaminsky, Madeleine Rowley, and Maya Sulkin, ``The ICE
    Detention of a Columbia Student is Just the Beginning,'' The Free
    Press, March 10, 2025; Michael Martin, Destinee Adams, ``DHS official
    defends Mahmoud Khalil arrest, but offers few details on why it
    happened,'' Morning Edition on NPR, March 13, 2025.
        \124\ Molly Farrar, ``Tufts student detained by ICE releases
    statement while lawyers argue jurisdiction,'' Boston.com, April 3,
    2025; John Hudson, ``No evidence linking Tufts student to antisemitism
    or terrorism, State Dept. office found,'' Washington Post, April 13,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump asserts the power to deny U.S.-born
            Americans their citizenship.--On his first day in office,
            President Trump declared that Americans born in the United
            States to people without legal permanent resident status were
            not U.S. citizens--in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of
            the U.S. Constitution.\125\ Fortunately, courts have
            temporarily blocked this unconstitutional action.\126\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \125\ President Donald J. Trump, ``Protecting the Meaning and Value
    of American Citizenship,'' January 20, 2025.
        \126\ Nate Raymond, ``Court hands Trump third appellate loss in
    birthright citizenship battle,'' Reuters, March 11, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump is violating the 4th Amendment by engaging
            in blatant illegal profiling.--White House Deputy Chief of
            Staff Stephen Miller has ordered ICE agents not to ``develop
            target lists of immigrants suspected of being in the U.S.
            illegally'' and to ``just go out there and arrest illegal
            aliens'' by targeting people perceived to be illegal
            immigrants.\127\ White House immigration czar Tom Homan has
            said agents will use ``occupation, location, physical
            appearance,'' and refusal to speak with agents to detain
            people--none of which, separately or together, imply that
            someone is in the country illegally.\128\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \127\ Elizabeth Findell et al., ``The White House Marching Orders
    That Sparked the L.A. Migrant Crackdown,'' Wall Street Journal, June 9,
    2025.
        \128\ Aaron Rupar (@atrupar), ``Homan: `People need to understand
    ICE officers and Border Patrol don't need probable cause to walk up to
    somebody, briefly detain them, and question them . . . based on their
    physical appearance,' '' X post, July 11, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Agents are arresting 1,100 percent more people with
                criminal convictions on the streets than during the first
                Trump administration in 2017, nearly 4,000 per week--
                impossible without illegal profiling.\129\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \129\ David J. Bier, ``ICE Is Arresting 1,100 Percent More
    Noncriminals on the Streets Than in 2017,'' Cato at Liberty (blog),
    June 24, 2025.

         Agents pepper-sprayed and tackled a father of 3 Marines
                because, according to Border Patrol's own account, he
                ``refused to answer questions'' after agents stopped to
                interrogate him as he did yardwork.\130\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \130\ Julia Ornedo, ``Border Patrol Agents Brutally Detain Santa
    Ana Landscaper,'' YahooNews.com, June 23, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Agents tackled a man, and then, when he told them in
                English that he was a U.S. citizen, they left.\131\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \131\ Republicans Against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump), ``ICE agents in
    tactical gear chase down and tackle a U.S. citizen in L.A. . . . ,'' X
    post, June 21, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         A U.S. citizen man working at a car wash was arrested and
                transferred off-site, despite providing identification and
                claiming U.S. citizenship.\132\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \132\ ``Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Applications For
    Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding
    Preliminary Injunction,'' Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, July 11,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Border Patrol carried out an operation that involved
                profiling Hispanic farm workers--something not disputed by
                Border Patrol--and one court found that these stops are
                likely violating the 4th Amendment of the
                Constitution.\133\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \133\ ``Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class
    Certification and Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary
    Injunction,'' Case No. 1:25-cv-00246 JKLT CDB, April 29, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Border Patrol and ICE conducted those same operations in
                Los Angeles, and another court has blocked them.\134\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \134\ ``Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Applications For
    Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding
    Preliminary Injunction,'' Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, July 11,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         DHS claims it is not conducting any profiling operations,
                but it is still appealing the ruling that blocks it from
                doing so.\135\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \135\ Rachel Scully, ``Noem on blocked ICE operations ruling:
    Judges are `getting too political','' The Hill, July 13, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       DHS is detaining parolees, including children, in inhumane
            and unconstitutional conditions.--It is unconstitutional to
            detain civil immigration detainees in conditions that violate
            the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution or are worse than
            those for criminal detainees under the Fifth Amendment to the
            Constitution.\136\ At the end of June, ICE was detaining 57,861
            individuals, even though Congress had only appropriated money
            to detain 41,500.\137\ ICE was forcing people to sleep on
            floors.\138\ At least 13 people have died in ICE facilities
            this year through July, already exceeding the total for fiscal
            year 2024.\139\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \136\ Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896); Jones v.
    Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,
    690 (2001); E.D. v. Sharkey, 928 F.3d 299, 306-07 (3d Cir. 2019)
        \137\ Julia Ainsley and Laura Strickler, ``Trump's immigration
    enforcement record so far: High arrests, low deportations,'' NBC News,
    July 10, 2025.
        \138\ Douglas MacMillan, ``Immigrants forced to sleep on floors at
    overwhelmed ICE detention centers,'' Washington Post, April 20, 2025.
        \139\ Marina Dunbar, ``Two more ICE deaths put US on track for one
    of deadliest years in immigration detention,'' The Guardian, June 30,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Here is one detainee's description: ``There was one toilet
                for 35 to 40 men, who had no privacy when using it, he
                said. They slept on the concrete floor in head-by-toe
                formation with aluminum blankets to cover them. He lost 7
                pounds in 6 days, he said, because the food was poor and
                the portions tiny. ``It was so bad,'' he said, ``I used
                water to drink it down.'' Mr. Gomes said he was not able to
                shower or change his clothes the entire time he was
                there.''\140\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \140\ Miriam Jordan and Jazmine Ulloa, ``Concerns Grow Over Dire
    Conditions in Immigrant Detention,'' New York Times, June 28, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         One court summarized: One ICE facility ``does not have
                beds, showers, or medical facilities. Individuals are being
                kept in small, windowless rooms with dozens or more other
                detainees in cramped quarters. Some rooms are so cramped
                that detainees cannot sit, let alone lie down, for hours at
                a time.''\141\ A person with cancer was being denied access
                to chemotherapy there.\142\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \141\ ``Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Applications For
    Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding
    Preliminary Injunction,'' Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, July 11,
    2025.
        \142\ ``Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Applications For
    Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding
    Preliminary Injunction,'' Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, July 11,
    2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump is attempting to coerce State governments
            unconstitutionally.--He has issued an Executive Order that
            tries to block all Federal grants to municipalities that do not
            allocate their resources to support ICE.\143\ His
            administration has sued Illinois and Chicago for refusing to
            cooperate with ICE, asserting that the President can mandate
            that they do what he wants.\144\ His Department of Justice
            (DOJ) has issued a memorandum requiring criminal investigations
            into State and local officials who fail to cooperate with the
            Federal Government.\145\ These actions clearly violate the
            Tenth Amendment, which protects States from being commandeered
            by the Federal Government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \143\ See Sec. 17: ``Executive Order of January 20, 2025,
    Protecting the American People Against Invasion.''
        \144\ Joel Rose, ``Justice Department sues Chicago and Illinois
    over `sanctuary' laws,'' NPR.org, February 6, 2025.
        \145\ ``Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives,'' Office of the Attorney
    General, February 5, 2025; Cities of Chelsea and Somerville v. Donald
    J. Trump et al, Case No. 25-10442 (Mass. Dist. Ct 2025)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump asserts the power to suspend due process.--
            President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove
            Venezuelans and Salvadorans without allowing them the
            opportunity to contest their removability in immigration court.
            This invocation is clearly illegal because the Alien Enemies
            Act only applies during a time of war, and the United States is
            not at war--according to his own CIA director.\146\ The Supreme
            Court has already ruled that these deportations violated the
            Constitutional due process rights of the removed
            individuals.\147\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \146\ Rebecca Beitsch, ``CIA director: `No assessment' US at war
    with Venezuela amid use of Alien Enemies Act,'' The Hill, March 26,
    2025.
        \147\ Trump et al. v. J.G.G. et al., 604 U.S. __ (2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump asserts the power to order imprisonment
            without charge or trial.--President Trump's purpose for
            invoking the Alien Enemies Act was to rendition people--
            including some with lawful statuses in the United States--to a
            mega-prison in El Salvador. For instance, the administration
            deported a refugee who was vetted abroad and legally entered
            the United States under the refugee program to an El Salvador
            prison without charging them with a crime.\148\ Ordering
            someone imprisoned without charge, trial, and conviction is
            unconstitutional.\149\ The Government admits that ``many''
            (probably most) of the individuals sentenced to prison in El
            Salvador at U.S. taxpayer expense have not committed any crime
            anywhere.\150\ The administration claims that they are members
            of a Venezuelan gang based on their tattoos, but Venezuelan
            gang experts and U.S. Government agencies have repeatedly
            debunked the idea that Venezuelan gangs have distinctive
            tattoos.\151\ Even if they did, that would not remove the
            Constitution's requirement that no person can be subject to
            punishment without due process.\152\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \148\ Veronica Egui Brito, ``Despite refugee status in the U.S.,
    young Venezuelan was deported to Salvadoran prison,'' Miami Herald,
    March 21, 2025.
        \149\ Ilya Somin, ``How Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
    Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,'' Reason, March
    19, 2025.
        \150\ Veronica Egui Brito and Syra Ortiz Blanes, ``Administration:
    `Many' Venezuelans sent to El Salvador had no U.S. criminal record,''
    Miami Herald, March 19, 2025.
        \151\ Veronica Egui Brito and Syra Ortiz Blanes, ``Administration:
    `Many' Venezuelans sent to El Salvador had no U.S. criminal record,''
    Miami Herald, March 19, 2025.
        \152\ Ilya Somin, ``How Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
    Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,'' Reason, March
    19, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       President Trump ignores court orders.--When President Trump
            was caught trying to illegally remove people under the Alien
            Enemies Act, the judge ordered DHS to stop the removals and
            return flights to the United States.\153\ DHS chose to ignore
            him instead.\154\ In a second case, the administration
            illegally deported a Salvadoran man to El Salvador, even though
            he had been granted withholding of removal by an immigration
            judge barring his removal to El Salvador. A court ordered DHS
            to bring him back, but the administration not only refused to
            comply--it also placed on leave the U.S. attorney who admitted
            the error in court.\155\ This has become part of a pattern
            where the administration is ordered by courts to stop illegal
            actions, but it refuses to comply until it is convenient for
            them or after they are caught violating the orders.\156\
            Congress should investigate these violations and determine
            further ways to force the Executive branch to follow court
            orders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \153\ Marc Caputo, ``Exclusive: How the White House ignored a
    judge's order to turn back deportation flights,'' Axios, March 16,
    2025.
        \154\ Alison Durkee, ``Judge Boasberg Thinks There's `Fair
    Likelihood' Trump Administration Violated Court Order With El Salvador
    Flights,'' Forbes, April 3, 2025.
        \155\ Kyle Cheney, Hassan Ali Kanu, and Josh Gerstein, ``Judge
    reaffirms order to return Maryland man erroneously deported to El
    Salvador,'' Politico, April 6, 2025.
        \156\ David Nakamura, ``Trump administration says it could take
    months to resume refugee admissions,'' Washington Post, March 11, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Immigrants--especially legal immigrants--make the United States a
    wealthier, freer, and safer place to live. The U.S. Government should
    encourage people to immigrate to the United States legally, including
    through parole. Parole has been an essential component of America's
    legal immigration system for over 7 decades, and should remain so in
    the future.

        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Bier.
        Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their
    5 minutes of questioning. Additional rounds of questioning may
    be called after all Members have been recognized. I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Dr. Camarota, you talked about the cost. I appreciate that.
    Dr. Camarota, what do you think is the total cost? You know,
    the last statement is forgetting that we are debt-loading upon
    American children right now. Every expense that we are
    incurring is taking from the next generation of U.S. citizens.
        So what is that true cost that the One Big Beautiful Bill
    that did address some things is not addressing, specifically
    the Earned Income Tax Credit? Of the 3 million illegals that
    came through under this process, what do you think that cost is
    per individual, multiplied by 3 million, specific to the Earned
    Income Tax Credit?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes. So it has to run into the few billions.
    About 40 percent, based on the calculation the Census Bureau
    has done of recent arrivals from those countries, are eligible
    having come low enough. We would assume, since they have work
    authorization and have valid Social Security numbers, they can
    get that. So that number has to run into the billions. Maybe 2
    or 3 billion in the value of the Earned Income Tax Credit, but
    we don't have a specific number.
        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you.
        Dr, Cuccinelli, you have explained a lot about the process.
    You've got a lot of years of experience. We've heard from
    senior officials, like the current CBP Chief, Rodney Scott,
    that when he was Border Patrol--at Border Patrol, he paroled
    only a handful of individuals during his entire career.
        How many people historically have been paroled into the
    country every year?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Prior to the Biden administration, you
    would be talking in the thousands, as a general matter.
        Mr. Brecheen. That's your pronouncement of 3,000 as a
    good----
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes. Again, it also--it makes irrelevant
    programmatic parole. But it also makes the leadership actually
    value the slots, so that you really do look for real
    indisputable humanitarian benefit, indisputable significant--or
    humanitarian reasons, indisputable public benefit.
        I would note, you know, when I hear an example like
    Congressman Correa's example of the father of 3 Marines, that's
    a very sympathetic case. I would respectfully suggest that you
    preserve parole for those cases. When you use it willy nilly
    for 2, 3 million people whom you barely vet, if at all, you
    don't end up with that quality of story 2 and 3 million times.
        So if you want to just bring in those good cases, I'll call
    them, then you need to restrict the availability of parole to
    the Secretary and to every administration so that they're
    forced to use it for quality cases.
        Mr. Brecheen. Let me shift gears. Relative to what happens
    once parole is provided, that designation, what happens to that
    individual in terms of the time period?
        They have been told--some are told to show up to an ICE
    office, ICE agent to be able to be given a notice to appear in
    immigration court. But many of these ICE offices are so backed
    up, by our understanding, they may be as long as 10 years.
    Again, some of these are 1 year, 2 year, in terms of the time
    period that should be allowable, can turn into many multiplied
    past that.
        That notice to appear, if it goes to the nth degree----
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Right.
        Mr. Brecheen [continuing]. How long does it take for these
    people to otherwise be processed, then final adjudication?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. So Congressman Correa's other comment about
    how this needs to fit into the bigger immigration reform
    question falls right into your question here. So one thing that
    no one has talked about is how all of these otherwise illegal
    entrants clog the system for people who are playing by the
    rules, who have played by the rules all along.
        America is the most generous immigration country in the
    world. That's the legal portion of what we do. That is clogged
    up. That's where that 10-year back-up number comes from. The
    estimates, again, are different. Presumably, some of the money
    from the bill that just passed will be used to get more judges,
    more lawyers, et cetera, and to move those cases faster.
        But in the Biden administration, hey, come see us at the
    ICE office, they knew very well that a large portion of those
    folks would never show up and, in fact, they didn't. So now we
    need to go find them just to end their parole and put them back
    in the status they were previously in and deport them where
    appropriate.
        Mr. Brecheen. As it's commonly said, notice to appear turns
    into notice to disappear.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Thanedar for 5 minutes for
    questions he may have.
        Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Chair.
        We have a video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Thanedar. Looks like ICE is out of control. The video
    we just watched is shocking. Armed and masked men with guns are
    roaming American streets, chasing down, tackling, and arresting
    people. We've seen Federal officers raid Home Depot parking
    lots, swarm the fields where our crops are being harvested, and
    march across MacArthur Park in Los Angeles like a hostile
    military through a battlefield.
        Mr. Bier, based on your research and expertise, who do ICE
    and other Federal officers appear to be targeting, and on what
    basis are they targeting people?
        Mr. Bier. Well, it's obvious that they're engaged in
    illegal profiling. We know from reports that White House Deputy
    Chief Stephen Miller ordered that they stop developing target
    lists of criminals and to go out to the streets and just start
    arresting people. Tom Holman, again, White House czar on
    immigration, says they're doing profiling, they're going out,
    they're saying you're a day laborer, we're going to detain you,
    even in absence of any reason to believe that you are in
    violation of any law.
        Mr. Thanedar. Mr. Bier, Donald Trump claimed that he wanted
    to deport the worst of the worst criminals. If that is the
    case, why is Trump targeting people in Home Depot parking lots
    and agricultural fields and public parks? Are they all
    criminals?
        Mr. Bier. There aren't enough criminal immigrants in the
    United States for him to fill his deportation quotas and get
    his millions of deportations that he promised people. So what
    they are doing is they're going out into the streets and
    profiling people. If you look at where all of the increase and
    arrests has come from, it's come from noncriminals on the
    streets. That means outside of a prison or a jail, they're
    going out and they're profiling people and they're arresting
    them. That is resulting in all of the arrests that we're seeing
    and the conflict and chaos in the streets.
        Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Bier.
        It's not just that Donald Trump's agents are
    unconstitutionally and immorally profiling people based on the
    color of their skin, it's also that no one really knows whether
    they are encountering a Federal officer or a thug. We have seen
    videos over and over again showing supposed Federal officers
    with their faces covered by masks, scarves, and fabric.
        Mr. Bier, does it concern you that masked officers are
    patrolling communities, refusing to identify themselves, and
    arresting people on the street? Does this make our country
    safer?
        Mr. Bier. Absolutely not. It makes the situation less safe
    for both the officer and the person that they're interacting
    with in the public, because they don't know--the person in the
    public doesn't know whether they're a officer or not. They
    could be a criminal. They could be another person. That leads
    to more conflict.
        I have a long list of cases around the country of people
    who posed as ICE officers to commit crimes. Just this year,
    just in the last year, this is happening. So there are good
    reasons for people to be careful when someone shows up with a
    mask and says, do what I tell you to do.
        Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Bier. Thank you for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman yields.
        I now recognize Representative Guest for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cuccinelli, you mentioned in both your opening
    statement and your written testimony the applicable law that
    must be applied by DHS, by the Secretary when parole is
    considered. The IIRIRA passed with overwhelming bipartisan
    support in 1996, signed into law by then President Bill
    Clinton, a Democrat. Again, easily passed the House, easily
    passed the Senate. As I look at that law, it seems to me to set
    forth both the process and the standard. The process being that
    it must be applied on a case-by-case basis.
        Is there any part of the IIRIRA that allows the law to be
    applied in a situation of mass parole? Can the Secretary just
    decide I'm not going to follow the case-by-case, I'm just going
    to set forth these categories of people; and if you fall into
    this broad category of individuals, then I am automatically
    going to assume that the process portion of that has been met?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. No is the answer. The statute----
        Mr. Guest. It's clearly no, correct?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes.
        Mr. Guest. It's not even close.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. There's no statute----
        Mr. Guest. There's no ambiguity as to what the statute
    says?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. That this is the only statute that contains
    any aspect of the parole authority. There aren't multiple
    statutes to look at as we sometimes see in the immigration
    space. This is it.
        Mr. Guest. So the first part, so forth, is the process.
    Then the standard says it must be on the basis of urgent
    humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
        Are there any more standards that the Secretary can choose
    to apply?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. No.
        Mr. Guest. So you mention there in some of the questioning
    by Chairman Brecheen, you mention somewhat in your witness
    statement too, that, historically, prior to Joe Biden and
    Kamala Harris and Secretary Mayorkas coming into office and
    abusing this parole system, that, historically, on an annual
    basis, the number of individuals who were granted parole were
    in the low thousands. Is that what I heard from you, Mr.
    Cuccinelli?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. You did. There have been exceptions, but
    they tend to reach back before 1996.
        Mr. Guest. You even mentioned a range in your written
    statement of 3-5,000. Can you expand on where that came from?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. That's my suggestion as to how to bring
    this system under control. If you are going to have
    administrations that sometimes will simply not abide by the
    plain language of the statute Congress passed, then you need to
    put in harder, more objective limitations in place.
        If the alternative is complete, unfettered discretion,
    which is how the Biden administration operated, or zero, there
    are reasons both of those are bad. So, thus, my suggestion in
    the 3-5,000 range of putting a hard cap on an annual basis on
    the Secretary of Homeland Security on how many people they can
    let in using this parole authority.
        Mr. Guest. So when you say 3-5,000, that's annually,
    correct?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes.
        Mr. Guest. That's 3-5,000 a year.
        I did some rough math. I took into account, said that there
    were 3 million people that came in and were paroled during that
    4-year period. Divided by the number of days over 4 years, and
    at 3 million, that's over 2,000 individuals a day----
        Mr. Cuccinelli. A day.
        Mr. Guest [continuing]. Each and every day, Monday through
    Friday, Saturday and Sunday, Christmas, New Year's, July 4th,
    that were paroled in the country.
        Then giving the administration just the benefit of the
    doubt at 2\1/2\ million. I did that math. That's 1,700
    individuals a day, each and every day, for 4 years.
        So what you're telling me is that we should be shooting for
    a range of somewhere between 3- and 5---and let's just double
    that number just for argument's sake. Maybe we say 10-. Maybe
    we say 20,000 is a good number. But we in a given week were
    doing over 14,000 individuals in a given week.
        So, Mr. Cuccinelli, let me ask you, as my time draws near,
    based on what you know about the law, the standards and the
    process that must be met, did Secretary Mayorkas, did the
    Department of Homeland Security under the prior administration,
    did they abide by the law or did they abuse the law that was
    given to them by Congress?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. They rather obviously abused the law.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman yields.
        I now recognize Representative Correa for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cuccinelli, we're going to see if this gentleman can
    get parole in place, this father of these 3 American Marines.
        You mentioned we are the most generous Nation. We are, but
    we also benefit tremendously from immigrants in any way
    possible. Einstein--well, all of us here are immigrants of this
    country. We made this country strong.
        But, Mr. Bier, we hear a lot about the costs. We hear a lot
    about the cost benefits. I've been hearing this argument 30, 40
    years. The cost. Are there any benefits to immigrants working
    in this country?
        Mr. Bier. Of course there are huge benefits to immigration.
    Look, without immigrants coming into the United States right
    now, our labor force would be in decline, and that would have
    devastating----
        Mr. Correa. Will it be another Japan?
        Mr. Bier. Say that again?
        Mr. Correa. Will it be another Japan?
        Mr. Bier. Yes. Look, you can survive. Japan hasn't gone
    away, but they're poor as a consequence. So if you want to have
    a vibrant society, you want to have as many people contributing
    to it as possible, that's what the Founding Fathers understood
    from the beginning is that people are the ultimate resource,
    they are a benefit to the country, there are economies of scale
    that happen when you have more people that come in. Those
    people end up doing more specialized labor, which improves
    living standards for everyone in the United States.
        Mr. Correa. You know, I think about people trying to get
    into this country to work and to draw--I don't think it's as
    much welfare at it is a good job. You know what, I think--I
    would propose that the easy way to solve a lot of this is
    penalize the employers. I mean, put them in jail. Come down on
    them hard. Once you stop hiring folks, guess what? That job
    magnet goes away, right?
        I mean, you know, the last 2 or 3 years, you had people
    from Central America walk across the border, it would take them
    $8-10,000 paying somebody to get them to the border, maybe
    across. So my proposition is it's the jobs. This is why people
    come. This is why my grandfather came to build the railroads in
    1900. It was a job.
        Go ahead, Mr. Bier.
        Mr. Bier. Well, look at the immigration system. We have a
    guest worker program for lesser-skilled agricultural jobs but
    only if they're seasonal and temporary. We have one for
    nonagricultural jobs that has a low cap that's also only if
    it's seasonal or temporary.
        Look at all of the people who've come in over the last few
    years. Where did they go? They went into the year-round
    permanent jobs in agriculture, in manufacturing, in poultry
    processing, and other areas where there is no visa. There's no
    way for them to come legally.
        So, yes, we need a legal way. Parole is one of those ways.
    We're hearing from the committee they don't like parole. I
    don't know why they don't like parole, but they don't like
    parole, so we'll call it something else. Call it a visa. Let
    them apply in a consulate. Let them come in legally. Let them
    contribute to this country. They don't need welfare, as you
    said, so let them contribute.
        I don't get it. What's the problem? We can solve this with
    a legal----
        Mr. Correa. I'm happy to work with my colleagues across the
    aisle to look at this cost benefit. I always ask myself what's
    the value of being energy independent in terms of national
    defense. Everybody here wants to be energy independent. What's
    the value of being food independent on an international basis?
    You want to import your food, be dependent on somebody else, or
    you good exporting it? Those are the issues I think we have to
    look at strategically, where do you want to go as a country.
        But let's be honest about this cost benefits. I mentioned
    some of the articles, you know, Wisconsin, other parts. I just
    saw a map, the southern States of this country, heavily reliant
    on ag immigrant work force, undocumented. So all I'm saying,
    let's just be honest and let that drive policy. Facts.
        Go ahead.
        Mr. Bier. Well, you're absolutely right. If you come back
    to this issue of parole, we keep hearing again and again how
    they were otherwise inadmissible or otherwise illegal. Look,
    everyone is otherwise illegal except for their status. So these
    people have status. They're already here. They're already
    contributing to this country. Why would we rip up their status,
    create all this----
        Mr. Correa. If they have a criminal record? If they have a
    criminal record?
        Mr. Bier. No criminal record. They're vetted.
        Mr. Correa. But if they do, then you're not in. But if
    you're a hard-working person, then you're in.
        Mr. Bier. Exactly.
        Mr. Correa. Possible.
        Mr. Chairman, in the last seconds, I ask unanimous consent
    to insert into the record a number of articles describing
    contributions of immigrants to Social Security, American ag,
    the dairy industry, the labor force in general. These articles
    essentially highlight how these industries are dependent on
    undocumented economic labor force.
        Mr. Brecheen. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
              Articles Submitted by Ranking Member J. Luis Correa
     trump's deportation efforts could impact these industries and states
                       that rely on undocumented workers
    June 19, 2025/11:30 AM EDT/CBS News
        The Trump administration resumed more aggressive workplace
    immigration enforcement earlier this week after briefly pausing arrests
    at farms, hotels and restaurants last week.
        ``The message is clear now that we're going to continue doing
    worksite enforcement operations, even on farms and hotels, but based on
    a prioritized basis,'' President Trump's ``border czar,'' Tom Homan,
    said Thursday, adding, ``Criminals come first.''
        The White House argues that undocumented workers drive down wages
    and take jobs from American-born workers. But some farming and
    hospitality industry leaders have warned the administration that large-
    scale deportations could disrupt operations, as many of these workers
    fill essential jobs that are difficult to replace with domestic labor.
        Undocumented immigrants make up a sizable slice of the workforce in
    not only hospitality and farming but also construction and
    manufacturing.
        Additionally, undocumented workers are spread across the U.S.,
    including in blue States like California and New Jersey, and in States
    that supported Mr. Trump in the 2024 election, like Texas, Florida, and
    Nevada, which have some of the biggest shares of unauthorized workers.
        Here's a closer look at the industries most dependent on
    undocumented workers and the States where these workers are
    concentrated.
    Undocumented workers in key industries
        The Center for Immigration Studies estimated in 2024 that there are
    about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
        The most recent detailed breakdown by sector and State comes from
    the Pew Research Center's analysis of Census data from 2022. According
    to that study, there were an estimated 8.3 million undocumented
    immigrants who were part of the workforce, out of 11 million total in
    the country at that time.
        These workers made up 4.8 percent of the overall U.S. workforce,
    according to Pew, but they were a much larger share of the workforce in
    several essential industries.
        The numbers were even higher depending on the occupation. One-third
    of roofers and workers who install drywall and ceiling tiles were
    undocumented, as were a quarter of maids and housekeepers, and nearly
    one-fifth of brickmasons.
        Because the U.S. Census does not directly ask about legal status,
    the number of unauthorized immigrants and their participation in the
    workforce is inexact. Pew Research Center analyzed the American
    Community Survey from 2022, and Goldman Sachs produced similar
    estimates based on the 2023 version of the survey.
        The share of undocumented workers in a given industry may be even
    higher than estimates based on the Census. A survey by the Department
    of Agriculture from 2021 to 2022 found that 42 percent of 2,600 crop
    workers interviewed did not have work authorization.
        Industry leaders have said the renewed deportation push is making
    it harder to operate. American Farm Bureau Federation president Zippy
    Duvall expressed disappointment on Tuesday in the administration's
    decision to restart immigration arrests on farms, forecasting that it
    could lead to inflated food prices for American consumers.
        ``Unfortunately, domestic workers do not apply for farm jobs,
    despite aggressive hiring efforts. Without farm workers, vegetables
    will be left in the fields, fruit will remain unpicked, and cows will
    go unmilked. The end result is a reduced food supply and higher grocery
    prices for all of America's families,'' Duvall said in a statement.
        Research also indicates that deportation can actually lead to fewer
    jobs for native-born workers. One study of the Obama Administration's
    Secure Communities program, which deported nearly half a million
    undocumented immigrants, estimated that for every 1 million people
    deported, the number of jobs held by U.S.-born people would be reduced
    by 88,000.
        ``You can think about foreign-born workers taking jobs like a
    construction worker or a dishwasher at a local restaurant, and then
    once people are in those jobs employers are also able to hire
    construction managers and waiters and waitresses. And those are jobs
    typically taken by U.S.-born workers,'' economist Chloe East, the
    study's author, told CBS News.
        Researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
    a Washington, DC.-based think tank, estimate that if all of the
    unauthorized workers in the country were deported, U.S. GDP could fall
    as much as 7.4 percent below baseline by 2028.
    Share of undocumented workers by State
        President Trump said in a recent post on social media that his
    administration would focus on deportation efforts in Democrat-led
    cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, which he characterized
    as the places where ``millions upon millions of illegal aliens
    reside.''
        But research indicates the undocumented population is spread across
    the country in both blue- and red-leaning States.
        Unauthorized immigrants make up the greatest share of both the
    population and workforce in Nevada and Texas--two States Mr. Trump won
    in 2024--where the Pew Research Center estimates over 8 percent of
    workers were undocumented as of 2022.
        In California, where immigration enforcement raids sparked protests
    last week, Pew estimated that as of 2022, 7.2 percent of the workforce
    was undocumented. In New York, the figure was about 5 percent.
        Texas Restaurant Association CEO and president Emily Williams
    Knight told CBS News that some restaurants in the State are
    experiencing staffing issues because workers are afraid to come to work
    amid the crackdown.
        ``You have to remember, if people stop going to work in
    restaurants, that means restaurants can't serve their community. That
    means the dollar that restaurants put into each community, for a dollar
    spent, goes away, and then those workers are also not spending,''
    Knight said.
        White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, ``While the President
    remains focused on immediately removing dangerous criminal illegal
    aliens from the country, including those given safe harbor in Democrat-
    run sanctuary cities, anyone who is here illegally is liable to be
    deported.''
        Jackson added, ``Any suggestion that enforcing immigration law will
    hurt the workforce misses the forest for the trees--there is no
    shortage of American minds and hands to grow our labor force.''
                                     ______

                     trump's mass deportation is backfiring
    Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN
    Published 7 o'clock AM EDT, Sun July 13, 2025
        CNN----President Donald Trump and his administration continue to
    bet big on the issue that, more than any other, appeared to help him
    win a second term in 2024: immigration.
        The administration and its allies have gleefully played up
    standoffs between Federal immigration agents and protesters, such as
    the one Thursday during a raid at a legal marijuana farm in Ventura
    County, California.
        And as Congressional Republicans were passing a very unpopular
    Trump agenda bill last month, Vice President JD Vance argued that its
    historic expansion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and new
    immigration enforcement provisions were so important that ``everything
    else'' was ``immaterial.''
        But this appears to be an increasingly bad bet for Trump and Co.
        It's looking more and more like Trump has botched an issue that, by
    all rights, should have been a great one for him. And ICE's actions
    appear to be a big part of that.
        The most recent polling on this comes from Gallup, where the
    findings are worse than those of any poll in Trump's second term.
        The nearly month-long survey conducted in June found Americans
    disapproved of Trump's handling of immigration by a wide margin: 62
    percent to 35 percent. And more than twice as many Americans strongly
    disapproved (45 percent) as strongly approved (21 percent).
        It also found nearly 7 in 10 independents disapproved.
        These are Trump's worst numbers on immigration yet. But the trend
    has clearly been downward--especially in high-quality polling like
    Gallup's.
        An NPR-PBS News-Marist College poll conducted late last month, for
    instance, showed 59 percent of independents disapproved of Trump on
    immigration. And a Quinnipiac University poll showed 66 percent of
    independents disapproved.
        Trump has managed to become this unpopular on immigration despite
    historic lows in border crossings. And the data suggest that's largely
    tied to deportations and ICE.
        To wit:
       59 percent overall and 66 percent of independents
            disapproved of Trump's handling of deportations, according to
            the Quinnipiac poll.
       56 percent overall and 64 percent of independents
            disapproved of the way ICE was doing its job, according to
            Quinnipiac.
       54 percent overall and 59 percent of independents said ICE
            has ``gone too far'' in enforcing immigration law, per the
            Marist poll. (Even 1 in 5 Republicans agreed.)
       Americans disapproved 54-45 percent of ICE conducting more
            raids to find undocumented immigrants at workplaces, according
            to a Pew Research Center poll last month.
        Americans also appear to disagree with some of the more heavy-
    handed aspects of the deportation program:
       They disapproved 55-43 percent of significantly increasing
            the number of facilities to hold immigrants being processed for
            deportation, per Pew--even as the Trump administration
            celebrates Florida's controversial new ``Alligator Alcatraz.''
       They said by a nearly 2-to-1 margin that it's
            ``unacceptable'' to deport an immigrant to a country other than
            their own, per Pew--another key part of the administration's
            efforts.
       They also disapproved, 61-37 percent, of deporting
            undocumented immigrants to a prison in El Salvador--the place
            where the administration sent hundreds without due process, in
            some cases in error (such as with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who has
            since been returned).
        There's a real question in all of this whether people care that
    much. They might disapprove of some of the more controversial aspects
    of Trump's deportations, but maybe it's not that important to them--and
    they might even like the ultimate results.
        That's the bet Trump seems to be making: that he can push forward
    on something his base really wants and possibly even tempt his
    political opponents to overreach by appearing to defend people who are
    in the country illegally.
        But at some point, the White House has got to look at these numbers
    and start worrying that its tactics are backfiring.
        Gallup shows the percentage of Americans who favor deporting all
    undocumented immigrants dropping from 47 percent last year during the
    2024 campaign down to 38 percent now that it's a reality Trump is
    pursuing.
        And all told, Trump's second term has actually led to the most
    sympathy for migrants on record in the 21st Century, per Gallup. Fully
    79 percent of Americans now say immigration is a ``good thing,''
    compared with 64 percent last year.
        The writing has been on the wall that Americans' support for mass
    deportation was subject to all kinds of caveats and provisos. But the
    administration appears to have ignored all that and run headlong into
    problems of its own creation.
                                     ______

                       Statement of Church World Service
                                   July 2025
        For nearly 80 years, Church World Service (CWS) has worked toward
    our vision of a world in which all people have food, voice, and a safe
    place to call home. As a global humanitarian organization, CWS
    represents 9 million people of faith across 14 faith-based
    organizations and denominations. Through refugee resettlement offices
    and affiliates, home study and post release services for children, and
    case management and integration support for newcomers, CWS equips
    people who have been uprooted from their homes and the American
    communities that welcome them with the resources they need to thrive.
    Across the country, we amplify the voices of immigrants and refugees to
    promote policies at all levels of government that support the shared
    flourishing of newcomers and welcoming communities.
                      history and use of parole authority
        For more than 70 years, parole has existed as a way for foreign
    nationals to travel to the United States for urgent humanitarian
    reasons or significant public benefit. Parole can facilitate an
    individual's travel to the United States for time-sensitive
    emergencies, like critical medical treatment or a relative's death. The
    U.S. Government also uses parole to respond to particular humanitarian
    crises, and it has been used repeatedly to facilitate the evacuations
    of allies and others at risk following the withdrawal of U.S. troops
    from war-torn regions. It was first used to support Hungarian refugees
    in 1956 under President Eisenhower and went on to support people from
    Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Soviet Union in the 1980's.
        Parole allows people to temporarily enter or remain in the United
    States for specified reasons. Recent humanitarian parole programs, such
    as Operation Allies Welcome for Afghans, Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), the
    Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV),
    and CBP One, allow the U.S. Government to quickly respond to emerging
    crises and support people fleeing danger. While in the United States,
    beneficiaries are able to legally live and work. Every humanitarian
    parole application approved through these programs was assessed on a
    case-by-case basis as required by law. Many parolees are required to
    pay for their travel to the United States and have a U.S.-based sponsor
    committed to financially supporting them until they gain employment.
    Through case management and legal services, CWS has assisted Afghans
    fleeing the Taliban regime, CHNV nationals reuniting with relatives,
    Central American children joining their parents in the United States,
    and people seeking safety at the U.S.-Mexico border through CBP One.
        In recent years, these programs were the primary reason for the
    decline in irregular crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border and in some
    cases redirected people from traveling through the Southern Border
    altogether. For example, irregular crossings of CHNV nationals fell by
    90 percent, and the number of Ukrainians arriving at the Southern
    Border fell by 99.9 percent after their respective programs were
    created. A Southern District of Texas judge allowed the CHNV program to
    continue, finding that Texas and the other States challenging the
    program benefited from it and were spending less money, not more.
                 economic and social contributions of parolees
        Parolees have helped meet key labor needs in several industries,
    from construction and hospitality to manufacturing and health services.
    There are an estimated 740,000 individuals who entered the United
    States via parole between 2021 and 2024 who are now working in the U.S.
    labor force. Labor unions representing workers across a wide array of
    industries--the AFL-CIO, SEIU, UFCW, UAW, UNITE HERE, IUPAT, IUE-CWA,
    and BAG--filed a brief in support of parole and described the Trump
    administration's blanket revocation of CHNV parole status as an
    ``unprecedented disruption'' to the U.S. workforce. The revocation of
    this parole program is expected to exacerbate labor shortages, forcing
    U.S. workers to perform more work for longer hours posing health and
    safety risks and resulting in disruptions to production. In another
    brief submitted by 15 States and the District of Columbia, States argue
    that immigrants are key contributors to their communities and that
    ending parole programs will result in family separations and harm State
    and local workforces.
        Despite the humanitarian parole programs' social and economic
    successes for beneficiaries and American communities alike, the Trump
    administration is attempting to mass terminate many of them. People who
    entered the United States via these programs did so by submitting an
    application, undergoing vetting, and receiving approval by the U.S.
    Government to temporarily live and work here. Now, parolees are losing
    work authorization and being targeted for arrest and deportation--even
    when they have on-going immigration proceedings or applications
    pending. Sponsors--the majority of whom are family members--are seeing
    their loved ones unexpectedly torn away from them and forced to return
    to unstable situations.
        Parole programs are even more necessary today to facilitate orderly
    and humane migration as more people than ever experience forced
    displacement as a result of conflict, climate disaster, and persecution
    around the world. As a faith-based organization providing relief from
    hunger, poverty, displacement, and disaster, CWS recognizes that our
    collective flourishing depends on the safety and security of everyone.
    We urge Members of Congress to honor the humanity and dignity of all
    people and recognize the contributions that our new neighbors have
    brought to our communities. Congress has a moral imperative to support
    measures rooted in collective concern for newcomers and the communities
    that welcome them.
                                     ______

                      Statement of Refugees International
                        July 15, 2025 at 2 o'clock PM ET
        Refugees International is an independent, non-profit organization
    that advocates for lifesaving assistance, human rights, and protection
    for forcibly displaced people around the world. Refugees International
    Director for the Americas and Europe, Dr. Yael Schacher has written
    extensively on the history of parole authority and of parole
    programs.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Yael Schacher, ``Supplementary Protection Pathways to the
    United States: Lessons from the Past for Today's Humanitarian Parole
    Policies,'' Refugees lnternanational, November 2022 https://
    www.refuqeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/supplementary-protection-
    pathways-to-the-united-states-lessons-from-the-past-for-todays-
    humanitarian-parole-policies/. Yael Schacher, expert declaration on the
    history of parole, June 2023, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/
    66754800/175/76/state-of-texas-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/.
    Yael Schacher, amicus brief on the history of parole, October 2023,
    https://d3jwam0i5codb7.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/
    177116362608.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This history shows that parole has been used extensively by
    Democratic and Republican administrations. Both before and after
    Congress passed the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility
    Act of 1996, immigration agencies vetted each individual who came
    through parole programs--including Cubans paroled in the 1960's and
    people from Vietnam in the 1980's and 1990's. Programs allow certain
    populations to access assessment for parole, but individuals are still
    assessed case-by-case. The Trump administration acknowledges this
    reality--pointing to the great amount of work done by CBP officers to
    vet each person who arrived at U.S. airports through the CHNV program.
    But, at the same time, it has terminated CHNV parole en-masse and begun
    to expeditiously remove people who came here legally through ports of
    entry and have ongoing immigration proceedings and applications
    pending.
        Indeed, the Trump administration is turning parole policy on its
    head. Parole is intended to facilitate the entrance of foreign
    nationals for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
    benefit--while the Trump administration's mass termination of parole is
    inhumane and detrimental to U.S. interests, sowing chaos across U.S.
    communities and disruption to critical industries that power the
    American economy.
        Like past parole programs, the CHNV program required a sponsor to
    initiate an application and financially support the parolee. Current
    parolees have also applied for work authorization, are supporting
    themselves, and contributing to the strength of the U.S. economy. A
    Summer 2024 Refugees International survey of over 420 adults paroled
    into the United States through the CHNV program found that over 95
    percent of them were working, most prominently in the service and
    caregiving sectors but also significantly in construction and
    manufacturing. Terminating the parole of everyone in the CHNV program
    means termination of their associated work authorization as well,
    leaving employers empty-handed. The survey also found that a large
    majority of sponsors of parolees were U.S. citizens or permanent
    residents, with a majority being relatives. Revoking parole will rip
    U.S. families apart.\2\ It is also inhumane to ask Haitian CHNV
    parolees--a majority of whom have outstanding applications for TPS and
    asylum that USCIS stopped processing under this administration--to
    return to a country much more insecure than when they left.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Yael Schacher, ``Setting the Record Straight on CHNV,''
    Refugees International, March 28, 2025, https://
    www.refugeesinternational.org/perspectives-and-commentaries/setting-
    the-record-straight-on-chnv.
        \3\ Parolee Immigrant Benefit Tracking, Exhibit 3 in Plaintiff's
    Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, June 16, 2025, Doe et al. v. Noem
    et al., 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.) https://drive.google.com/file/d/
    1zzHUWVOGa7Z04orBquee3yLYHliep7nR/view.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The published testimony by the witnesses at today's hearing are
    full of unfounded attacks against people who have come into the United
    States on parole. The testimony about the fiscal impact of parolees is
    speculative because data on their educational attainment is
    unavailable. The testimony also concedes that recent arrivals from
    Haiti, the nationality group that most benefited from the CHNV program,
    do not use welfare in larger numbers than those born in the United
    States. What we do know definitively, as several labor unions described
    in a brief about CHNV to the Supreme Court, is that abrupt termination
    of parolees' work authorization will disrupt production across several
    industries and harm American workers with ``punishing work conditions
    including excessive mandatory overtime . . . [or] layoffs [by]
    employers no longer able to meet consumer demand as a result of a
    sudden reduction in staffing.''\4\ Another witness today is a former
    security official who claims--without any evidence, indeed even citing
    inspector general findings that do not exist--that people who arrive
    through parole programs are a threat to United States national
    security. Former security officials Refugees International interviewed
    assert the opposite.\5\ The testimony also casts aspersions on Afghan
    allies, the vetting of whom was recently found by the Justice
    Department inspector general to have been thoroughly sound.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Amicus Brief of the AFL-CIO and affiliated unions SEIU, UFCW,
    UAW, UNITE HERE, IUPAT, IUE-CWA, and BAC, May 16, 2025, Noem v. Doe,
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPPF/24/24A1079/358963/
    20250516121003835CHNY%20Brief%20FINAL.pdf.
        \5\ ``Guerven's Story,'' Refugees International, July 7, 2025
    https://www.refugeesinternational.org/perspectives-and-commentaries/
    let-them-stay-guervens-story/.
        \6\ ``Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Participation
    in the Handling of Afghan Evacuees During Operation Allies Refuge and
    Operation Allies Welcome,'' June 10, 2025, https://oig.justice.gov/
    news/doi-oig-releases-report-federal-bureau-investigations-
    participation-handling-afghan-evacuees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a memo on January 20, 2025, acting DHS Secretary Benjamine
    Huffman wrote that parole should never be used to facilitate the
    entrance of people with prima facie asylum claims. But that is exactly
    how it has, historically, been used to evacuate allies--this was true
    in 1996 when the United States evacuated Iraqi Kurds and paroled them
    to Guam to seek asylum, and it was true when the United States
    evacuated Afghans frorn Kabul in 2021 and paroled them in at Dulles
    airport so that they could seek asylum in the United States. Since
    1980, parole has also been frequently used as a pathway to safety
    alongside refugee resettlement, whether it be for Cambodians in 1985,
    for people from the former Soviet Union in 2001, or for Central
    American minors in 2016.
        At a time of unprecedented forced displacement because of both
    sudden and protracted conflicts and environmental disasters, it is all
    the more important for Congress to maintain--rather than limit--a
    flexible parole authority to help manage migration and facilitate the
    entry of people for humanitarian reasons.
                                     ______

              trump is creating new universes of people to deport
    Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf
    Published 4 o'clock AM EDT, Thu June 26, 2025
        CNN.--The full scope of the Trump administration's mass deportation
    plan--which has been evident in theory--is only just starting to come
    together in practice, and its scale has come as a surprise to many
    Americans.
        This week, the Supreme Court blessed, for now, the administration's
    effort to deport people from countries such as Cuba and Venezuela to
    places other than their homeland, including nations halfway around the
    world in Africa.
        In Florida, construction began on a migrant detention center
    intended to be a sort of Alcatraz in the Everglades.
        And CNN reported exclusively that the administration will soon make
    a large universe of people who had been working legally after seeking
    asylum eligible for deportation.
        I went to the author of that report, CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, and
    asked her to explain what we know and what we're learning about how the
    different stories are coming together.
        One thing that stuck out to me is how the totality of the
    administration's actions is turning people who had been working legally
    in the US into undocumented immigrants now facing deportation.
        Our conversation, edited for length, is below:
    A new universe of deportable people
        WOLF: You have this exclusive report about a large universe of new
    people the Trump administration might be trying to deport. What did you
    find out?
        ALVAREZ: The plans that the administration has been working on are
    targeting people who came into the US unlawfully and then applied for
    asylum while in the country.
        The plan here is to dismiss those asylum claims, which could affect
    potentially hundreds of thousands of people and then make them
    immediately deportable.
        It also puts the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the
    Federal agency responsible for managing Federal immigration benefits,
    at the center of the president's deportation campaign, because not only
    are they the ones that manage these benefits, but they have also been
    delegated the authority by the Department of Homeland Security to place
    these individuals in fast-track deportation proceedings and to take
    actions to enforce immigration laws.
        This is a shift that is prompting a lot of concern. As one advocate
    with the ACLU put it--and I'll just quote her--``They're turning the
    agency that we think of as providing immigration benefits as an
    enforcement arm for ICE.''
    Widening the aperture to deport more and more people
        WOLF: This is certainly not the criminal population that President
    Donald Trump and border czar Tom Homan said during the campaign that
    they would target first for deportation, right?
        ALVAREZ: You're right to say that coming into this administration,
    Trump officials repeatedly said their plans were to target people with
    criminal records.
        That is a hard thing to do. It requires a lot of legwork, and their
    numbers in terms of arrests were relatively low compared to where they
    wanted to be.
        The White House wants to meet at least 3,000 arrests a day, and you
    just cannot do that if you are only going after people with criminal
    records.
        Now we've seen that aperture widen to include anyone who's in the
    United States illegally.
        The administration's perspective on this is that these are
    individuals who crossed the border unlawfully, therefore they are
    eligible for deportation.
        But there has been consternation even among the president's allies
    about who exactly they're going after.
        In fact, there was recently a letter from Republican lawmakers to
    the administration asking for a breakdown of who they were arresting.
    What types of people is the administration targeting?
        WOLF: It's hard to keep track of the different buckets of people
    the Trump administration has targeted, like those with temporary
    protected status (TPS) versus asylum-seekers. How should we distinguish
    between them?
        ALVAREZ: Temporary protected status only applies to people who are
    currently residing in the US. It's a form of humanitarian relief. The
    United States acknowledges that the conditions in your country are not
    ones that they could send you back to.
        The Trump administration has started to peel that back and said
    that the conditions are sufficient, therefore we can send you back.
        There's certainly a debate for many of these countries as to
    whether or not that is true, but that has been a long criticism of
    temporary protected status. What is supposed to be temporary for some
    countries has been extended so many times that it is no longer
    temporary.
        Parole is another existing legal authority. The United States has
    frosty relations, for example, with Cuba and Venezuela, and it's very
    hard to deport people to those countries because they might not accept
    repatriation flights.
        The Biden administration argued that creating a parole program
    would give people the opportunity to legally migrate to the United
    States without coming to the US-Mexico border. Hundreds of thousands of
    people took advantage of that opportunity, and it was very specific to
    certain nationalities, particularly Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and
    Venezuelans.
        There are two more buckets I'll mention: Refugees are people who
    seek protection in the United States from abroad. Asylum-seekers are
    those who do it from the United States.
        All those buckets have been targeted under the Trump
    administration, and there have been moves to strip those protections
    from the people who have them.
        A lot of this is still working its way through litigation. But the
    effect is that people who perhaps had protection in the United States--
    could work here legally, could live here, even if temporarily--don't
    have them anymore and are now eligible for deportation.
    People who were working legally are now undocumented
        WOLF: So the Trump administration essentially created a large new
    population of undocumented people who were previously here with some
    sort of blessing from the government?
        ALVAREZ: Yes. I've been talking to experts in industries that
    depend on migrant workers and there have been situations where someone
    had hired a migrant worker who had a work permit to legally work here
    while their applications are being adjudicated, while they went through
    their immigration proceedings, and they don't have that anymore. Those
    protections and benefits have been stripped.
        That person who was hired legally is now suddenly undocumented.
    That can create an issue for industries that depend on the migrant
    workforce.
        Someone mentioned that to me as an example earlier this week, as we
    were talking through how it can affect agriculture, construction and
    manufacturing.
        We don't have a good sense of the numbers yet, but all indications
    are that by stripping protections consistently through various ways,
    the number of people who are undocumented in the United States is
    growing.
    An assist from the Supreme Court
        WOLF: The other thing that happened this week is the Supreme Court
    allowed, for now, the Trump administration to carry on with deporting
    people from countries that we've just discussed--Cubans or
    Venezuelans--to third-party countries such as South Sudan. What do we
    know about those people?
        ALVAREZ: The people you're talking about are a group of migrants
    who were being sent to South Sudan. They're in Djibouti because of
    litigation, and they are now being interviewed to see if they have
    grounds for what we call ``reasonable fear.''
        But just to broaden out from that group, this decision from the
    Supreme Court was a very big deal.
        Being able to send people to a country that is not their own, but
    that is willing to take others--that's a huge deal for the
    administration to ramp up how many people that they are deporting at
    any one time.
        There is the question of due process, which has sort of been a
    theme in this administration.
        How much time do you have to provide notice to an individual that
    they are not going to be deported to their home country--they're going
    to be deported elsewhere?
        How much time, if any, do you give for them to contest their
    removal to that specific country?
        The overarching point here is that this decision gives the
    administration so much more runway to execute on their deportation
    plan.
    Where does `Alligator Alcatraz' fit in?
        WOLF: The thing that was interesting this week is the so-called
    Alligator Alcatraz and these efforts to create new detention
    facilities. How would those be used?
        ALVAREZ: Let me actually tie these two points together, from your
    previous question to now. What we are seeing currently is the Trump
    administration trying to solve for existing hurdles in the immigration
    system for arresting and deporting people in large numbers.
        ICE only has a limited number of detention beds. They're only
    funded for an average of 41,500 beds, but they work with local jails.
    They have community partners to detain people. Currently, there are
    more than 58,000 people in ICE custody. They are completely over
    capacity.
        That means that they have to look for new ways to detain people,
    and ``Alligator Alcatraz'' is an example of that, which is essentially
    building a facility very quickly to hold up to 5,000 people and using
    some FEMA funds so that the State can erect this facility.
        It's called ``Alligator Alcatraz'' because it is located in the
    Everglades, Florida. The idea is that it would be low-cost because they
    don't have to worry much about security, given that the surroundings
    are marshes and swamps full of alligators and pythons. So essentially,
    if one were to escape, they wouldn't make it very far.
        It is perhaps a clue or the beginning of how we might see the
    administration strike more agreements with consenting States or with
    private companies or military bases to house detainees.
        The White House imposed a goal of arresting 3,000 people a day.
    Well, there comes the next question of where do you put them,
    especially if you've maxed out ICE detention beds.
        Now we're holding more than 58,000 people and deportations can't
    keep up. And so there comes the Supreme Court decision of allowing the
    administration to deport people to other countries.
        You can start to see how the puzzle pieces are slowly coming
    together for the administration as they try to execute on this lofty
    campaign promise.
    The picture comes into focus
        WOLF: You used two interesting words there--clues and puzzle
    pieces. Do you feel like we have a grasp of everything that the Trump
    administration is doing right now on the immigration and deportation
    front?
        ALVAREZ: They've had 4 years to think about this. Stephen Miller
    (who is White House deputy chief of staff) knows the immigration
    system, there's no question about that, and is the architect when it
    comes to many of these policies.
        I would say that over the last 6 months the administration has been
    quietly doing a lot behind the scenes that the average person was
    probably not paying attention to. It may have come in the form of
    regulations, or it may have come in the form of policy guidance, or
    diplomatic talks that are happening with countries to eventually take
    other nationalities.
        What's been interesting about this particular moment is that
    everything that they were quietly working on is starting to come to
    light.
        The X factor is: Do they get the billions and billions of dollars
    from the massive package that's working its way through Congress?
    Because if they do that, it will be a game-changer for them, and it
    will eliminate so many resource issues, and we could really see this
    plan take off.
                                     ______

                Excerpt From Report From the Pew Research Center
                1. industries of unauthorized immigrant workers
        Unauthorized immigrants are unevenly distributed across some
    industrial sectors and occupations in the U.S. economy. Compared with
    their 5 percent share of the overall civilian workforce, they are a
    higher share in some types of employment and a lower share in others.
    They tend to cluster in sectors and occupations that offer low-skilled
    work, due in part to their low educational attainment and the
    limitations placed on employment by their legal status. However, in all
    sectors, there are more U.S.-born workers than unauthorized immigrant
    workers. (See the table on page 27 for data on workers' status by major
    industry.)

        In 2014, unauthorized immigrants accounted for 17 percent of the
    workforce in the U.S. agriculture industry and 13 percent of the
    construction industry workforce, notably higher than their
    representation in the labor force overall. Even so, the number and
    share of U.S.-born workers in both sectors were notably higher,
    accounting for 69 percent of agricultural industry employment and 76
    percent of construction industry employment. In these two sectors the
    number (and share) of unauthorized immigrant workers was slightly
    higher than that of lawful immigrant workers; in all other sectors, the
    number of lawful immigrant workers was substantially larger than for
    unauthorized immigrants.
        Unauthorized immigrants are somewhat overrepresented in the leisure
    and hospitality sector, where they made up 9 percent of the workforce
    in 2014. In this sector, though, they were a lower share of the
    workforce than both U.S.-born employees (79 percent) and lawful
    immigrant employees (12 percent).
        Some subsets of each major industry have particularly high
    concentrations of unauthorized immigrants among their workers. About a
    fifth or more of the workforce in the crop production industry (22
    percent), private household employment (22 percent) and the landscaping
    industry (21 percent) consisted of unauthorized immigrants in 2014.
    Disproportionately high shares of unauthorized immigrants also worked
    in the apparel manufacturing industry (19 percent), the building
    maintenance sector (19 percent) and the dry cleaning and laundry
    industry (18 percent). (See the table on page 31 for data on specific
    industries.)
        How is the unauthorized immigrant workforce distributed across
    industrial sectors? A disproportionate share of unauthorized immigrants
    are employed in the business and other services sectors. These sectors
    cover a wide range of establishments such as legal services,
    advertising, landscaping and waste management, as well as personal
    services such as dry cleaning, nail salons and car washes. Fully 22
    percent of unauthorized immigrants worked in these sectors in 2014,
    compared with 16 percent of U.S.-born workers.

        A notably higher share of unauthorized immigrants (16 percent in
    2014) work in the construction industry compared with U.S.-born workers
    and lawful immigrants (6 percent) each. Unauthorized immigrants also
    are more likely to work in the leisure and hospitality sector (18
    percent did in 2014) compared with U.S.-born and lawful immigrant
    workers (each 10 percent).
        In 2014, the agriculture and mining industries employed only 5
    percent of all unauthorized immigrant workers, but that is higher than
    the share of U.S.-born workers (2 percent) who held jobs in that
    industry.
        In some industries, the disparity is in the other direction. For
    example, 23 percent of U.S.-born workers were employed in the
    educational and health services sector in 2014, compared with only 7
    percent of unauthorized immigrants who were so employed. An additional
    7 percent of U.S.-born workers were employed in the financial sector,
    compared with 3 percent of unauthorized immigrant workers. The
    transport and utilities sector employed 5 percent of U.S.-born workers
    in 2014, but 3 percent of unauthorized immigrant workers.
    State industry patterns
        Echoing the national pattern, agriculture and construction are the
    industries where unauthorized immigrants make up the highest share of
    the overall civilian workforce in the largest number of States.
    Agriculture ranked first in 19 States in 2014 and second in nine more.
    Nationally, unauthorized immigrants accounted for 17 percent of workers
    in the agriculture industry in 2014, but were 5 percent of the total
    U.S. workforce. Construction ranked first in 16 States in 2014 and
    second in 16 more.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * This report includes estimates of the number of unauthorized
    immigrants by industry in 43 States and the District of Columbia where
    there are enough unauthorized immigrants in the workforce to provide
    reliable data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Looked at from another perspective--how unauthorized immigrant
    workers are distributed across industry sectors--the picture changes
    somewhat. Construction ranked first in 2014 as the industry that
    employs the largest share of unauthorized immigrant workers in 14
    States, more States than any other industry. Nationwide, 16 percent of
    unauthorized immigrant workers were employed in the construction
    industry. The leisure and hospitality sector ranks second, employing
    the largest share of the unauthorized immigrant workforce in 10 States
    in 2014. (See tables on page 36 for the top industries for unauthorized
    immigrants by State in 2014).
                                     ______

      dairy farms are vulnerable to trump's mass deportation threats. the
                          industry hopes to get a pass
    By Bridgit Bowden & Hope Kirwan, Harvest Public Media
    May 19, 2025, 6 a.m.
        Once a week on a dairy farm in western Wisconsin, there's a class
    to help workers from Mexico learn English. Gathered in a small
    kitchenette next to the milking parlor, the students work on a lesson
    about things they are proud of.
        ``I am proud of myself because I am saving money for building a
    house in Mexico,'' said Kevin, who came to Wisconsin about 5 years ago,
    arriving from Mexico in the January cold. WPR is only using workers'
    first names because of their immigration statuses.
        Kevin says he never feared being deported before the 2024 election.
    But now, he said, things have changed.
        On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised ``mass
    deportations.'' It's been a big concern for industries like dairy that
    rely on the labor of workers without legal immigration status.
        Now, a few months into the new administration, the immigration
    rhetoric is still intense. There have been many high-profile
    deportations.
        Still, many dairy workers in States like Wisconsin are carrying on
    with their work, as those enforcement efforts have mostly been focused
    elsewhere.
    `We think it's rhetoric'
        Kevin isn't scared, he said, just worried, mostly about the
    possibility of being treated badly by immigration authorities. But he
    hasn't changed his day-to-day behavior at all.
        For the dairy industry, that's good. The National Milk Producers
    Federation estimates immigrants make up 51 percent of the industry's
    workforce, and the farms that rely on them produce 79 percent of U.S.
    milk.
        Farm owner John Rosenow said Kevin reflects how many dairy workers
    feel about the new Trump administration.
        ``They're basing everything off of last time,'' he said. ``[Trump]
    said the same thing last time, and then nothing happened. And so people
    aren't going home. They're staying and they're working and going about
    their daily lives.''
        The majority of the workers who keep Rosenow's farm running are
    from Mexico. He's hopeful the more than $50 billion the dairy industry
    contributes to Wisconsin's economy each year will protect dairy workers
    from being deported.
        ``It just doesn't make sense that the Federal Government would ruin
    an industry by being overzealous on immigration. And we think it's
    rhetoric,'' he said.
        But other producers are more worried about how the industry's
    workforce will react to the growing number of deportations.
        Doug Chapin is a dairy farmer in central Michigan and chair of the
    Michigan Milk Producers Association board. He recently had an employee
    leave his farm in order to return to his home country.
        ``He said he thought now was a good time,'' Chapin said. ``His
    family was there and so he chose to go back. And I think some of it
    dealt with the current immigration pressures.''
        Chapin said there is some optimism that the focus on immigration by
    the Trump administration could lead to reforms. He said the dairy
    industry has been asking lawmakers for two decades to update the
    process for farm workers. The current system primarily uses seasonal
    visas, which doesn't work for milking cows year-round.
        The farm community has largely supported Trump, which Chapin said
    may mean the president is more willing to endorse a new immigration
    pathway.
        ``My hope is that we can avoid the loss of employees, ICE on farms,
    and that we have an opportunity to put a resolution in before we get
    there,'' he said.
    Future of immigration reform, enforcement uncertain
        Earlier this month, President Donald Trump suggested his
    administration would work with farmers to provide legal status for
    their employees.
        According to reporting by Reuters, the president said during an
    April 10 Cabinet meeting that producers would be able to vouch for
    their workers who are undocumented, potentially slowing down the
    deportation process and ``ultimately bring them back'' with legal
    status. Reuters reported the White House and the Department of
    Agriculture did not respond to requests to clarify the policy.
        Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. program at the
    Migration Policy Institute, said the process that Trump alluded to
    would take an act of Congress to achieve. Current law requires anyone
    who spends more than a year in the U.S. without legal status to wait 10
    years before re-entering the country legally.
        ``It sounds a bit to me like a stretch to expect Congress to create
    this pathway over the next couple of years, although if President Trump
    really continued to endorse it, that could really create a new
    political opening that we hadn't seen for visa reform,'' she said.
        ICE has already made arrests on dairy farms under the Trump
    administration, including in northern New York in March and in Vermont
    in April. Yet many of the highest-profile immigration actions have been
    more politically motivated, like student visa holders who have been
    arrested and detained after participating in protests.
        Gelatt said there are several outstanding legal questions
    surrounding the tactics the Trump administration is using. That
    includes the use of old, little-used laws as justification for
    deportations.
        ``How those court cases proceed could determine the course of some
    of those activities,'' she said.
        It could also shape whether the administration pursues more
    sweeping deportations. There have been more deportations so far than
    during the first Trump administration, Gelatt said, but fewer than the
    first years under President Obama, pointing out that most arrests
    happen when local jails turn people over to Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement.
        Still, Gelatt suspects the Trump administration is planning more
    workplace raids at some point. Other industries, like meat packing,
    have been more frequent targets of these actions in the past.
        ``Those take some time to prepare,'' she said. ``Often there's a
    lot of investigation that happens before the actual arrests happen. So
    those may be in the works.''
    Work on the farm continues
        While all that plays out, the cows on Rosenow's farm still have to
    be milked and cared for--day in, and day out.
        Ramon has been working on the farm for about 2 years. Like many
    dairy workers in the area, his wife and kids are back in Mexico. So
    unlike some people in the country without legal status, he's not
    worried about the prospect of being separated from his family.
        In fact, his main concern about being deported isn't for himself at
    all--it's for the farm. If all the workers were sent back to Mexico, he
    said, the consequences would be devastating.
        ``No mas dinero, no mas leche,'' he said. ``No more money, no more
    milk.''

    This story first appeared on Wisconsin Public Radio. This version was
    produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of
    public media newsrooms in the Midwest. It reports on food systems,
    agriculture and rural issues.
                                     ______

    Irish tourist jailed by ICE for months after overstaying US visit by 3
                             days: `Nobody is safe'
     exclusive: for roughly 100 days, thomas says he faced harsh detention
                  conditions, despite agreeing to deportation
    Sam Levin, The Guardian
    Tue 15 Jul 2025 06.00 EDT
        Thomas, a 35-year-old tech worker and father of three from Ireland,
    came to West Virginia to visit his girlfriend last fall. It was one of
    many trips he had taken to the US, and he was authorized to travel
    under a visa waiver program that allows tourists to stay in the country
    for 90 days.
        He had planned to return to Ireland in December, but was briefly
    unable to fly due to a health issue, his medical records show. He was
    only 3 days overdue to leave the US when an encounter with police
    landed him in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
        From there, what should have been a minor incident became a
    nightmarish ordeal: he was detained by ICE in three different
    facilities, ultimately spending roughly 100 days behind bars with
    little understanding of why he was being held--or when he'd get out.
        ``Nobody is safe from the system if they get pulled into it,'' said
    Thomas, in a recent interview from his home in Ireland, a few months
    after his release. Thomas asked to be identified by a nickname out of
    fear of facing further consequences with US immigration authorities.
        Despite immediately agreeing to deportation when he was first
    arrested, Thomas remained in ICE detention after Donald Trump took
    office and dramatically ramped up immigration arrests. Amid increased
    overcrowding in detention, Thomas was forced to spend part of his time
    in custody in a Federal prison for criminal defendants, even though he
    was being held on an immigration violation.
        Thomas was sent back to Ireland in March and was told he was banned
    from entering the US for 10 years.
        Thomas's ordeal follows a rise in reports of tourists and visitors
    with valid visas being detained by ICE, including from Australia,
    Germany, Canada and the UK. In April, an Irish woman who is a US green
    card holder was also detained by ICE for 17 days due to a nearly two-
    decade-old criminal record.
        The arrests appear to be part of a broader crackdown by the Trump
    administration, which has pushed to deport students with alleged ties
    to pro-Palestinian protests; sent detainees to Guantanamo Bay and an El
    Salvador prison without presenting evidence of criminality; deported
    people to South Sudan, a war-torn country where the deportees had no
    ties; and escalated large-scale, militarized raids across the US.
    `I thought I was going home'
        In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Thomas detailed his
    ordeal and the brutal conditions he witnessed in detention that
    advocates say have long plagued undocumented people and become worse
    under Trump.
        Thomas, an engineer at a tech firm, had never had any problems
    visiting the US under the visa waiver program. He had initially planned
    to return home in October, but badly tore his calf, suffered severe
    swelling and was having trouble walking, he said. A doctor ordered him
    not to travel for eight to 12 weeks due to the risk of blood clots,
    which, he said, meant he had to stay slightly past 8 December, when his
    authorization expired.
        He obtained paperwork from his physician and contacted the Irish
    and US embassies and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to seek an
    extension, but it was short notice and he did not hear back, he said.
        ``I did everything I could with the online tools available to
    notify the authorities that this was happening,'' he said, explaining
    that by the time his deadline to leave the US had approached, he was
    nearly healed and planning to soon return. ``I thought they would
    understand because I had the correct paperwork. It was just a couple of
    days for medical reasons.''
        He might have avoided immigration consequences, if it weren't for
    an ill-timed law enforcement encounter.
        Thomas and his girlfriend, Malone, were visiting her family in
    Savannah, Georgia, when Thomas suffered a mental health episode, he and
    Malone recalled. The two had a conflict in their hotel room and someone
    overheard it and called the police, they said.
        Malone, who requested to use her middle name to protect her
    boyfriend's identity, said she was hoping officers would get him
    treatment and did not want to see him face criminal charges. But police
    took him to jail, accusing him of ``falsely imprisoning'' his
    girlfriend in the hotel room, a charge Malone said she did not support.
    He was soon released on bond, but instead of walking free, was picked
    up by US immigration authorities, who transported him 100 miles away to
    an ICE processing center in Folkston, Georgia. The facility is operated
    by the private prison company Geo Group on behalf of ICE, with capacity
    to hold more than 1,000 people.
        Thomas was given a two-page removal order, which said he had
    remained in the US 3 days past his authorization and contained no
    further allegations. On 17 December, he signed a form agreeing to be
    removed.
        But despite signing the form he remained at Folkston, unable to get
    answers about why ICE wasn't deporting him or how long he would remain
    in custody. David Cheng, an attorney who represented Thomas, said he
    requested that ICE release him with an agreement that he'd return to
    Ireland as planned, but ICE refused.
        At one point at Folkston, after a fight broke out, officers placed
    detainees on lockdown for about 5 days, cutting them off from
    contacting their families, he said. Thomas said he and others only got
    approximately 1 hour of outdoor time each week.
        ``I did everything I could . . . to notify the authorities that
    this was happening.''--Thomas
        In mid-February, after about 2 months in detention, officers placed
    him and nearly 50 other detainees in a holding cell, preparing to move
    them, he said: ``I thought I was finally going home.'' He called his
    family to tell them the news.
        Instead, he and the others were shackled around their wrists,
    waists and legs and transported 4 hours to a Federal correctional
    institution in Atlanta, a prison run by the US Bureau of Prisons (BoP),
    he said.
        BoP houses criminal defendants on Federal charges, but the Trump
    administration, as part of its efforts to expand ICE detention, has
    been increasingly placing immigrants into BoP facilities--a move that
    advocates say has led to chaos, overcrowding and violations of
    detainees' rights.
    `We were treated less than human'
        Thomas said the conditions and treatment by BoP were worse than ICE
    detention: ``They were not prepared for us whatsoever.''
        He and other detainees were placed in an area with dirty
    mattresses, cockroaches and mice, where some bunkbeds lacked ladders,
    forcing people to climb to the top bed, he said.
        BoP didn't seem to have enough clothes, said Thomas, who got a
    jumpsuit but no shirt. The facility also gave him a pair of used,
    ripped underwear with brown stains. Some jumpsuits appeared to have
    bloodstains and holes, he added.
        Each detainee was given one toilet paper roll a week. He shared a
    cell with another detainee, and he said they were only able to flush
    the toilet three times an hour. He was often freezing and was given
    only a thin blanket. The food was ``disgusting slop'', including some
    kind of mysterious meat that at times appeared to have chunks of bones
    and other inedible items mixed in, he said. He was frequently hungry.
        ``The staff didn't know why we were there and they were treating us
    exactly as they would treat BoP prisoners, and they told us that,''
    Thomas said. ``We were treated less than human.''
        He and others requested medical visits, but were never seen by
    physicians, he said: ``I heard people crying for doctors, saying they
    couldn't breathe, and staff would just say, `Well, I'm not a doctor,'
    and walk away.'' He did eventually receive the psychiatric medication
    he requested, but staff would throw his pill under his cell door, and
    he'd sometimes have to search the floor to find it.
        Detainees, he said, were given recreation time in an enclosure that
    was partially open to fresh air, but resembled an indoor cage: ``You
    couldn't see the outside whatsoever. I didn't see the sky for weeks.''
    He had sciatica from an earlier hip injury and said he began
    experiencing ``unbearable'' nerve pain as a result of the lack of
    movement.
        Thomas said it seemed ICE's placements in the BoP facility were
    arbitrary and poorly planned. Of the nearly 50 people taken from ICE to
    BoP facility, about 30 of them were transferred back to Folkston a week
    later, and the following week, two from that group were once again
    returned to the BoP facility, he said.
        In the BoP facility, he said, ICE representatives would show up
    once a week to talk to detainees. Detainees would crowd around ICE
    officials and beg for case updates or help. ICE officers spoke Spanish
    and English, but Middle Eastern and North African detainees who spoke
    neither were stuck in a state on confusion. ``It was pandemonium,''
    Thomas said.
        ``It seems like a completely incomprehensible, punitive
    detention.''--Sirine Shebaya
        Thomas said he saw a BoP guard tear up ``watching the desperation
    of the people trying to talk to ICE and find out what was happening'',
    and that this officer tried to assist people as best as she could.
    Thomas and Malone tried to help asylum seekers and others he met at the
    BoP facility by connecting them to advocates.
        Thomas was also unable to speak to his children, because there was
    no way to make international calls. ``I don't know how I made it
    through,'' he said.
        In mid-March, Thomas was briefly transferred again to a different
    ICE facility. The authorities did not explain what had changed, but two
    armed Federal officers then escorted him on a flight back to Ireland.
        The DHS and ICE did not respond to inquiries, and a spokesperson
    for the Geo Group declined to comment.
        Donald Murphy, a BoP spokesperson, confirmed that Thomas had been
    in the bureau's custody, but did not comment about his case or
    conditions at the Atlanta facility. The BoP is now housing ICE
    detainees in eight of its prisons and would ``continue to support our
    law enforcement partners to fulfill the administration's policy
    objectives'', Murphy added.
    `This will be a lifelong burden'
        It's unclear why Thomas was jailed for so long for a minor
    immigration violation.
        ``It seems completely outlandish that they would detain someone for
    3 months because he overstayed a visa for a medical reason,'' said
    Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project,
    who is not involved in his case and was provided a summary by the
    Guardian. ``It is such a waste of time and money at a time when we're
    hearing constantly about how the government wants to cut expenses. It
    seems like a completely incomprehensible, punitive detention.''
        ICE, she added, was ``creating its own crisis of overcrowding''.
        Jennifer Ibanez Whitlock, senior policy counsel with the National
    Immigration Law Center, also not involved in the case, said, in
    general, it was not uncommon for someone to remain in immigration
    custody even after they've accepted a removal order and that she has
    had European clients shocked to learn they can face serious
    consequences for briefly overstaying a visa.
        ICE, however, had discretion to release Thomas with an agreement
    that he'd return home instead of keeping him indefinitely detained, she
    said. The Trump administration, she added, has defaulted to keeping
    people detained without weighing individual factors of their cases:
    ``Now it's just, do we have a bed?''
        Republican lawmakers in Georgia last year also passed State
    legislation requiring police to alert immigration authorities when an
    undocumented person is arrested, which could have played a role in
    Thomas being flagged to ICE, said Samantha Hamilton, staff attorney
    with Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Atlanta, a non-profit group
    that advocates for immigrants' rights. She met Thomas on a legal visit
    at the BoP Atlanta facility.
        Hamilton said she was particularly concerned about immigrants of
    color who are racially profiled and pulled over by police, but Thomas's
    ordeal was a reminder that so many people are vulnerable. ``The mass
    detentions are terrifying and it makes me afraid for everyone,'' she
    said.
        Thomas had previously traveled to the US frequently for work, but
    now questions if he'll ever be allowed to return. ``This will be a
    lifelong burden,'' he said.
        Malone, his girlfriend, said she plans to move to Ireland to live
    with him. ``It's not an option for him to come here and I don't want to
    be in America anymore,'' she said.
        Since his return, Thomas said he has had a hard time sleeping and
    processing what happened: ``I'll never forget it, and it'll be a long
    time before I'll be able to even start to unpack everything I went
    through. It still doesn't feel real. When I think about it, it's like a
    movie I'm watching.'' He said he has also struggled with long-term
    health problems that he attributes to malnutrition and inappropriate
    medications he was given while detained.
        He was shaken by reports of people sent away without due process.
    ``I wouldn't have been surprised if I ended up at Guantanamo Bay or El
    Salvador, because it was so disorganized,'' he said. ``I was just at
    the mercy of the Federal Government.''
                                     ______

      despite threat of mass deportation, immigrant workers and wisconsin
                             dairy farmers carry on
    By: Ruth Conniff, Wisconsin Examiner--January 10, 2025 5:45 am
        President-elect Donald Trump's pledge to deport millions of
    undocumented immigrants shortly after he takes office on Jan. 20 has
    triggered a flood of calls to advocates and local officials in
    Wisconsin.
        ``There is palpable fear and anxiety with our clients,'' said
    Carmel Capati, managing immigration attorney for the Catholic
    Multicultural Center in Madison. Capati and another immigration
    attorney, Aissa Olivares of Dane County's Community Immigration Law
    Center, gave a presentation during a Dec. 27 community forum on
    immigrant rights organized by former State Rep. Samba Baldeh (D-
    Madison).
        ``As we anticipate a change of national leadership, immigrant
    communities across our State are fearful of what may be coming,''
    Baldeh said.''It is essential that we as elected officials address that
    fear, stand up for the rule of law, and advocate for human rights-based
    policies that acknowledge the contributions of immigrants--who are our
    neighbors, co-workers, and friends.''
        ``There is still a lot of uncertainty,'' Dane County Sheriff Kalvin
    Barrett said during the forum, which was held on Zoom. ``No one knows
    what's going to happen.'' But, Barrett assured participants, ``We will
    not be proactively involved in any sort of round-ups, any sort of
    immigration enforcement.''
        During their presentation, the immigration attorneys addressed the
    concerns of university students, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
    (DACA) recipients, refugees and people from countries eligible for
    Temporary Protected Status during the administration of President Joe
    Biden--a status they said they expect Trump to revoke. Wisconsin's
    immigrant residents should apply for benefits still available to them
    under the Biden administration, the lawyers said, to get their identity
    documents in order, and to make an emergency plan in case they are
    detained, including designating someone to pick up their children from
    school.
        ``It's very important that we do avoid situations where we might be
    subject to arrest,'' said Olivares. ``And if unknown people are
    knocking on your door, don't open the door.''
    `How in the hell will we continue to be the Dairy State?'
        Nowhere would mass deportation have a bigger impact than on
    Wisconsin's dairy farms, where an estimated 70 percent of the workforce
    is made up of immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Central America.
    Because Congress has never created a year-round visa for low-skilled
    farm workers, almost all of Wisconsin's immigrant dairy workers are
    undocumented. Without them, experts say, the whole industry would
    collapse.
        At a Jan. 3 press conference in the Capitol, Wisconsin Gov. Tony
    Evers called the threat of mass deportation ``illogical,'' and said
    ``we will do everything in our power to prevent it.''
        ``The bottom line is, in Wisconsin, 70 percent of our farms . . .
    70 percent of the people may be part of the Federal Government's idea
    to move them elsewhere, out of our country,'' Evers said. ``Think about
    that. How in the hell will we continue to be the Dairy State with no
    one to milk the cows and do the other important work?''
        Yet, despite the existential threat posed to dairy workers and
    Wisconsin's marquee industry by Trump's proposed roundups, during a
    recent reporting trip to rural Buffalo County--a heavy dairy producing
    area in Western Wisconsin--workers, farmers and local law enforcement
    officials told the Examiner they were not scrambling to prepare for
    raids.
        ``What are we going to do? We can't do anything,'' said a dairy
    worker from Mexico who goes by the nickname Junior and who works for
    Buffalo County dairy farmer John Rosenow. ``We can't hide. All we do is
    work, go home, go back to work, back home, back to work.''
        ``We all came here not for fun but out of necessity,'' he added,
    speaking about the estimated 10,000 immigrant dairy workers in
    Wisconsin.
        Junior, 19, has been working on Rosenow's farm for the last year
    and a half, sending home money to help support his 3-year-old daughter.
    Like many of his co-workers, he came north to milk cows because the
    average wage for dairy workers, at $11 per hour, is far more than he
    could earn in Mexico, where a factory job pays the U.S. equivalent of
    just $20 per week. For decades, Mexican workers on Rosenow's farm and
    other farms in the area have saved enough money to build houses, start
    businesses, and put their children through school back in Mexico.
        The risks these workers have taken to come here include walking
    across the desert at night, evading kidnappers, and nearly suffocating
    while being smuggled in the trunk of a car. It can take a full year of
    work, rising at 4 a.m. to milk cows and shovel out barns, just to pay
    off a typical $12,000 debt to smugglers for a border crossing. Compared
    to all of that, workers say anti-immigrant political rhetoric does not
    seem like the biggest threat many of them face--especially those from
    Mexico who came to Wisconsin to build a better life, not, like many
    asylum-seekers, to flee violent persecution in their home country.
        ``I haven't heard any workers ask about what might happen in the
    new administration,'' said translator Mercedes Falk, who travels among
    about 20 farms in the Buffalo County area, interpreting for farmers and
    workers. ``Farmers and workers are continuing to work side by side
    because they know that they are the ones that will make sure the cows
    are taken care of and the farms run smoothly. I think they both have
    been doing the work for so long that they understand that no one else
    is going to step in to do the work if it's not them.''
        ``In our area, which is typical of most any dairy farm area in the
    country, most all farms with over 100 cows have immigrants working for
    them,'' Rosenow said.
        Rosenow, an outspoken advocate for his workers, helped found the
    nonprofit Puentes/Bridges, which takes dairy farmers from Wisconsin and
    Minnesota on an annual trip to rural Mexico, to see the homes and
    businesses their workers are building with the money they earn in the
    U.S. Falk, the translator, leads these trips.
        ``Trump says Mexico is not sending us their best,'' Rosenow said
    during one such trip in 2019. ``These Mexican towns are sending us
    their best when they send their young men up north.'' His former
    workers, he said, have returned home to become leaders in their
    communities, local employers, and important supporters of two
    economies--in Wisconsin and in Mexico.
        Mexican workers sent home $51.6 billion from U.S. jobs to help the
    Mexican economy in 2021, accounting for 4 percent of Mexico's GDP (oil
    and gas only accounts for 3.3 percent of GDP for this petroleum
    producing country).
        But while former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador called those
    workers ``living heroes,'' Trump has called them criminals and rapists
    and promised to send them all home.
        In rural Wisconsin, which voted heavily for Trump, some farmers who
    support Trump have told the Examiner they don't believe he intends to
    deport their hardworking employees--that his real targets are
    criminals. But Trump made all undocumented immigrants a priority for
    deportation in his first term, unlike Biden, whose immigration policy
    has focused on deporting those who committed crimes or posed a threat
    to national security.
        Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, whose district ecompasses a
    large swath of Western Wisconsin, including Buffalo County, sits on the
    House Agriculture Committee. Van Orden made cracking down on ``criminal
    illegal aliens'' a centerpiece of his 2024 reelection campaign. At a
    press conference in September, he highlighted a violent attack on a
    woman by a Venezuelan immigrant to denounce U.S. immigration policy.
    Van Orden acknowledged at that event that dairy farmers in his district
    rely on immigrant labor, but then went on to praise the H2A seasonal
    farmwork visa, which is not applicable to dairy farm work.
        ``I'm 100 percent behind making sure that we get as many people
    into the country lawfully to help support our industries,'' Van Orden
    said. ``I'm absolutely, adamantly opposed to letting a single known
    criminal enter this country, because this is what happens.''
        Campaign rhetoric about crimes committed by immigrants runs counter
    to studies that show lower crime rates among immigrants in the U.S.
    than among U.S.-born residents.
        During Evers' press conference earlier this month, a reporter
    pressed the Governor on whether he believed undocumented immigrants who
    commit crimes should be deported.
        ``What crime, speeding?'' Evers asked. ``Violent crimes,'' the
    reporter clarified.
        ``It shouldn't be treated any differently,'' Evers said. Both
    immigrants and U.S. citizens should be prosecuted and put in prison if
    they were guilty of crimes, he added. ``Serving that time is equally
    important for someone that is documented and someone that is not.''
    The view from Buffalo County
        In Buffalo County, local law enforcement officers told the Examiner
    they have not seen more crime among the immigrant population than among
    U.S. born residents of the area. Instead, police say, they can often be
    the victims.
        Recently, Buffalo County Deputy Sheriff Aarik Lackershire got a
    call from Rosenow's dairy farm. A worker there had asked Rosenow to
    lend him $1,500 to pay off a U.S. official who was demanding money and
    telling the worker he had to pay or be prosecuted for a crime.
        Rosenow suspected his employee, Junior, was being scammed. Instead
    of loaning him the money, he called the sheriff. Lackershire arrived on
    the farm, Rosenow recalled, ``with coke-bottle glasses, wearing full
    riot gear--leather, with a gun on his belt. I swear he was 18 at the
    most.''
        Relations between local law enforcement and the immigrant workers
    on Wisconsin dairy farms have become strained in recent years because
    of workers' fear of deportation. During the first Trump administration,
    high-profile raids and a hostile political climate caused some workers
    to return to their home countries while others simply stopped going
    out. Many live on the farms where they work and avoid contact with the
    police. Rosenow has fewer than a dozen employees and most of them,
    young men and a few women, came up from Mexico without their families
    and live in a barracks on the farm to save money and send more home.
        Lackershire did not come to Rosenow's farm to arrest Junior.
    Instead, the deputy spent a long time talking to him in Rosenow's
    office, next to the milking parlor, listening carefully and explaining
    to Junior that he had been the victim of a scam.
        ``He obviously wanted to help,'' said Rosenow. ``The next day I was
    in Alma, so I stopped at the sheriff's office to thank them for doing
    such a great job.''

    Immigrants are required by law to attest that they are authorized to
    work in the United States, and employers must review their documents
    ``to determine whether they reasonably appear to be genuine and relate
    to the employee''--a standard which does not put a heavy onus on
    employers to carefully scrutinize the documents. Employers of must keep
    an employment eligibility verification form--Form I-9--on file for each
    employee for 3 years.

        In addition, the IRS allows immigrants who don't have a Social
    Security number to file taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Number
    (ITN)--a resource advocates have encouraged undocumented workers to use
    to claim tax credits and other benefits for their families, and to
    establish their work history for possible future use in obtaining legal
    immigration status.
        For years, dairy farmers have lobbied Congress to create a visa for
    year-round agricultural workers, expanding on the H-2A agricultural
    visa program which can only be used by seasonal workers. In 2021, the
    House passed the Farm Workforce Modernization Act with broad bipartisan
    support. Among other provisions, it created a visa for immigrant
    workers who stay in the U.S. year-round. (All of Wisconsin's Republican
    House members voted against the bill and all Wisconsin Democrats voted
    for it.) Sponsors of the Senate version of the bill--Sen. Michael
    Bennet (D-Colorado) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) struggled to get
    agreement on controversial provisions. Among the sticking points was an
    expansion of labor protections opposed by the American Farm Bureau
    Federation that would have allowed farmworkers to sue their employers.
        Farmers and workers in rural Wisconsin say they hope the national
    anti-immigrant climate will blow over, and that they can't afford to
    abandon an economic relationship both groups depend on for their
    livelihoods. Throughout rural Wisconsin, immigrant workers and the
    State's U.S.-born residents continue to coexist and, in many cases, try
    to help each other, as Lackershire did for Junior.
    `They don't know who they can trust'
        At first, when Lackershire showed up at Rosenow's farm, Junior was
    reluctant to talk. ``It's a person you don't know, and you're telling
    him things--you feel nervous,'' he said in an interview later, in
    Spanish, recalling the scene. But Lackershire spent a lot of time
    listening patiently to Junior's story, with the assistance of Falk, the
    interpreter, whom Rosenow called and put on speaker phone. Lackershire
    explained to Junior that the person who called him demanding payment
    could not have been a U.S. official, since the call came from outside
    the United States.
        ``After that he warmed up a little bit,'' Lackershire recalled in
    an interview, sitting at the dining room table at his home in Durand.
    It was a convoluted extortion scam involving three different callers,
    one posing as a woman with a sick child who needed help, one as a law
    enforcement officer, and one as a friend of Junior's from Mexico.
    Lackershire said he's encountered many similar scams, but this was
    ``probably the most layered one I've dealt with.''
        ``He's telling me about three different people, three different
    stories, and none of it's making sense,'' Lackershire recalled. ``Wow.
    So that was an obstacle. And obviously, doing all this through
    translators, some stuff gets lost in translation.''
        Falk said she was impressed with Lackershire's patience. ``I never
    got a sense of any ounce of frustration from him even though it was a
    long interaction at 9 p.m.,'' she said. The whole experience, she
    added, ``gave me a newfound appreciation for humanity and how
    empowering it is to connect on a human level in spite of speaking
    different languages and being from different cultures.''
        Scammers target people of all backgrounds, Lackershire said. But
    immigrants are particularly vulnerable and, in his experience, are more
    frequently shaken down for large sums of money.
        ``It seems like they take more advantage of immigrants because they
    don't know the legal system of the U.S.,'' Lackershire said.
        ``This group of people obviously has a fear of being sent back to
    where they came from,'' he added. ``They don't know who they can
    trust.''
        That lack of trust makes it harder for law enforcement to do its
    job.
        ``We have to go to every 911 call, and we've had hang-ups at worker
    barracks at 4 in the morning,'' Lackershire said. ``And obviously going
    around knocking on doors as a police officer at 4 in the morning on a
    primarily illegal population stirs everybody up and they get nervous.
    The intention is to see if somebody needs help, and a lot of people
    aren't even willing to talk.''
        Over time, Lackershire feels he has gained the confidence of people
    who used to avoid him. Some will now translate for him on occasion.
    Lackershire himself grew up in the area and went to school with the
    children of immigrant farm workers. ``They are just trying to support
    their families, which I respect,'' he said.
    `We treat the immigrant workers and nonimmigrant workers the same'
        When, in October 2023, Minnesota stopped requiring proof of legal
    residency to get a driver's license, Lackershire began carrying around
    handouts from a Minnesota immigrant rights group to give to the
    unlicensed immigrant drivers he pulls over, encouraging them to get a
    Minnesota license. (The Wisconsin Legislature changed State law in 2007
    to bar undocumented immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses.)
        Lackershire said he sees a lot of immigrant drivers in Wisconsin
    who have registered and insured their vehicles in Minnesota, ``trying
    to do the best they can.'' But he still hands out a lot of tickets in
    Wisconsin for driving without a license. ``That's not something we
    typically make an arrest for; that's usually a traffic ticket,'' he
    said. But after they get too many tickets, unlicensed drivers in
    Wisconsin are treated as though their licenses have been revoked,
    Lackershire explained, ``and then it's a driving after revocation. And
    that's actually a criminal charge.'' Criminal charges can trigger an
    immigration hold and deportation proceedings.
        Currently 19 States and the District of Columbia allow unauthorized
    immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. In Minnesota, applicants must
    pass a driving test, have insurance and a Minnesota address where they
    can receive their license in the mail, but they do not have to provide
    proof of residency, according to the Minnesota Department of Public
    Safety.
        Having a lot of unlicensed drivers on the road creates a public
    safety hazard.
        Lackershire's boss, Buffalo County Sheriff Mike Osmond, said in a
    phone interview that he and his deputies often come upon abandoned cars
    that are registered to people with no driver's license and left in a
    ditch after a crash. ``If they are immigrant workers, they tend to not
    stick around,'' he said.
        ``We treat the immigrant workers and nonimmigrant workers the
    same,'' Osmond added. ``If you're the victim of a crime, I want our
    deputies to spend time and educate you. We're not out there looking for
    immigrant workers.''
        As for the possibility that his department might be asked to help
    with mass deportations, Osmond said he's not worried. ``I guess I'll
    figure it out when it happens, if it happens,'' he said. He's not
    prepared to say what his department policy will be on cooperating with
    Federal immigration agents.
        ``In my entire career I don't know I've ever had a request from a
    Federal agency to help with immigration, except once when there was an
    ICE hold on someone in the jail,'' he said. That was during the first
    Trump administration.
        ``If President-elect Donald Trump was sitting in the passenger seat
    of my truck right now, I'd tell him to deport the people out of the
    jails and prisons--these are folks who've come here and committed a
    crime.''
    `I have a lot of goals, a lot of dreams'
        Falk teaches a regular Monday night English class on Rosenow's
    farm.
        On a recent December evening, she greeted Junior as he came out of
    Rosenow's milking parlor, as three people in their early twenties--two
    young men and one young woman--arrived for class. The three students
    laughed and teased each other as they took turns translating the
    sentences Falk wrote on a white board.
        Junior, standing off to the side, said he had taken Lackershire's
    advice and blocked the people who scammed him. He was glad he'd only
    given them $600.
        Junior's father also clocked out of the milking parlor while the
    English class was going on. He had been on the farm for the last 4
    years, he said, and was planning to go home to Mexico next year.
        ``It's always next year,'' one of Falk's students said, laughing.
    His father, who also works on the farm and sends home money to the rest
    of the family, says the same thing every year, he added.
        As for Junior, ``I just have a couple of years left. That's enough
    for me, then I'll go back,'' he said.
        In that time, he hopes he'll have enough money to build a house.
    ``I have a lot of goals,'' he said, ``a lot of dreams.''
                                     ______

           Blog Post From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
       immigrants contribute greatly to the social security trust fund's
                                    solvency
    April 23, 2025, 8:34 am
        Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and play a key
    role in strengthening Social Security's finances. Like all other
    workers, immigrants contribute to the trust fund through payroll taxes.
    Even if they themselves will not become eligible to receive benefits in
    their lifetimes, immigrants improve the solvency of a program that
    provides almost all workers with a foundation of income for their
    retirement.
        Since Social Security is a ``pay-as-you-go'' program, Social
    Security benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes
    collected from today's workers, so more workers paying into the system
    benefits the program's finances. In the United States, immigrants are
    more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force
    participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.
        Without immigrants and their U.S.-born children, the prime working-
    age population (ages 25-54) would have shrunk by more than 8 million
    people between 2000 and 2023. Immigrants are also younger, on average,
    than U.S.-born individuals, meaning that they have more working years
    ahead of them before they are eligible to receive Social Security
    benefits.
    Immigration Benefits the Social Security Trust Fund
        The Social Security trustees' report highlights how immigration
    improves the trust fund's solvency. Social Security's actuaries
    estimate the impact of immigration over 25, 50, and 75 years, showing
    in all time periods that as immigration increases, the trust fund
    deficit decreases. The Social Security Administration (SSA) assumes
    average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year in its
    projections. Immigration higher than that level will help the trust
    fund balances as compared to the most recent estimates done in 2024,
    while lower-than-expected immigration will increase the funding
    shortfall.
        For example, SSA estimates that if net immigration per year were
    roughly 400,000 more people than they assume, it would reduce the
    shortfall by about 11 percent, while lower immigration of a similar
    amount would have the opposite effect, worsening the trust fund balance
    (see chart). This suggests the Trump Administration's plans to
    drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would
    significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook.

        It is important to note that immigrants without a documented
    immigration status still pay payroll and income taxes, even though they
    rarely become eligible for Social Security benefits. In 2022, people
    without a documented status paid an estimated $25.7 billion in Social
    Security taxes. And a 2013 report by the Social Security actuaries
    concluded that earnings from immigrants without a documented status
    have a net positive effect on the Social Security trust fund, finding
    that they contributed a net $12 billion into the Social Security trust
    fund in 2010.
        Despite the contributions that immigrants make to their local
    communities and economies, the Trump Administration has launched a mass
    deportation campaign and efforts to curtail lawful immigration.
    Administration officials have falsely blamed immigrants for worsening
    Social Security's funding outlook, even though the opposite is the
    case.
        Rather, the Administration's policies of mass deportation
    (including of people who have been living and working in the U.S.
    lawfully and whose status is being revoked) will not only have huge
    personal consequences for people who are immigrants and their families,
    but will worsen Social Security's finances, affecting all workers and
    beneficiaries. Furthermore, the misinformation about Social Security
    and immigrants' contributions to the system weakens trust in a bedrock
    U.S. institution.
        Social Security is already facing a funding shortfall in the next
    decade, with the program projected to have funds to pay about 83
    percent of benefits in 2035 if nothing is done to shore up its
    financing structure. If Administration officials are serious about
    addressing Social Security's funding challenges, they would offer real
    solutions, like a financing package that includes raising revenues to
    preserve Social Security's crucial benefits, instead of scapegoating
    immigrants whose contributions are helping to preserve the program.
                                     ______

               6 myths about undocumented immigrants in the u.s.
    Author: Rayna Wachs, Boundless, Updated March 26, 2025
                Learn the common myths about undocumented immigrants in the
                        U.S. and the data-driven facts that debunk them.
        Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.S., with undocumented
    immigrants at the center of political debates and public discourse.
    However, there are many misconceptions about undocumented immigrants
    that often shape public opinion and policy decisions. This article aims
    to debunk the most common myths about undocumented immigrants using
    data and research, shedding light on their true contributions and
    challenges.
    What Does It Mean to Be an Undocumented Immigrant?
        Undocumented or unauthorized immigrants--sometimes referred to as
    ``illegal immigrants'' or ``illegal aliens'' (terms widely considered
    outdated and dehumanizing)--are individuals living in the U.S. without
    valid visas or immigration documents, therefore lacking legal
    immigration status. This could be because they entered the country
    without proper authorization, overstayed their visa, or violated the
    terms of their admission to the U.S.
        Undocumented immigrants can belong to any race, religion,
    nationality, or other identity group.
    Common Myths About Undocumented Immigrants
                Myth #1: ``Undocumented Immigrants Choose Not to Pursue
                        Legal Immigration Pathways Because They Don't Want
                        to Wait Their Turn''
        The Reality.--There are countless reasons why an individual may
    choose not to pursue legal immigration pathways. Legal immigration is
    widely inaccessible, as options are extremely limited, prohibitively
    expensive, and often lengthy--taking years or even decades to
    complete--especially for those who don't have family or employment
    connections in the U.S. For those fleeing violence, persecution, or
    severe poverty, applying for and obtaining legal status before arriving
    in the U.S. is sometimes impossible. For many, the chance to secure
    safety, higher wages, and a better quality of life in the U.S.
    outweighs the risks of living without documentation.
                Myth #2: ``All Undocumented Immigrants Are Criminals''
        The Reality.--This statement is misleading. Simply being present in
    the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant is not inherently a crime. For
    instance, recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
    have protections that allow them to remain lawfully present in the
    U.S., even though they are technically undocumented. Similarly,
    overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal offense; while
    it is punishable by deportation, it does not carry criminal penalties
    based solely on this infraction.
        However, entering or reentering the U.S. without being inspected
    and admitted by U.S. authorities is generally considered a Federal
    criminal offense and may lead to criminal charges, depending on the
    circumstances. Importantly, asylum seekers can legally apply for asylum
    in the U.S., regardless of whether they entered the country through
    legal pathways.
        Research consistently shows that immigrants, including undocumented
    immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born
    individuals. In fact, communities with higher immigrant populations
    often experience lower crime rates. From 1980 to 2022, as the immigrant
    share of the U.S. population more than doubled, the total crime rate
    dropped by over 60 percent. State-level analyses also reveal no
    significant correlation between immigrant population sizes and crime
    rates, debunking the misconception that immigration fuels criminal
    activity.
                Myth #3: ``Undocumented Immigrants Don't Pay Taxes''
        The Reality.--Undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to
    the U.S. economy through various forms of taxation, including sales
    taxes on purchases, property taxes (paid directly if they own property
    or indirectly through rent), and income taxes via automatic paycheck
    withholdings or by filing income tax returns using Individual Taxpayer
    Identification Numbers (ITINs). In fact, a recent study found that
    undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in Federal, State, and local
    taxes in 2022.
                Myth #4: ``Undocumented Immigrants Are a Major Drain on
                        Social Services''
        The Reality.--The claim that undocumented immigrants are a
    significant burden on social services is largely unfounded. Studies
    show that, over their lifetimes, immigrants--regardless of legal
    status--pay more in taxes than they use in public services, helping to
    support programs and services for all Americans.
        Federal law restricts most undocumented immigrants from accessing
    major public assistance programs like Medicaid, Social Security,
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or ``food stamps''),
    and other means-tested benefits. Instead, their access to public
    services is generally limited to emergency medical care, primary care
    at federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), public education for
    children, short-term use of shelters and soup kitchens during
    emergencies, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
    Infants, and Children (WIC), which provides nutrition support for
    pregnant and postpartum women as well as young children.
        While undocumented immigrants may receive limited services, their
    contributions to the economy and tax systems often outweigh any costs
    associated with the public services they use.
                Myth #5: ``Undocumented Immigrants Take Jobs Away from U.S.
                        Citizens and Are a Drain on the U.S. Economy''
        The Reality.--The idea that undocumented immigrants take jobs away
    from U.S. citizens is a misconception rooted in the false assumption
    that the labor market has a fixed number of jobs, leading many to
    believe that immigrants reduce opportunities for U.S.-born workers. In
    reality, there are currently more job vacancies than there are workers
    available to take them.
        Immigrants, including undocumented individuals, often fill critical
    labor gaps by taking on roles in industries like agriculture,
    construction, and food processing that many Americans are unwilling to
    do. These contributions not only meet essential labor demands but also
    drive economic growth by supporting industries that depend on a steady
    workforce.
                Myth #6: Undocumented Immigrants Don't Want to Learn
                        English or Assimilate
        The Reality.--Many undocumented immigrants strive to learn English
    and integrate into American society, and they're increasingly doing
    just that. However, barriers such as limited access to English classes
    and fear of deportation can hinder these efforts for many others.
    Immigrant integration programs that offer resources like English as a
    Second Language (ESL) classes play a vital role in addressing these
    challenges. That said, the degree to which one wishes to learn English
    and assimilate into U.S. culture is a choice that every person--
    regardless of background and immigration status--is free to make for
    themselves.
    Why Debunking These Myths Matters
        The myths surrounding undocumented immigrants perpetuate harmful
    stereotypes and misinform both public opinion and policy decisions.
    However, the data reveals a different story: undocumented immigrants
    play an essential role in American life, contributing significantly to
    society, the economy, and culture, all while navigating immense
    barriers to success.
        As the dialog around immigration continues, it's important to move
    beyond misconceptions and instead focus on understanding the immigrant
    experience. By shifting the narrative, we can inspire meaningful
    immigration reform that promotes a more inclusive, informed, and
    equitable society for all.

        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman yields.
        I now recognize Representative Strong for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to first thank our witnesses for being here today,
    for their contributions to this critical discussion.
        Mr. Cuccinelli, according to the Department of Homeland
    Security, nonprofit organizations occasionally serve as
    sponsors on parole applications.
        How frequently do nonprofit organizations serve in this
    role and what are the implications of their involvement?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. I don't have exact numbers, but it is very
    common. They also do it--it isn't a one-off. So you have
    organizations that are being sponsors for large numbers of
    people.
        I would just point out, you know, this concept of
    sponsorship is as old as the American immigration system, but
    the fact of the matter is, in our adult lifetimes, sponsors
    have not--repeat--not been held accountable to what are the
    supposed requirements of sponsors. That has just never happened
    under any administration. So it's easy for the nonprofits or
    any individual to do this.
        We have individuals sponsoring, you know, scores of people
    as well, dozens I should say, that'd be the high end, which
    they could never financially fulfill the obligations if they
    were called on to do so for everyone they're sponsoring. So
    this whole system is broken and, thus, it's very easy for a
    nonprofit to step in there as one part of its agenda to bring
    larger numbers of folks into the United States.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you.
        I'm glad to see that this administration is placing
    national security first and is taking the necessary actions to
    restore integrity and accountability to our immigration system.
        Mr. Cuccinelli, can you discuss the role that State and
    local law enforcement play in supporting ICE with parole
    removal orders as well as any challenges that they see?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. So, first of all, this is all more work for
    all of them to do, if they're willing to do it. You know,
    making the news all the time are the States and localities that
    refuse to cooperate with ICE, and under the Tenth Amendment,
    the Federal Government can't simply demand local or State
    cooperation.
        Now, as your budget--annual budget comes up September 30,
    you can write it into the law. This was litigated in the first
    Trump administration, and without specific budget requirements
    tying cooperation to the cutting off of funding, then the
    Federal Government doesn't have a tool to compel this
    cooperation.
        For those that do cooperate, we--you know, famously we're
    seeing it in Florida and we can go all around the country at
    the localities and many of your States that are cooperating.
    Yes, it's easier, believe it or not, to target the criminals
    because they pop on to your radar. They pop on to your radar.
    They may be 2.5, 3, 4, 5 percent of the total population, and
    I've heard complaints that they're only 30 percent of those
    being deported. I would point out that they're 10 times their
    proportion in the population of illegal aliens being focused
    on. So that security and safety element is a priority
    numerically and proportionally.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you.
        Switching gears a little bit, Mr. Camarota, you and I both
    know that America deserves an immigration system that
    prioritizes their interest in public safety above all else. Can
    you further expand on the fiscal burdens placed on American
    taxpayers when parolees begin receiving welfare benefits, and
    are there types of financial benefits that parolees qualify for
    that other illegal aliens do not?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes. So especially with that qualified alien
    provision that now, apparently, as I read the Big Beautiful
    Bill, is not going to apply. But the thing you have to keep in
    mind is that probably played some role, but what's driving the
    high use of public services is the low educational attainment
    of parolees and their low income; the presence of U.S.-born
    children, which isn't changing with the law; the fact that some
    States give them benefits; some programs are allowed to be
    used, like WIC and free school lunch and emergency Medicaid,
    and Medicaid for pregnant women. So there are these other
    factors.
        In other words, if you had to--the bottom line is, people
    who come to America, even those who work--and as I point out,
    they have relatively high rates of work--if they have very
    modest levels of education, they make extensive use of the
    social safety net. It's not because they're lazy, it's not
    because they all came to get welfare, it's just the reality of
    modern America. You have to be very selective or you're going
    to get kicked in the teeth in fiscal costs. That's just how it
    is when it comes to immigration.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman yields.
        I now recognize Mr. Carter for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today.
        Like many Americans, I'm deeply troubled by the cruel and
    profoundly un-American mass deportation agenda being undertaken
    by the Donald Trump administration and his allies. These harsh
    policies are not about public safety or border security. We've
    seen children torn from their parents, flagrant disregard of
    basic due process protections, and individuals targeted for
    exercising their First Amendment rights.
        Congress must do what we can to uphold the values of our
    Founding Fathers and the rights of all people in the United
    States. We need immigration policies rooted in dignity,
    fairness and, most importantly, due process, not cruelty and
    authoritarianism.
        Despite campaign promises, the vast majority of those
    detained or deported under the administration--under this
    administration have had no criminal record. Many of these
    individuals have lived here for years, raised families here,
    and contributed to our communities.
        In New Orleans, my home town and district, just weeks ago,
    Madonna Kashanian, an Iranian woman who lives in--who's lived
    in the United States for almost 5 decades, with no criminal
    record, was gardening outside her home when ICE agents detained
    her. I'd like to commend my friend and colleague, Majority
    Leader Congressman Steve Scalise, who worked with me to get her
    released. Yes, I said Majority Leader Steve Scalise who worked
    to have her released.
        Congressman Scalise said, and I quote, She's been a great
    member of this community. She's done a lot for the people, and
    her life work is what you should be--she should be judged on.
    This was said by a Republican, by your leader.
        I agree with this sentiment, and I hope that my Republican
    colleagues that see this and know that they should too treat
    every human being seeking a better life in this country the
    same way.
        Steve Scalise, Majority leader, Republican, said that we
    have to have a better process, that we shouldn't be snatching
    people who are--people that are here that haven't broke any
    laws, that have been here for many years. Let's keep this
    going. It sounds like we're on the right track. I would ask my
    colleagues on this committee and in the Republican Conference
    to, likewise, follow the lead of their leader who said this,
    and acted, more importantly. She's been released as a part of
    that. She now has due process.
        That's all we're asking that people have is due process.
    Have an opportunity to defend yourself. If you are, in fact,
    someone that's been breaking laws and are habitual, that's
    another story, but if you've been here and you tried to go
    through the process, you should not be singled out.
        Mr. Bier, how has the Trump administration immigration
    enforcement practice such as denying access to legal counsel
    and expedited deportations without hearings undermined basic
    due process and Constitutional protections?
        Mr. Bier. Look, this administration went to the Supreme
    Court with the proposition that they could grab anyone off the
    streets, put them on a plane with no hearing, no warning, and
    fly them to a foreign prison, and put them there indefinitely,
    and pay for it with U.S. tax dollars. They went to the Supreme
    Court. The Supreme Court said no, you can't do that, you've got
    to go back and give people due process. That's a good win.
    Unfortunately, they have tried to evade that ruling in every
    conceivable possible way using other authorities to fly people
    to other countries. These----
        Mr. Carter. We have a Constitution for a reason. We have
    rule of law for a reason.
        Mr. Bier. We have a Constitution----
        Mr. Carter. The Founders of our Constitution were keenly
    aware that this day might come.
        Mr. Bier. Yes, they were, absolutely they were. The problem
    we're facing is there's a lack of consequences when an
    administration or agents of the administration violate the
    Constitution. They can violate it with impunity, and as long as
    they can, they will----
        Mr. Carter. I've got about 36 seconds and I want to get a
    few more questions in. What does it mean for civil liberties in
    a democratic society when the Trump administration targets
    individuals for immigration enforcement based on political
    speech and activism, not because of anything else, just because
    they don't like what you said? This is America, right?
        Mr. Bier. This is America, and in America you don't need a
    passport to speak freely. That is what it's coming to. If you
    can get a phone call from ICE to prove that you are a citizen,
    then, therefore, you have the right to say certain things
    critical of the Government. We have degraded free speech for
    every single person.
        Mr. Carter. Last--and I'm already over my time, so thank
    you, Mr. Chairman--ICE agents wearing masks, without
    identifying badges or identification. We've seen people abuse
    this already. What risk do we have?
        I'd ask each of the members to kind of chime in very
    briefly. When we have armed guards that don't wear any
    identification, that don't show a badge, that hide their
    faces--I understand the argument that we have to protect the
    agents, but should there not be some duty to identify yourself
    as a duly-appointed ICE agent to make sure that nefarious
    actors are not misusing this role to do things that are further
    illegal than we've already seen happen? Real quickly.
        Mr. Bier. Yes. We've already seen, as I said before, a huge
    number of cases around the country where people have
    impersonated ICE agents using masks, and it's a real problem in
    this country.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Camarota.
        Mr. Camarota. I assume they're doing it because they have a
    fear, you know, that they could be targeted. Certainly, there
    are violent groups that have targeted ICE, and that's----
        Mr. Carter. So why don't all police officers do that?
        Mr. Camarota. I don't know that they're being targeted.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Because they're not being targeted.
        Mr. Carter. You don't think police officers are being
    targeted? I beg to differ.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. When is the last time a Congressman----
        Mr. Carter. We see police officers--may I? We see police
    officers being targeted on the street of America every single
    day. They don't cover their faces----
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Carter [continuing]. Because they understand they have
    to protect and serve.
        My time is----
        Mr. Cuccinelli. When they----
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir. Your time is up too.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. When they are personally----
        Mr. Carter. Your time is up too, sir. Sir, your time is up.
    Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Your time is up.
    Reclaiming my time. You have no time, sir. Sir, you have no
    time. You are not going to overspeak me, sir.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, you're doing it to me, so----
        Mr. Carter. Well, you're not a Member of Congress.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. God bless America.
        Mr. Brecheen. Gentlemen, if you both suspend.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative Crane for his 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Crane. Mr. Cuccinelli, would you like to finish your
    thoughts?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Your first responsibility leading a law
    enforcement agency is the protection of your agents. That's
    first. Because if you can't--it's like the first rule of first
    aid. You have to take care of yourself before you can take care
    of the person next to you. We all get that instruction on the
    plane flight every day, right? That applies at an agency level
    as well.
        We--I cannot remember a time in my adult lifetime where one
    specific law enforcement agency was so personally targeted as
    ICE agents are being targeted today, including by Members of
    this body, by Members of this body who are willing to put at
    risk law enforcement officers that work for the Federal
    Government they are part of.
        So, you know, they have body cams. The people who go out on
    each, I'll call it a mission, are identified, meaning you can
    go back and figure out what agents were on that when they
    misbehave.
        I am not going to sit here and say police officers in any
    department never misbehave. They do. They're human beings and
    they make mistakes and they do things wrong intentionally
    sometimes. I'm not going to say ICE agents do that. That didn't
    happen while I was a deputy secretary. If you're not willing to
    protect your own agents, whether it's the Capitol Police or
    whether it's ICE, then you have no business sending them out on
    the street. That's immoral.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you.
        I'm going to move on to Dr. Camarota. On January 16, 2025,
    the Center for Immigration Studies posted the Beyond the Border
    podcast episode 187, titled, Why Legal Immigration Numbers
    Matter. You and my colleague Representative Chip Roy provided a
    detailed assessment of how U.S. Census Bureau data shows that
    President Trump handed Joe Biden a border that was under
    control. In fact, the data shows that international migrant
    crossings were at a 20-year low in Trump's final year in
    office. Joe Biden changed course in 2022 and increased the
    number of international immigrants to an all-time high.
        My question is this: Would you agree the Biden admin failed
    to utilize their authority to detect, repel, detain, and deport
    illegal immigrants and without the use of illegal parole the
    U.S. Census data wouldn't have detected an increase?
        Mr. Camarota. Right. So in that data, just during the Biden
    administration, the foreign-born, that's all immigrants, grew
    by over 8 million, and more than 5 million or about two-thirds
    of that increase in the data, and it misses people, is new
    illegal immigrants. Yes, the decision not to detain people, not
    to use expedited removal, to end the Remain in Mexico policy,
    to end the cooperation agreements we had with the central
    American countries, and so on, caused a surge in illegal
    immigration.
        Most experts think illegal immigration--at least there's
    people coming and going in big numbers all the time, but it was
    roughly stable in the previous decade. But under President
    Biden it grew 5 or 6 million. Now, remember, some people went
    home, some got legalized, and that's a pretty conservative
    estimate.
        Mr. Crane. Would you agree Democrats benefited from
    paroling illegal immigrants through increased population
    counted in the Census and added seats for Congressional
    representation?
        Mr. Camarota. Well, in a very detailed study of that,
    obviously it didn't matter for 2020. It is true that, as a
    general proposition, that the arrival of immigrants in
    Democratic-leaning States tend to help Democrats. Also, the
    other big thing it does, it creates districts with relatively
    few citizens, because the district lines are drawn based on
    total population. Those districts with relatively few American
    citizens do vote overwhelmingly Democratic, but that doesn't
    mean the illegals are voting or that the noncitizens are
    voting. It's just the people who live around them are very much
    Democratic, but it does increase Democratic representation,
    while the districts that are overwhelmingly comprised of
    American citizens tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican. So
    yes, there is a political dimension here. I'm not going to
    comment on the Democrats' motives, but that does happen.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuccinelli, according to the Department of Homeland
    Security, until Joe Biden, parole was rarely used between 2014
    and 2020. Parole was used sparingly to admit between 11,000 and
    54,000 immigrants each year. DHS data shows the Biden admin
    unlawfully expanded 2 parole programs that brought over a
    million illegals into the country under the auspice of legal
    process.
        The Cuban, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, or CHNV, parole
    system ballooned illegal parole numbers in conjunction with the
    use of the CBP One app. Between the 2 programs, an estimated
    531,936 illegals were paroled into the United States just by
    registering for an asylum hearing. Additionally, DOJ data
    states that between 2021 and 2024, the number of absentee
    removal orders increased from under 50,000 prior to Biden to
    well over 200,000 under the Biden mass parole program, meaning
    that the parolees weren't returning to their hearings, just
    vanishing into the United States.
        My question: Do you believe former DHS Secretary Mayorkas
    was derelict in the oversight of DHS for agencies' unlawful use
    of the parole process?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, I would use the word ``derelict'' if
    this was unintentional, and then the answer would be yes.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the
    record--I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record----
        Mr. Brecheen. Representative Carter, if we may, just to get
    in--I'm trying to make sure I'm balancing everyone's time. I
    gave you an extra minute. I'm trying to be careful----
        Mr. Carter. I just want to introduce this into the record.
    I have no comment.
        Mr. Brecheen. Ms. Johnson, would you yield? I'm about to
    recognize you. Would you yield to give him the opportunity to
    do so?
        Ms. Johnson. I don't think I have to yield my time.
        Mr. Carter. Just to enter into the record? I shouldn't take
    away from her minutes. I'll be a moment.
        Mr. Brecheen. I'll allow it.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter a legal opinion
    from GAO that found Mr. Cuccinelli did not lawfully serve in
    his position as deputy secretary of Homeland Security as he
    stated. Thank you.
        Mr. Brecheen. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
         Decision Submitted For the Record by Honorable Troy S. Carter
                                    decision
    Matter of: Department of Homeland Security--Legality of Service of
    Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Service of Senior Official
    Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security
    File: B-331650
    Date: August 14, 2020
                                     digest
        The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (Vacancies Reform Act)
    provides for temporarily filling vacant executive agency positions that
    require Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation. 5 U.S.C.
    3345. GAO's role under the Vacancies Reform Act is to collect
    information agencies are required to report to GAO, and GAO uses this
    information to report to Congress any violations of the time
    limitations on acting service imposed by the Vacancies Reform Act. 5
    U.S.C.  3349. As part of this role, we issue decisions on agency
    compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act when requested by Congress.
    The Vacancies Reform Act is generally the exclusive means for filling a
    vacancy in a Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed position unless
    another statute provides an exception. 5 U.S.C.  3347. The Homeland
    Security Act of 2002 provides an order of succession outside of the
    Vacancies Reform Act when a vacancy arises in the position of Secretary
    of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 6 U.S.C.  113(g).
        Upon Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation on April 10, 2019,
    the official who assumed the title of Acting Secretary had not been
    designated in the order of succession to serve upon the Secretary's
    resignation. Because the incorrect official assumed the title of Acting
    Secretary at that time, subsequent amendments to the order of
    succession made by that official were invalid and officials who assumed
    their positions under such amendments, including Chad Wolf and Kenneth
    Cuccinelli, were named by reference to an invalid order of succession.
    We have not reviewed the legality of other actions taken by these
    officials; we are referring the matter to the Inspector General of DHS
    for review.
                                    decision
        This responds to a request from the Chairman of the Committee on
    Homeland Security and the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee of
    Oversight and Reform regarding the legality of the appointment of Chad
    Wolf as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    and Ken Cuccinelli as Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy
    Secretary. Letter from Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S.
    House of Representatives and Acting Chairwoman, Committee on Oversight
    and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives to Comptroller General (Nov.
    15, 2019). Specifically, we consider whether the appointments were
    authorized pursuant to the Secretary's designation of an order of
    succession under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). Homeland
    Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25,
    2002), as amended by National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328,  1903, 130 Stat. 2000, 2672 (Dec. 23,
    2016), codified at 6 U.S.C.  113(g)(2).
        As explained below, we conclude that in the case of vacancies in
    the positions of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Undersecretary for
    Management, HSA provides a means for an official to assume the title of
    Acting Secretary pursuant to a designation of further order of
    succession by the Secretary. However, upon the resignation of Secretary
    Kirstjen Nielsen, the express terms of the then existing designation
    required the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
    Agency (CISA) to assume that title instead of the Commissioner of
    Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Kevin McAleenan. As such, the
    subsequent appointments of Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and
    Plans, Chad Wolf and Principal Deputy Director of U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (USCIS) Ken Cuccinelli were also improper because
    they relied on an amended designation made by Mr. McAleenan.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We have only been asked to address the designation of Messers.
    Wolf and Cuccinelli, so we do not otherwise address the consequences of
    any official's improper service. We are referring that question to the
    DHS Inspector General for his review. In that regard, we are aware that
    certain actions taken by Acting Secretary Wolf and his authority to
    take them are currently the subject of litigation. See, e.g. A.B-B v.
    Morgan, Docket No. 1:20-cv-0846 (D.D.C. 2020); Casa De Maryland v.
    Wolf, Docket No. 8:20-cv-02118 (D. Md. 2020); Don't Shoot Portland v.
    Wolf, Docket No. 1:20-cv-02040 (D.D.C. 2020). We are also aware that in
    March, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled
    that Mr. Cuccinnelli's separate appointment as acting director of USCIS
    was illegal. See L.M.-M v. Cuccinelli, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1, 29 (D.D.C.
    2020). That question was not before us.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (Vacancies Reform
    Act), GAO collects information agencies are required to report to GAO,
    and GAO uses this information to report to Congress any violations of
    the time limitations on acting service imposed by the Vacancies Reform
    Act. 5 U.S.C.  3349. As part of this role, we issue decisions on
    agency compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act when requested by
    Congress. Our practice when rendering decisions is to contact the
    relevant agencies and obtain their legal views on the subject of the
    request. GAO, Procedures and Practices for Legal Decisions and
    Opinions, GAO-06-1064SP (Washington, DC: Sept. 5, 2006), available at
    www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1064SP. We contacted DHS to obtain the
    agency's views. Letter from Managing Associate General Counsel, GAO, to
    General Counsel, DHS (Dec. 6, 2019). We received DHS's response on
    December 20, 2019. Letter from Associate General Counsel for General
    Law, DHS, to Managing Associate General Counsel, GAO (Dec. 20, 2019)
    (Response Letter).
                                   background
        The Vacancies Reform Act permits certain individuals to serve as
    acting officials in vacant Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed
    positions (PAS) for limited periods of time. 5 U.S.C. Sec.  3345,
    3346. The Vacancies Reform Act is generally the exclusive means for
    filling a vacancy in a PAS position unless another statute provides an
    exception.\2\ Pursuant to the Vacancies Reform Act, the first assistant
    to a PAS position automatically becomes the acting official in case of
    a vacancy unless the President designates another individual who meets
    the Vacancies Reform Act's eligibility requirements. 5 U.S.C.  3345.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A statute only qualifies as an exception if the statutory
    provision expressly authorizes the President or the head of an
    executive department to designate an official to perform the functions
    and duties of a specified office temporarily in an acting capacity or
    it designates an acting official. 5 U.S.C.  3347(a)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        HSA created DHS to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
    States and reduce the Nation's vulnerabilities to such attacks, among
    other critical missions.
        Pub. L. No. 107-297, title I,  101. At the head of the department,
    HSA created the position of Secretary of Homeland Security who is
    vested with all the functions of all officers, employees, and
    organizational units of DHS. HSA, Pub. L. No. 107-296, title I,  102.
    HSA also created the position of Deputy Secretary and made the Deputy
    Secretary the first assistant for purposes of the Vacancies Reform Act.
    Pub. L. No. 107-297, title I,  103.
        On December 23, 2016, HSA was amended to establish an order of
    succession outside the Vacancies Reform Act for the position of
    Secretary. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
    Pub. L. No. 114-328, div. A, title XIX,  1903, 130 Stat. 2000, 2672
    (2016). Under the amendment, the Under Secretary for Management is next
    in line to be Acting Secretary in the case of absence, disability, or
    vacancy in the positions of Secretary and Deputy Secretary. 6 U.S.C.
    113(g)(1). Beyond this mandated order, ``the Secretary may designate
    such other officers of the Department in further order of succession to
    serve as Acting Secretary.''\3\ 6 U.S.C.  113(g)(2). These succession
    provisions take effect ``[n]otwithstanding'' the provisions of the
    Vacancies Reform Act.\4\ 6 U.S.C.  113(g).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The amendment did not impose time limitations on an individual
    serving as Acting Secretary under HSA.
        \4\ HSA does not establish an order of succession outside the
    Vacancies Reform Act for the position of Deputy Secretary. However, HSA
    establishes the Under Secretary for Management as the first assistant
    to the Deputy Secretary for purposes of the Vacancies Reform Act. 6
    U.S.C.  113(a)(1)(F).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On December 5, 2017, Kirstjen Nielsen was confirmed as Secretary of
    DHS. On April 10, 2019, Secretary Nielsen resigned from her position.
    At this time, the Deputy Secretary position had been vacant since April
    14, 2018, and the Under Secretary for Management resigned on April 10,
    2019, as well, leaving that position vacant. GAO, Federal Executive
    Vacancy System Database, available at https://www.gao.gov/legal/other-
    legal-work/federal-vacancies-reform-act.\5\ Upon the Secretary's
    resignation, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin
    McAleenan, assumed the title of Acting Secretary.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Under the Vacancies Reform Act, agencies are required to report
    to GAO certain information regarding vacancies in PAS positions. 5
    U.S.C.  3349(a). GAO compiles the information from these reports and
    makes them available to the public through its Executive Vacancy
    System.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On November 13, 2019, Acting Secretary McAleenan resigned, and the
    Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Chad Wolf assumed the
    title of Acting Secretary. The same day, Mr. Wolf designated the
    Principal Deputy Director of USCIS, Kenneth Cuccinelli, as the Senior
    Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security
    (Deputy Secretary).\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Regarding Mr. Cuccinelli, this decision only addresses his
    service as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy
    Secretary and does not address any other positions which he may also
    hold.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   discussion
        Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides that ``[The President]
    shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
    shall appoint . . . all other Officers of the United States, whose
    Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
    established by Law.'' U.S. Const. art. II,  2. As noted previously,
    when there is a vacancy in these Presidentially-appointed, Senate-
    confirmed (PAS) positions, the Vacancies Reform Act is generally the
    exclusive means for filling them temporarily with an acting official,
    unless another statute provides an exception.
        Here, HSA provides such an exception. HSA requires the Under
    Secretary for Management to serve as Acting Secretary if there is a
    vacancy in the offices of Secretary and Deputy Secretary. 6 U.S.C.
    113. By providing an initial order of succession for the Secretary and
    allowing the Secretary to make further designations, HSA qualifies as
    an exception to the Vacancies Reform Act's exclusivity provision.
        At the time the Secretary resigned, the positions specified in HSA
    were vacant as well, permitting DHS to turn to the Secretary's
    designation of further officials to serve as Acting Secretary when
    Secretary Nielsen resigned and the position of Secretary became vacant.
    6 U.S.C.  113(g)(1), (2). Hence, to determine whether Chad Wolf and
    Ken Cuccinelli are properly serving, we must examine whether DHS
    adhered to the order of succession in the Secretary's delegation in
    force at the time Mr. McAleenan and Mr. Wolf each assumed the title of
    Acting Secretary. As explained further below, we conclude DHS did not.
    HSA Delegation 00106
        In its response to us, DHS stated that Secretary Nielsen had
    exercised the HSA power to designate an order of succession through
    Delegation 00106. See Response Letter. Secretary Nielsen issued this
    delegation on February 15, 2019 (February Delegation).\7\ In this
    February Delegation, there were two grounds for assuming the position
    of Acting Secretary. The first ground was in the case of the
    Secretary's death, resignation, or inability to perform the functions
    of the office. February Delegation  II.A. The second ground was if the
    Secretary was unavailable to act during a disaster or catastrophic
    emergency. Id.  II.B.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ DHS, DHS Orders of Succession and Delegations of Authorities
    for Named Positions, DHS Delegation No. 00106, Revision No. 08.4 (Feb.
    15, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Each ground had its own order of succession. In cases of the
    Secretary's death, resignation, or inability to perform the functions
    of the office, the February Delegation stated the order of succession
    was governed by Executive Order 13753 (E.O. 13753). Id.  II.A. E.O.
    13753 included an order of succession for officers who would act and
    perform the duties of the Secretary during any period in which the
    Secretary has died, resigned, or otherwise become unable to perform the
    functions and duties of the Office of Secretary. In cases where the
    Secretary is unavailable to act during a disaster or catastrophic
    emergency, Annex A to the February Delegation governed the order of
    succession. Id.  II.B. At that time, the orders of succession found in
    E.O. 13753 and Annex A were the same. The figure in appendix 1 attached
    to this decision illustrates the legal framework that could be used to
    designate an Acting Secretary at the time of the February Delegation.
        Under E.O. 13753 and Annex A, the first 4 positions in the order of
    succession were as follows: (1) Deputy Secretary, (2) Under Secretary
    for Management, (3) Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA), and (4) Director of CISA.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Both E.O. 13753 and Annex A list more positions than those
    indicated here. However, they are not relevant for purposes of this
    decision. Public Law 115-278 renamed the position of Under Secretary
    for National Protection and Programs to be Director of the
    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-278,
    2(a), 132 Stat. 4168, 4169 (Nov. 16, 2018), codified at 6 U.S.C.
    652(a), (b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The February Delegation also listed positions in an order of
    succession for Deputy Secretary in Annex B. The first four positions
    were as follows: (1) Under Secretary for Management, (2) Administrator
    of FEMA, (3) Director of CISA, and (4) Under Secretary of Science and
    Technology.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The Secretary may provide for an order of succession for the
    Deputy position under general management authorities granted the
    Secretary in HSA. 6 U.S.C.  112. However, any order of succession for
    the Deputy position must reflect that the Under Secretary for
    Management is the first assistant for purposes of the Vacancies Act, in
    accordance with HSA. 6 U.S.C.  113(a)(1)(F).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The February Delegation further stated acting officials in the
    listed positions are ineligible to serve and, therefore, the order of
    succession would fall to the next designated official in the approved
    order of succession. Id.  II.G.
    Nielsen's Resignation
        According to DHS, on April 9, 2019, the day before her resignation,
    Secretary Nielsen established a new order of succession. Delegation
    00106 was updated the following day, reflecting the changes (April
    Delegation).\10\ The April Delegation on its face maintained the two
    separate grounds for designation. Vacancies due to the Secretary's
    death, resignation, or inability to perform the functions of the office
    were still governed by the order of succession under E.O. 13753, and
    vacancies due to the Secretary's unavailability to act during a
    disaster or catastrophic emergency were still governed by Annex A to
    the Delegation. April Delegation Sec.  II.A, II.B. Secretary Nielsen
    did however amend the orders of succession for the Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary in Annexes A and B, respectively. The figure in appendix 1
    attached to this decision illustrates the legal framework that could be
    used to designate an Acting Secretary at the time of the April
    Delegation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ DHS, Orders of Succession and Delegations of Authorities for
    Named Positions, Delegation No. 00106, Revision No. 08.5 (Apr. 10,
    2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The first four positions in the order of succession for Acting
    Secretary in revised Annex A (disaster or catastrophic emergency) were
    as follows: (1) Deputy Secretary, (2) Under Secretary for Management,
    (3) Commissioner of CBP, and (4) Administrator of FEMA. April
    Delegation Annex A. The April Delegation removed the CISA director from
    for the order of succession. The April Delegation added the
    Commissioner to be third in the order, making the Administrator fourth
    in the order.
        In amending Annex A, the Secretary effectively established two
    different orders of succession. Annex A only applies to the Secretary's
    unavailability as a result of a disaster or catastrophic emergency.
    Because the Secretary did not amend the order of succession established
    in E.O. 13753 otherwise, the Delegation maintained the order set out
    therein whenever the position became vacant as a result of the
    Secretary's death, resignation, or inability to perform the functions
    of the office: (1) Deputy Secretary, (2) Under Secretary for
    Management, (3) Administrator of FEMA, and (4) Director of CISA.
        Secretary Nielsen also changed the order of succession for Deputy
    Secretary in Annex B. The first four positions in the order of
    succession were changed to be: (1) Under Secretary for Management, (2)
    Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), (3)
    Administrator of FEMA, and (4) the Director of CISA. Id. Annex B.
        On April 10, Secretary Nielsen and the Under Secretary for
    Management resigned. The Deputy Secretary had resigned a year earlier.
    In its response to us, DHS stated that it referred to the April
    Delegation to fill the Acting Secretary position. See Response Letter.
    Apparently, DHS mistakenly referred to Annex A, rather than E.O. 13753.
    Mr. McAleenan served as the previously confirmed Commissioner of U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection at the time. Mr. McAleenan would have
    been the appropriate official had Secretary Nielsen been unavailable to
    act during a disaster or catastrophic emergency. That was not the case
    here. Secretary Nielsen resigned. A Secretary's resignation is
    addressed in E.O. 13753, not Annex A.
        Applying the plain language of the April Delegation, the governing
    order of succession therefore, should have been that provided under
    E.O. 13753 and not Annex A. The April Delegation explicitly stated,
    ``In case of the Secretary's death, resignation, or inability to
    perform the functions of the Office, the orderly succession of
    officials is governed by Executive Order 13753, amended on December 9,
    2016.'' April Delegation  II.A (emphasis added). Annex A only applied
    to when the Secretary was unavailable to act during a disaster or
    catastrophic emergency. Id.  II.B.
        The first previously-confirmed official in the order of succession
    in E.O. 13753 was the Director of CISA.\11\ However, instead of
    following the order of succession in E.O. 13753, DHS applied the one in
    Annex A. If DHS had invoked the April Delegation due to the Secretary's
    unavailability to act during a disaster or catastrophic emergency, then
    Mr. McAleenan would have been the designated official. However, here
    the vacancy was due to Secretary Nielsen's resignation. Accordingly,
    under the express terms of Delegation 00106, the incorrect individual
    assumed the position of Acting Secretary.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ The confirmed Director of CISA at the time of Secretary
    Nielsen's resignation was Christopher Krebs. GAO, Federal Executive
    Vacancy System Database, available at https://www.gao.gov/legal/other-
    legal-work/federal-vacancies-reform-act. The Administrator of FEMA was
    listed third in the order of succession, but the Administrator resigned
    on March 3, 2019, before Secretary Nielsen resigned. Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In its response to us, DHS stated that Secretary Nielsen used the
    authority provided by HSA to establish an order of succession with Mr.
    McAleenan's position--the Commissioner of Customs and Border
    Protection--as next in the order of succession, after the positions of
    Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Management. Response Letter.
    DHS further stated that the order of succession was not governed by
    E.O. 13753 because the Executive Order was superseded when the
    Secretary established an order of succession pursuant to HSA. Id.
        DHS asserted that the direction from the Secretary to change the
    order of succession applied to any vacancy in the position of the
    Secretary. In support, DHS provided a memorandum from the DHS General
    Counsel to Secretary Nielsen. Memorandum from General Counsel, DHS, to
    Secretary of Homeland Security (Apr. 9, 2019) (Memorandum).
        The Memorandum included the revised order of succession for Annex A
    which provides:

    ``By the authority vested in me as Secretary of Homeland Security,
    including [HSA], 6 U.S.C.  113(g)(2), I hereby designate the order of
    succession for the Secretary of Homeland Security as follows: Annex A
    of . . . Delegation No. 00106, is hereby amended by striking the text
    of such Annex in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu
    thereof.''

        Id. This Memorandum includes additional text from the then-General
    Counsel summarizing Secretary Nielsen's desire to ``designate certain
    officers of [DHS] in order of succession to serve as Acting
    Secretary,'' and that ``[b]y approving the attached document, you will
    designate your desired order of succession for the Secretary . . . in
    accordance with your authority pursuant to [HSA].'' Id. A discussion
    section in this memorandum was redacted before DHS provided it to us.
        Notwithstanding the General Counsel's statement in the Memorandum
    asserting the Secretary's intentions in amending the April Delegation,
    the plain language of the delegation controls, and it speaks for
    itself. When Secretary Nielsen issued the April Delegation, she only
    amended Annex A, placing the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection as the next position in the order of succession in cases of
    the Secretary's unavailability to act during a disaster or catastrophic
    emergency. April Delegation Annex A. She did not change the ground for
    which Annex A would apply. DHS did not provide evidence of Secretary
    Nielsen's designation under HSA in the case of her death, resignation,
    or inability to perform the functions of the office.
        We are mindful that the timing of Secretary Nielsen's resignation
    the next day and the subsequent actions and statements of officials--
    such as Secretary Nielsen's farewell message to DHS \12\--may suggest
    that she intended for Mr. McAleenan to become the Acting Secretary upon
    her resignation. However, it would be inappropriate, in light of the
    clear express directive of the April Delegation, to interpret the order
    of succession based on post-hoc actions. See N.L.R.B. v. SW General,
    Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929, 941-42 (2017) (providing that when the text is
    clear, the court need not consider post-enactment practice); Bruesewitz
    v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 242 (2011) (``Post-enactment legislative
    history (a contradiction in terms) is not a legitimate tool of
    statutory interpretation.'') (internal citations omitted); Weinberger
    v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 35 (1982) (``Such post hoc statements of a
    Congressional committee are not entitled to much weight.'') (internal
    citations omitted). The April Delegation was the only existing exercise
    of the Secretary's authority to designate a successor pursuant to HSA.
    As such, Mr. McAleenan was not the designated Acting Secretary because,
    at the time, the Director of CISA was designated the Acting Secretary
    under the April Delegation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Press Release, DHS, Farewell Message from Secretary Kirstjen
    M. Nielsen (Apr. 10, 2019), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/
    04/10/farewell-message-secretary-kirstjen-m-nielsen.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    McAleenan's Resignation
        On November 8, 2019, shortly before he resigned, Mr. McAleenan
    revised the Delegation (November Delegation).\13\ The November
    Delegation maintained the two grounds for serving, but substituted
    Annex A for E.O. 13753 as governing the order of succession in cases of
    the Secretary's death, resignation, or inability to perform the
    functions of the office. November Delegation  II.A, II.B. This change
    meant Annex A governed both grounds for assuming the title of Acting
    Secretary, including the Secretary's inability to act during a disaster
    or catastrophic emergency. The figure in the appendix illustrates the
    legal framework that could be used to designate an Acting Secretary at
    the time of the November Delegation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ DHS, Orders of Succession and Delegations of Authorities for
    Named Positions, Delegation No. 00106, Revision No. 08.6 (Nov. 8,
    2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. McAleenan also changed the officials listed in the order of
    succession found in Annex A as follows: (1) Deputy Secretary, (2) Under
    Secretary for Management, (3) Commissioner of CBP; and (4) Under
    Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans. Id. Annex A. As a
    consequence, the revision removed the FEMA Administrator and CISA
    Director from the order of succession, replacing them with the CBP
    Commissioner and the Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans
    respectively.
        On November 13, Mr. McAleenan resigned as both Acting Secretary and
    Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In its response to
    us, DHS stated Mr. Wolf became the Acting Secretary pursuant to the
    November Delegation. Response Letter. At this time, the positions of
    Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary for Management, and
    Commissioner of CBP were all vacant. Mr. Wolf was serving as the
    previously-confirmed Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans at
    the time he assumed the title of Acting Secretary. DHS told us this was
    the first position that was filled with a previously-confirmed official
    in the order of succession. Id. Mr. Wolf currently serves as the Acting
    Secretary.
        On November 13, 2019, Mr. Wolf amended the order of succession for
    Deputy Secretary in Annex B, as follows: (1) Under Secretary for
    Management, (2) Principal Deputy Director of USCIS, (3) Administrator
    of TSA, and (4) Administrator of FEMA. Id.; November Delegation Annex
    B. The revision removed the CISA Director from the order of succession,
    installed the Principal Deputy Director of USCIS next in the order, and
    shifted TSA and FEMA to third and fourth. Subsequently, Mr. Cuccinelli
    assumed the title of the Senior Official Performing the Duties of
    Deputy Secretary, as he was the Principal Deputy Director of USCIS. Mr.
    Cuccinelli currently serves as the Senior Official Performing the
    Duties of Deputy Secretary.
        Under HSA, the Secretary, or properly serving Acting Secretary, has
    the authority to designate the order of succession for Acting
    Secretary. 6 U.S.C.  113(g)(2). Based on the analysis above, Mr.
    McAleenan was not the proper Acting Secretary which means he did not
    have the authority to amend the April Delegation. When Mr. McAleenan
    issued the November Delegation, he did so without the proper authority.
    See generally Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)
    (holding agency actions exceeding statutory authority are invalid).
    Because Mr. Wolf draws his authority to serve as Acting Secretary from
    the November Delegation, Mr. Wolf cannot, therefore, rely upon it to
    serve as the Acting Secretary.
        Mr. Wolf altered the order of succession for Deputy Secretary in
    the November Delegation to permit Mr. Cuccinelli to serve as the Senior
    Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary.\14\ According to
    DHS, Mr. Wolf did this under his authority as Acting Secretary.
    Response Letter. As discussed previously, Mr. McAleenan did not have
    the authority to alter the order of succession; therefore, Mr. Wolf
    also does not have the authority to alter it as well. The last valid
    order of succession to serve in that capacity was Annex B to the April
    Delegation, which did not include Mr. Cuccinelli's position.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Because the Vacancies Reform Act governs the Deputy Secretary,
    the 210-day limitation on acting service had already passed. This means
    the position had to remain vacant and no one could serve as Acting
    Deputy Secretary. However, under the Vacancies Reform Act, the
    department could designate an official to perform the duties of the
    Deputy Secretary so long as the official does not perform any non-
    delegable duties of the position. DHS indicated to us that, to the
    department's knowledge, no one performed any of the position's non-
    delegable duties. Response Letter.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        In the case of vacancy in the positions of Secretary, Deputy
    Secretary, and Under Secretary for Management, the HSA provides a means
    for an official to assume the title of Acting Secretary pursuant to a
    designation of further order of succession by the Secretary. Mr.
    McAleenan assumed the title of Acting Secretary upon the resignation of
    Secretary Nielsen, but the express terms of the existing designation
    required another official to assume that title. As such, Mr. McAleenan
    did not have the authority to amend the Secretary's existing
    designation. Accordingly, Messrs. Wolf and Cuccinelli were named to
    their respective positions of Acting Secretary and Senior Official
    Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary by reference to an invalid
    order of succession.
        In this decision we do not review the consequences of Mr.
    McAleenan's service as Acting Secretary, other than the consequences of
    the November delegation, nor do we review the consequences of Messers.
    Wolf and Cuccinelli service as Acting Secretary and Senior Official
    Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary respectively. We are
    referring the question as to who should be serving as the Acting
    Secretary and the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy
    Secretary to the DHS Office of Inspector General for its review. We
    also refer to the Inspector General the question of consequences of
    actions taken by these officials, including consideration of whether
    actions taken by these officials may be ratified by the Acting
    Secretary and Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary
    as designated in the April Delegation.
                                           Thomas H. Armstrong,
                                                       General Counsel.
    Appendix 1: Figure Illustrating the Legal Framework for Designating an
           Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Calendar Year 2019
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Brecheen. Ms. Johnson, you're now recognized for your 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to respond to a couple of the comments. The
    gentleman that was implying that illegal immigration benefited
    Democratic States is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
    of. I live in Texas. We have--I don't think anyone can state
    that there's a State out there that has more immigrants in it
    than the State of Texas, and it's very Republican, it's very
    red.
        I also resent the hell out of the comment--I'm a duly
    elected Member of Congress by citizens of my district, and to
    imply that Democrats are not elected by citizens of this
    country is outrageous and offensive, and you should be ashamed
    of yourselves.
        Next, you know--Mr. Chairman, you know, recipients of
    humanitarian parole programs, they don't want to leave their
    countries. They're here because they are fleeing harm and
    persecution. We are the United States of America. We're
    supposed to be a beacon of refuge, a place that says give me
    your poor, your tired, your huddled masses. We're here. But
    we're neglecting these very words by virtue of this committee
    hearing and by what's happening in this Congress.
        In May, the administration announced the termination of
    temporary protected status for our Afghan allies, the brave
    Afghans who put their lives on the line to support our U.S.
    troops. You give all this sanctimony about protecting our lines
    of enforcers of ICE, but what about the troops? What about the
    people who put their lives on the line in foreign countries and
    we had to solicit assistance from brave people in this country
    who risked their lives to make sure that our troops were safe
    and that our mission could be handled? Now we said to them, if
    you help us, we will be there for you. But not anymore. So now,
    the United States is home to over 200,000 Afghan allies.
        President of the nonprofit AfghanEvac and military vet,
    Shawn VanDiver, said, We made a promise to our Afghan allies,
    and fulfilling that promise is not just a policy--it's about
    integrity.
        It's about honor and honoring the commitment. Thousands of
    troops are rallying behind our Afghan allies because they know
    that countless American lives there were saved because of them
    and their bravery. They bled and died for our country, and how
    are we repaying them? By sending them back with a death
    sentence. I find that to be morally outrageous. It is wrong.
        What is happening? What is happening? All you who serve
    bravely in our military, who love to parade pomp and
    circumstance about the role and honor of our U.S. military, and
    here we have citizens of another country who will be killed and
    executed because they helped our men and women who bravely
    serve. That is not the America that we all know we should be.
        I think to the other point, you're complaining about ICE in
    masks. I think it's wrong that ICE agents are masking
    themselves, hiding themselves, not properly identifying
    themselves. The question is not do you not support the men who
    serve in law enforcement in this country, because we all do,
    but maybe you should be questioning the mission. Why is there
    so much pushback? Why is there so much outrage of how they're
    handling their mission? Why are we not questioning that? I
    think we are.
        That the way they're doing it by running up on people, by
    coming and attacking people who are in this country legally.
    This country said yes, you have temporary protected status.
    Yes, you can come here. You've come the right way, and now
    we're saying, within very short notice, get the hell out. That
    is not fair. That is not right. That's putting these people who
    come here to fulfill their American dream, the tired, the poor,
    the huddled masses, come here and you can be free. It's just so
    wrong.
        I think what we're seeing here is an outrage by the
    American people, and it's the leadership of this administration
    that is sending these agents into dangerous, harmful activities
    that is causing such a public outcry.
        Mr. Bier, I have a question. Can you please explain the
    consequences for the lives of these Afghans and what's going to
    happen to them when America breaks its promise to them and
    sends them back to be executed in Afghanistan for helping the
    United States of America?
        Mr. Bier. Yes. So about 70,000 Afghans were paroled into
    the United States. They came legally during the evacuation. I
    guess the opposition to that would be that we should have left
    them all there to be killed. I prefer that we did what we did.
    Some bad actors were part of that group. We identified those
    people, and that's appropriate. That's what vetting should do.
    But the vast majority of the people that we evacuated were
    people that we should be protecting, and we should allow them
    to stay here permanently with a permanent status. We shouldn't
    have a temporary protected status. We should allow them to stay
    permanently, and there's legislation to do that.
        Ms. Johnson. Right, because----
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Knott for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Knott. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        You know, one of the great frustrations here is the
    conflation of legal immigration and illegal immigration, and
    the Democratic Party has made a habit of painting it with one
    swoop.
        Republicans are against all immigrants, and that could not
    be further from the truth. As someone who worked over the last
    decade prosecuting illegal immigrant criminals, I can tell you
    I have zero problems with them wearing masks. We have organized
    crime. We have violent crime. We have international criminal
    operations that are here in this country, the likes of which
    few citizens can conceive of, and they perform
    countersurveillance, they are sophisticated, they are ruthless,
    and the level of violence that they operate in is a level that
    most Americans cannot conceive of. So I find it offensive that
    we are calling out our officers for protecting themselves.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Knott, will you yield?
        Mr. Knott. No, I will not. No, I will not.
        This idea that we can bring as many people into this
    country from anywhere in the world, no matter where they come
    from, no matter what they believe, no matter what culture they
    hail from, without consequence and, truly, that it will only
    benefit this country is just laughable. It's just laughable.
        We have 40 million illegal immigrants in this country, and
    we just have to ask ourselves--to Ms. Johnson--how many of the
    world's poor can we bring in here, in addition to the legal
    immigrants--in addition to the legal immigrants before the
    American economy, before Americans are harmed? We can't even
    take care of our own poor. The thought that we could bring in
    millions and millions of illegals and then not have a
    detrimental effect on our country, I find it offensive.
        How many millions of low-skilled illiterate individuals
    should we bring into the United States while our own children
    fall behind, while our own children are lagging in schools?
    Dozens of countries from around the world sanction extreme
    persecution for religious or political differences. Should we
    bring millions of those people into the United States?
        In many countries you can be executed because you are a
    Christian, because you are a homosexual, because you disagree
    on a political matter. Should we bring 10-, 20-, 30-, 50
    million of those people into the country? This whole premise is
    absolutely outrageous, and the American people know that
    unchecked immigration on an illegal basis will bring this
    country to its knees.
        So conflating the two, illegal immigration, open borders,
    unchecked migration, mass migration, into this country is only
    harmful. We could not be more robust in our favor for legal
    immigration. It is illegal immigration that we should be
    fighting against. The Democrats have not shifted 1 centimeter
    since November. They only advocate for open borders and
    unchecked illegal immigration, and I find it astounding.
        Now, Mr. Cuccinelli, there was a lengthy discussion earlier
    that said that the ICE officers who are bravely trying to
    eradicate some of these criminals and get them out of the
    country are only operating on the basis of race. Again, I've
    worked with them. I think that is a grotesque overstatement,
    but I'll let you respond to it.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. So when I was the deputy secretary and
    overseeing ICE, any operation--they didn't just wake up 1 day
    and say, who are we going to get today? Investigation,
    research, and preparation goes into every field operation that
    you see and don't see.
        Mr. Knott. Right.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. People are not winging it. They're
    prepared. They're professionals. They do this for a variety of
    reasons. No. 1, to preserve the safety of everyone going out,
    including the people they're going to encounter, by the way.
    You bring enough force to maintain the peace so that no one is
    tempted to be violent. That's part of the preparation, as you
    well know. They execute on that plan.
        All of the allegations here about, oh, they're just after
    this or that on that one sole thing, they're just hitting
    people at Home Depot, that is just the biggest pile of horse
    manure I've heard in a long time.
        Mr. Correa. Gentleman yield?
        Mr. Knott. Nope.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. So, you know, the comment was made, maybe
    it's the mission. I think she's right. That's not a reason--
    that's not a reason that law enforcement officers shouldn't be
    enforcing the law. You're Congress. If you don't like their
    mission, change the law. They are executing the law properly.
        The whole question of masks, the fact----
        Mr. Brecheen. Ten seconds.
        Mr. Cuccinelli [continuing]. The people in the Federal
    Government don't approve of ICE agents protecting themselves
    under situations--and let's be really clear here, they're not
    threatening ICE agents. They're threatening their families.
        Mr. Correa. American citizens being arrested----
        Mr. Brecheen. Nope. Fifteen seconds.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Families are being threatened.
        Mr. Knott. I will say just in closing, Mr. Chairman, that
    there were roughly almost 3 million people granted temporary
    protected status. If each one of those people were given an
    hour, that's 330 years of Government time to vet those people.
    I think it's laughable to assume that those people were
    properly vetted before they were brought into this country.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Brecheen. The gentleman's time is expired and he
    yields.
        Mr. Thanedar. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Brecheen. Representative Thanedar, you are recognized.
        Mr. Thanedar. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for unanimous
    consent to enter a statement for the record from the AFL-CIO
    that speaks to immigrants being vital members of the work
    force.
        Mr. Brecheen. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
                            Statement of the AFL-CIO
                             Tuesday, July 15, 2025
        The AFL-CIO is a federation of 65 affiliated unions representing
    more than 15 million workers across all sectors of our economy. Our
    members work in every State in the Nation and they come from every
    region of the world. Like the workforce as a whole, our membership
    consists of people with all types of immigration status. Together, we
    strive to ensure that every person who works in this country receives
    decent pay, good benefits, safe working conditions, and fair treatment
    on the job.
        The mass deportation agenda currently being pursued by the
    administration and Congress is a direct threat to workers, jobs, and
    unions that will have a devastating economic impact for our Nation. One
    in 5 workers in our country wasn't born here. Needlessly stripping
    millions of people of work authorization through the termination of
    Temporary Protected Status and various forms of humanitarian parole
    will cause severe workforce disruption that risks crippling key
    industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor, such as construction,
    hospitality, manufacturing, and food processing. Rather than benefiting
    the remaining workforce, mass deportations amidst an already tight
    labor market will shutter businesses, disrupt supply chains, drive up
    costs for consumers, and put jobs at risk.
        Immigrants are vital members of our workforce and our unions, yet
    last week alone more than 500,000 work-authorized people with CHNV
    parole received notice that their status was being revoked and they
    needed to leave the country by April 24. Let's call this what is--a
    massive layoff forced onto the private sector by the Federal
    Government. Moreover, it is a betrayal of commitments made to working
    people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who were invited to
    our country, with sponsors, and are now needlessly and cruelly having
    the rug pulled out from under them and being ordered to return to life-
    threatening situations.
        For a small window into the harmful impact parole terminations will
    have on local unions and the economy, we share this quote from Dino
    Driskell, president of IUE-CWA Local 83761 in Louisville, Kentucky:

    ``We were outraged to learn that nearly 200 of our union members at GE/
    Haier Appliance Park are being targeted for deportation by the Trump
    administration. These workers came to this country legally and are
    hard-working, tax-paying members of our community, raising their
    families and living their lives peacefully. They come to work every day
    at GE/Haier to build appliances for the American people. They deserve
    to be treated with dignity and respect, not ripped from their families
    to be shipped away. We have over 20 languages spoken at Appliance Park,
    and we believe diversity is a strength, not a weakness. We call on the
    administration to restore their status immediately.''

        And if revoking commitments made to working people with CHNV parole
    was not bad enough, DHS also sent alarming notices to an additional
    200,000+ people invited to the United States under the Uniting for
    Ukraine (U4U) program. These shocking messages, which opened with the
    statement, ``It is time for you to leave the United States,'' advised
    recipients that their parole would terminate in a mere 7 days and
    asserted that they would be subject to criminal prosecution if they did
    not depart the country immediately. Nowhere did the notice thank them
    for their varied contributions to the United States or acknowledge that
    Ukraine is an active war zone. Although the U4U messages were recalled
    the next day, the insult, confusion, and fear remains.
        Humanitarian parole is an important tool to respond to urgent
    situations, such as Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and to provide
    significant public benefit. Indeed, the arrival of newcomers through
    various parole pathways over the past several years has protected more
    than a million working families and provided vital stimulus that helped
    to stave off a recession. In addition to expanding the workforce,
    immigrants promote economic growth through their consumer spending,
    support our social safety net, and pay taxes on which Federal, State,
    and local budgets rely.
        Needlessly stripping people of parole will harm workers, unions,
    jobs and our economy, and we urge Members of Congress to insist that
    their rights and work permits be restored. Recent estimates by the
    Economic Policy Institute suggest that the mass deportation agenda will
    destroy 6 million jobs in our country. Immigrant workers will bear the
    brunt of this impact, but their co-workers will also suffer, with
    nearly half of the job losses hitting American citizens.
        The real threat workers face is corporate greed, not immigrants.
    President Trump wants working people to focus on the border and
    immigration so we'll be too distracted to notice as they roll out
    massive corporate tax cuts, slash our benefits, starve our public
    schools, and trample on our labor and voting rights. It is a classic
    political maneuver meant to keep us divided and poor, and we see right
    through it.
        For these reasons and many more, the mass deportation agenda is not
    just bad for immigrants, but for every worker in this country. We call
    on lawmakers to reject this destructive approach, and instead return
    focus to comprehensive reform of our unjust immigration system in ways
    that center a pathway to citizenship and ensure all workers are able to
    live and work safely and with dignity.

        Mr. Brecheen. I want to thank the witnesses for your time,
    your testimony; the Members for the questions and the dialog.
    The Members of the subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses. We ask the witnesses to respond to
    these in writing.
        Pursuant to committee rule VII(E), the hearing record will
    be held open for 10 days.
        Without objection, the subcommittee now stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the subcommittees adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                      Prepared Statement of Charles Marino
        Chairman Brecheen, Chairman Guest, Ranking Member Thanedar, Ranking
    Member Correa, & Members of the committees. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak on a topic of growing national significance--the
    screening and vetting of large numbers of parolees into the United
    States.
        Let me begin by acknowledging a simple truth: the United States has
    always been a beacon of hope and opportunity for people around the
    world. Our immigration system, when it functions effectively,
    strengthens our country economically, culturally, and diplomatically.
    But when processes are rushed, overwhelmed, or politically manipulated,
    serious risks arise--both to national security and public trust.
        Today, I want to highlight 3 key concerns tied to the mass parole
    of individuals into the United States under programs that often lack
    full transparency, accountability, or adequate infrastructure.
                  first: security gaps due to volume and speed
        When tens of thousands of individuals are paroled into the country
    over a short period, the system becomes strained. Resources, personnel,
    and technology--especially those used for background checks--are
    limited. Vetting takes time. When that time is compressed, corners may
    be cut, or critical data may simply be unavailable from the country of
    origin.
        In some regions--particularly conflict zones or failed states--
    there are no reliable records to confirm identity, criminal history, or
    associations with extremist networks. If we are admitting individuals
    faster than we can verify them, we are increasing the risk of admitting
    bad actors alongside genuine refugees. This has proven true as fact in
    very real ways.
                  second: inconsistent standards and oversight
        Parole is designed to be a case-by-case humanitarian tool--not a
    large-scale immigration pipeline. However, when used at scale, it
    becomes susceptible to inconsistent decision making. Agents and
    officers under pressure may lack clear, standardized criteria for
    approval, or may be forced to rely on incomplete information and
    judgment calls. This opens the door not just to security risks, but
    also to claims of unfairness, abuse, or politicization. Trust in the
    integrity of our system--by citizens and immigrants alike--depends on
    consistency and fairness.
                 third: downstream consequences for communities
        Finally, we must acknowledge the practical impacts on State and
    local communities. Rapid influxes of parolees can strain schools,
    health care systems, housing markets, and social services--especially
    when local authorities are not given adequate support or warning.
    Moreover, if individuals are admitted without full vetting and later
    commit crimes or are found to have ties to dangerous organizations,
    public confidence in both the parole process and immigration policy at
    large is eroded. This fuels political division and undermines
    legitimate asylum and refugee programs.
        To be clear: this is not an argument against compassion or
    humanitarian aid. It is an argument for responsible governance. We must
    ensure that parole programs are transparent, limited in scope, and
    supported by the appropriate infrastructure--including intelligence
    sharing, biometric screening, and long-term monitoring.
        Security and compassion are not mutually exclusive. But one must
    never come at the complete expense of the other. If persons are unable
    to be thoroughly vetted, they MUST NOT be allowed into the country! We
    must never put politics over the national security of our country or
    the safety and security of the American public.
        Thank you.

                                     [all]