[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

STOPPING THE DAILY BORDER CARAVAN: TIME TO BUILD A POLICY WALL

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

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BORDER AND
MARITIME SECURITY

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

MAY 22, 2018

__________

Serial No. 115-65

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32-638 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
John Katko, New York Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Will Hurd, Texas Filemon Vela, Texas
Martha McSally, Arizona Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Ratcliffe, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York J. Luis Correa, California
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin Val Butler Demings, Florida
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Ron Estes, Kansas
Don Bacon, Nebraska
Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Steven S. Giaier, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY

Martha McSally, Arizona, Chairwoman
Lamar Smith, Texas Filemon Vela, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania J. Luis Correa, California
Will Hurd, Texas Val Butler Demings, Florida
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Don Bacon, Nebraska Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Paul L. Anstine, Subcommittee Staff Director
Alison B. Northrop, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director/Counsel

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Statements

The Honorable Martha McSally, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Arizona, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border
and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Filemon Vela, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border and
Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 8

Witnesses

Mr. Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Thomas D. Homan, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Mr. Lee Francis Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 25
Prepared Statement............................................. 27

For the Record

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Map............................................................ 35
The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California:
English Translation of Letter by Olivia Caseres................ 40
The Honorable Filemon Vela, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border and
Maritime Security:
Statement of Church World Service (CWS)........................ 49
Letter from Amnesty International.............................. 50
Statement of the National Immigration Forum.................... 54
Statement of the American Immigration Council.................. 59
Statement of the National Domestic Workers Alliance............ 61

Appendix

Questions From Ranking Member Filemon Vela for Ronald D. Vitiello 71
Questions From Honorable J. Louis Correa for Ronald D. Vitiello.. 75
Questions From Honorable Nanette Barragan for Ronald D. Vitiello. 76
Questions From Ranking Member Filemon Vela for Thomas D. Homan... 76
Questions From Ranking Member Filemon Vela for Lee Francis Cissna 78
Questions From Honorable Nanette Barragan for Lee Francis Cissna. 79

STOPPING THE DAILY BORDER CARAVAN: TIME TO BUILD A POLICY WALL

----------

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Martha McSally
(Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives McSally, Rogers, Hurd, Bacon,
Lesko, Vela, Correa, Demings, and Barragan.
Also present: Representatives McCaul and Jackson Lee.
Ms. McSally. The Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will come to
order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to examine policies that
impact the Department's ability to secure the border. I now
recognize myself for an opening statement.
Last month, a caravan of nearly 1,500 migrants was
organized by Pueblo Sin Fronteras, also known as People Without
Borders, an extremist advocacy group with the stated purpose of
``abolishing borders''. Under the guise of humanitarian action,
this group facilitated the movement of a migrant caravan
traveling more than 2,000 miles through Mexico toward the
Southwest Border of the United States. The caravan began in
Tapachula on the Mexico-Guatemala border with the express
purpose of traveling to the United States and entering our
country by illegal entry, or utilizing loopholes in immigration
laws.
The reality is that this type of activity is happening
every day in smaller numbers, and without the media fanfare.
Our asylum process is broken, rife with fraudulent claims.
Individuals who arrive at our border have no need to dodge our
border security efforts, because our policies make it all too
easy for them. Aliens can simply come to a port of entry, or
look for a Border Patrol agent, and simply say that they have,
``a credible fear''. Saying these simple two words permits them
to be released into the country about 90 percent of the time,
regardless of the merits of the claim. Once released, they are
given a notice to appear for a court date, sometimes years in
the future, and a work permit after 180 days.
In 2008, DHS asylum officers referred 5,100 cases needing
this credible fear threshold to immigration courts. In 2016 it
was almost 92,000 cases. The reason for the increase is simple:
Individuals have learned how to exploit the system. It should
surprise no one that many of those who claim asylum do not ever
show up for their court date, most likely because their claim
is unfounded in the first place.
In order to ensure we maximize our ability to accommodate
those seeking to flee persecution, we must combat this fraud in
order to help those who actually have a legitimate asylum
claim, who are getting lost in a sea of fraudulent ones.
Another loophole stems from the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, which is a well-meaning law,
and as the name suggests, was designed to prevent human
trafficking. However, the disparate treatment of children from
Mexico and children from noncontiguous countries like Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador, creates a perverse incentive to put
young children at risk. We must end that loophole that puts
children in the hands of smugglers who abuse them along the way
to our border. Once these young people arrive, they are
vulnerable to gang recruitment, especially the notorious MS-13,
given the weakness of the vetting done on those who sponsor
those children.
Dangerous gangs such as MS-13 are not the only ones
benefiting from these loopholes. Drug cartels control the
illicit movement of people and narcotics that cross our
borders. Every single migrant, whether an unaccompanied child,
family unit or single adult that illegally crosses the
Southwest Border enriches the cartels, and assist their growth
and their lethality.
The number of illegal border crossings during the month of
March and April show an urgent need to address these glaring
loopholes. We witnessed a 300 percent increase from April 2017,
compared to April 2018, and a 37 percent increase from last
month to this month, the largest increase month-to-month since
2011. Traffickers, smugglers, and extremist advocacy groups are
exploiting these weaknesses, and putting individuals making the
journey at risk, as well as Americans who are falling victim to
crimes perpetrated by bad actors who are making their way in.
In addition, if we do not address this situation, we will
be confronted by another generation of DACA-like people in the
near future.
When I was in the Air Force, I traveled all over the world,
and I saw desperation and poverty that most Americans cannot
fathom. Countries around the world are dealing with extreme
violence, war, and gangs, and as human beings, we would be
moved to help them, often through the work of charitable
organizations or ministries.
But the truth of the matter is that we cannot bring
everyone who is suffering here. The very definition of a
country is one who controls who and who does not enter. We are
a Nation of immigrants, and we welcome with open arms
approximately 1 million legal immigrants in our country every
year. However, we are also a Nation of laws, and we cannot sit
idly by as our borders are overrun by lawlessness.
The time has come to build a policy wall, alongside the
physical wall, to force those seeking to immigrate to the
United States to do it the right way, the legal way. Congress
must act to change our immigration policy, and to close these
loopholes.
Last September, the speaker appointed me and 7 other
Members, including our Chairman, to a working group tasked with
addressing this issue. We spent countless hours diving into our
broken immigration and border policies. For the last 9 months,
we have been working and refining the bill that became the
Goodlatte, McCaul, McSally, and Labrador Bill. This bill is
strong on border security, closes these legal loopholes, and
ends the insanity on the border. I have received assurances
from leadership that our bill will be brought before the House
for a vote in June. I look forward to its consideration on the
floor.
[The statement of Chairwoman McSally follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Martha McSally
May 22, 2018
Last month a caravan of nearly 1,500 migrants was organized by
Pueblo Sin Fronteras, also known as People Without Borders, an
extremist advocacy group with the stated purpose of ``abolishing
borders.''
Under the guise of humanitarian action, this group facilitated the
movement of a migrant caravan traveling more than 2,000 miles through
Mexico toward the Southwest Border of the United States.
The caravan began in Tapachula on the Mexico-Guatemala border, with
the express purpose of traveling to the United States and entering our
country--be it by illegal entry or utilizing loopholes in our
immigration laws.
Our asylum process is broken, rife with fraudulent claims.
Individuals who arrive at our border have no need to dodge our border
security efforts because our policies make it all too easy. Aliens can
simply come to a port of entry or look for a Border Patrol agent and
simply say they have a ``credible fear.'' Saying these simple words
permits aliens to be released into the country around 90 percent of the
time regardless of the merit of such claims.
Once released, aliens are given a notice to appear for a court date
years into the future and a work permit after 180 days.
In 2008, DHS asylum officers referred 5,100 cases meeting this
credible fear threshold to immigration courts but in 2016 almost 92,000
cases.
The reason for the increase is simple, individuals have learned how
to exploit the system.
It should surprise no one that many of those who claim asylum do
not even show up to their court date--most likely because their claim
was unfounded in the first place.
In order to ensure we maximize our ability to accommodate those
seeking to flee persecution we must combat this fraud in order to help
those who actually have a legitimate asylum claim who are getting lost
in the sea of fraudulent ones.
Another loophole stems from the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act was a well-meaning law, and as the name suggests,
was designed to prevent human trafficking.
However, the disparate treatment of children from Mexico and the
children from non-contiguous countries like Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador creates a perverse incentive to put young children at risk.
We must end that loophole that puts children in the hands of
smugglers who abuse them along the way to the border.
Once these young people arrive, they are vulnerable to gang
recruitment, especially the notorious MS-13 given the weakness of the
vetting done on those who sponsor these children.
Dangerous gangs such as MS-13 are not the only ones benefiting from
these loopholes. Drug cartels control the illicit movement of people
and narcotics that cross our borders.
Every single migrant, whether an Unaccompanied Alien Child, Family
Unit, or single adult, that illegally crosses the Southwest Border
enriches the cartel and assists their growth and lethality.
The number of illegal border crossings during the month of March
and April shows an urgent need to address these glaring loopholes in an
urgent manner. We witnessed a 300 percent increase from April 2017
compared to April 2018 and a 37 percent increase from last month to
this month--the largest increase from month to month since 2011.
The traffickers, smugglers, and extremist advocacy groups are
exploiting these weaknesses and putting individuals making the journey
at risks as well as Americans who are falling victim to crimes
perpetrated by bad actors who are making their way in.
In addition, if we do not address this situation we will be
confronted by another generation of DACA-like people in the near
future.
When I was in the Air Force, I traveled all over the world, and I
saw the desperation and poverty that most Americans cannot even fathom.
Countries around the world are dealing with extreme violence, war, and
gangs.
As human beings, we may be moved to help them through the work of
charitable organization and ministry efforts.
But the truth of the matter is that we cannot bring everyone who is
suffering here. The very definition of a country is one that controls
who and who does not enter.
We are a Nation of immigrants and we welcome, with open arms,
approximately 1 million legal immigrants into our country each year.
However, we are a Nation of laws, and we cannot sit idly by as our
borders are overrun by lawlessness.
The time has come to build a policy wall alongside a physical wall
to force those seeking to immigrate in the United States to do it the
right way, the legal way.
Congress must act to change our immigration policy to end these
loopholes.
Last September, the Speaker appointed me and 7 other Members a
working group tasked with addressing this issue. We spent countless
hours diving into our broken immigration policies. For the last 9
months we have been working and refining the bill that became the
Goodlatte, McCaul, McSally, and Labrador Bill.
This bill is strong on border security, closes these legal
loopholes and ends the insanity on the border. I have received
assurance from leadership that this bill will be brought before the
House for a vote in June. I look forward to its consideration on the
floor.

Ms. McSally. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vela, for any
statement he may have.
Mr. Vela. Thank you, Chairwoman McSally.
I would first like to address the title for today's
hearing. My position on the border wall is well-known by now,
and I would like to express my deep concern about the so-called
policy wall proposed by the administration, and that we are
going to talk about today.
As with the physical border wall, the need for a policy
wall is unclear to me. The number of asylum-seekers requesting
protection in Mexico or the United States indicates a human--
humanitarian problem, not necessarily a security threat. A
growing number of asylum-seekers are coming from Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras.
Most of us here today are aware that El Salvador and
Honduras rank among the top 5 most violent countries in the
world, including nations at war. Even former Secretary John
Kelly acknowledged the dangerous and complex conditions on the
ground in the northern triangle before he joined this
administration, and during his confirmation hearing.
The characterization that the levels of people seeking
asylum are unacceptable is confusing. Blaming and punishing the
people who are seeking protection is inhumane. The conditions
leading to a humanitarian crisis are unacceptable, not the
people seeking protection. We should be redoubling our efforts
to work with international partners to fix the source problem.
Earlier this year, I joined the other Democrats on this
committee in sending a letter to Secretary Nielsen opposing the
practice of separating migrant parents from their children in
cases that do not warrant it when they apprehended at the
border or in immigration detention. I am opposed to tearing
kids away from their parents, and I am concerned about what
criminalizing adult asylum-seekers will mean for legal claims
to protection.
The effect of family separation is also traumatizing.
According to more than 200 child welfare, juvenile justice and
child development organizations who wrote to Secretary Nielsen
opposing family separation, there is ample evidence that
separating children from their mothers or fathers leads to
serious negative consequences to children's health and
development. As DHS separates families at the borders, DHS will
likely have to detain people over age 18 in adult immigration
detention facilities, and designate any children as
unaccompanied.
I worry that there are no reliable mechanisms in place to
ensure that families can be reunified later. If an adult goes
through current criminal proceedings or is subjected to
expedited removal, how will his or her child, who is in a
shelter somewhere in the United States, know how to get in
touch with them? I fear that these policies will be harmful in
the long run.
Last, I would like to hear from CBP about how you are
managing your resources to address potentially more asylum-
seekers at our ports of entry. Given this new zero-tolerance
policy for people crossing between our ports of entry along the
Southern Border, DHS is encouraging people to claim asylum at
ports of entry instead.
The CBP officer staffing shortage is a persistent problem,
and I would like to learn how capacity issues at ports are
likely to be affected by these policy changes. I thank you for
joining us today and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Vela follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Filemon Vela
May 22, 2018
Thank you, Chairwoman McSally.
I would first like to address the title for today's hearing.
My position on the border wall is well-known by now, and I would
like to express my deep concern about the so-called ``policy wall''
proposed by the administration and that we are going to talk about
today.
As with the physical border wall, the need for a policy ``wall'' is
unclear to me.
The number of asylum-seekers requesting protection in Mexico or the
United States indicates a humanitarian problem, not necessarily a
security threat.
A growing number of asylum seekers are coming from Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras.
Most of us here today are aware that El Salvador and Honduras rank
among the top five most violent countries in the world, including
nations at war.
Even former Secretary John Kelly acknowledged the dangerous and
complex conditions on the ground in the Northern Triangle before he
joined this administration and during his confirmation hearing.
The characterization that the levels of people seeking asylum are
``unacceptable'' is confusing.
Blaming and punishing the people who are seeking protection is
inhumane.
The conditions leading to a humanitarian crisis are unacceptable,
not the people seeking protection.
We should be redoubling our efforts to work with international
partners to fix the source problem.
Earlier this year, I joined the other Democrats on this committee
in sending a letter to Secretary Nielsen opposing the practice of
separating migrant parents from their children in cases that do not
warrant it when they are apprehended at the border or in immigration
detention.
I am opposed to tearing kids away from their parents, and I am
concerned about what criminalizing adult asylum seekers will mean for
legal claims to protection.
The effect of family separation is also traumatizing.
According to more than 200 child welfare, juvenile justice, and
child development organizations who wrote to Secretary Nielsen opposing
family separation, there is ample evidence that separating children
from their mothers or fathers leads to serious, negative consequences
to children's health and development.
As DHS separates families at the border, DHS will likely have to
detain people over age 18 in adult immigrant detention facilities and
designate any children as ``unaccompanied.''
I worry that there are no reliable mechanisms in place to ensure
families can be reunified later.
If an adult goes through criminal proceedings or is subjected to
expedited removal, how will his or her child who is in a shelter
somewhere in the United States know how to get in touch with them?
I fear that these policies will be harmful in the long run.
Last, I would like to hear from CBP about how you are managing your
resources to address potentially more asylum seekers at our ports of
entry.
Given this new zero-tolerance policy for people crossing between
our ports of entry along the Southern Border, DHS is encouraging people
to claim asylum at ports of entry instead.
The CBP officer staffing shortage is a persistent problem, and I
would like to learn how capacity issues at ports are likely to be
affected by these policy changes.
I thank you for joining us today, and I yield back the balance of
my time.

Ms. McSally. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the
full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, for any
statement he may have.
Mr. McCaul. I thank you Madam Chairwoman for holding this
important hearing. Almost 2 months ago, a caravan of more than
1,000 Central Americans began a 2,000-mile journey from
Guatemala and Mexico border, headed toward the United States.
The journey was not easy and the migrants were met with
great difficulties, hunger, sickness, even exploitation by
criminal gangs. So what motivated them to make this journey? A
lawless immigrant advocacy group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras,
whose specific goal is the circumvention of U.S. immigration
law.
They organized what they thought would be their largest
blitz on the United States border, and the goal was simple--
overwhelm U.S. law enforcement and tax an already overburdened
immigration system with baseless asylum claims.
This was not the first caravan and it did not change our
immigration policies and laws, and this will not be the last.
While this particular caravan drew lots of media attention, CBP
agents and officers have seen a troubling trend.
Family units and unaccompanied alien children flood across
the border, many of them claiming credible fear. Almost every
single person who claims credible fear meets the existing
threshold in the law. Loopholes in our immigration system are
well-known to the organized illegal immigration groups and the
brutal drug cartels who facilitate the movement of aliens
across the border.
In fact, cartels use these weaknesses as a shrewd marketing
tool that further enriches the cartel. This harms the stability
and the rule of law in Mexico. Building a physical wall along
key parts of the Southwest Border is absolutely necessary.
In tandem, we must also construct a wall of sensible policy
to close these legal loopholes that put families and children
at risk. Last month, we saw the number of illegal border
crossings triple over the same period as last year.
We have to take dramatic action to reverse this disturbing
development. I was pleased to see that the--that the Department
recently enacted a zero tolerance policy for those who come
here illegally. Prosecuting those who enter the country
illegally is the right policy.
This will send a powerful message of deterrence to those
who are trying to take advantage of our immigration laws. We
have used prosecution successfully in the past, and I know that
myself as a former Federal prosecutor--and our operations
streamline, nearly every alien apprehended was prosecuted.
When that policy was enacted, in every instance, we saw a
dramatic decline in crossings. I along with Chairman Goodlatte
and Chairwoman McSally have proposed a robust border security
and immigration enforcement bill to close these legal loopholes
that Secretary Nielsen and the honorable Homan--it's good to
see you sir--have pointed out so many times in the past, so
many times.
Without changes to the way we treat unaccompanied alien
children and family units, and without tightening our asylum
standards, there will always be powerful incentives for aliens
to come to this country illegally.
This must stop. The time for change has come, and I am
committed to working with this administration and other like-
minded Members to make that a reality. With that, I yield back.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
May 22, 2018
First, I would like to thank Chairwoman McSally for her leadership
on this important issue and for holding this hearing.
Almost 2 months ago, a caravan of more than 1,000 Central American
migrants began a 2,000-mile-long journey from the Guatemalan-Mexico
border and headed toward the United States.
The journey was not easy and the migrants were met with great
difficulties: Hunger, sickness, and even exploitation by criminal
gangs. What motivated them to make this dangerous journey?
A lawless immigrant advocacy group called ``Pueblo Sin Fronteras'',
whose specific goal is the circumvention of U.S. immigration law.
They organized, what they thought, would be their largest blitz on
the U.S. border. The goal was simple, overwhelm U.S. law enforcement,
and tax an already overburdened immigration system with baseless asylum
claims.
This was not the first caravan, and if we do not change our
immigration policies, and laws, this will not be the last.
While this particular caravan drew lots of media attention, CBP
agents and officers have seen a troubling trend. Family units and
unaccompanied alien children flood across the border--many of them
claiming ``credible fear.''
Almost every single person who claims ``credible fear'' meets the
existing threshold in the law.
Loopholes in our immigration system are well-known to organized
illegal immigration groups and the brutal drug cartels who facilitate
the movement of aliens across the border.
In fact, cartels use these weaknesses as a shrewd marketing tool
that further enriches the cartel.
This harms stability and the rule of law in Mexico.
Building a physical wall along key parts of the Southwest Border is
absolutely necessary. In tandem, we must also construct a wall of
sensible policy to close loopholes that put families and children at
risk.
Last month, we saw the number of illegal border crossings triple
over the same period as last year. We have to take dramatic action to
reverse this disturbing development.
I was pleased to see that the Department recently enacted a zero-
tolerance policy for those that come here illegally.
Prosecuting those who enter the country illegally is the right
policy. This will send a powerful message to those who are trying to
take advantage of our immigration laws.
We have used prosecution successfully in the past.
Under Operation Streamline, nearly every alien apprehended was
prosecuted. And when that policy was enacted, in every instance, we saw
a dramatic decline in crossings.
I, along with Chairman Goodlatte, Representative Labrador, and
Chairwoman McSally have proposed a robust border security and
immigration enforcement bill to close the loopholes that Secretary
Nielsen and the witnesses on the panel have raised in the past.
Without changes to the way we treat unaccompanied alien children
and family units, and without tightening our asylum standards, there
will always be powerful incentives for aliens to come to this country
illegally. This must stop.
The time for change has come. I'm committed to working with this
administration and other like-minded Members to make that a reality.

Ms. McSally. Gentleman yields back. Other Members of the
committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted
for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
May 22, 2018
I am deeply disturbed by actions President Trump, the Secretary,
and Department officials are taking ostensibly to deter illegal
migration.
What the Trump administration, DHS officials, and many of my
Republican colleagues call ``legal loopholes'' are actually laws
Congress put in place to protect some of the most vulnerable migrants,
particularly children, seeking humanitarian protection.
Separating small children from their parents as a punitive measure
runs counter to basic humanitarian principles and should be beneath
even this administration.
Earlier this year, I was proud to lead all 12 of Democrats on this
committee in sending a letter to Secretary Nielsen opposing the
practice of separating migrant parents from their children at the
border or in immigration detention.
I continue to believe the practice is cruel and will only
exacerbate the trauma experienced by children fleeing violence and
unrest in their home countries.
DHS is also pursuing policies that may interfere with people's
ability to seek asylum in the United States as provided for under the
law.
We have laws in place so that people fleeing dangerous situations
can request protection and humanitarian relief.
I am confident that our witnesses here today are aware that El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are facing exceptional levels of
violent crime--a sad reality that has persisted for the past several
years.
The increased number of Central Americans petitioning for asylum in
the United States is not because more people are ``exploiting'' the
system via ``loopholes,'' but because many have credible claims.
Seeking asylum in the United States is not an easy process either.
In addition, anyone undergoing a ``credible fear'' review has their
name and fingerprints vetted via a National security database, which
scans records from Federal, State, local, and foreign sources.
We also know from immigration court records that 77 percent of
asylum seekers who are not in ICE custody do show up for their
hearings.
When people, and particularly children, have access to counsel,
they are even more likely to appear for their court date.
Though asylum requests in both Mexico and the United States have
increased, I take issue with the administration's characterization that
we have a crisis at the border.
DHS's own data shows that overall migration levels at the U.S-
Mexico border are at record lows, with apprehensions at their lowest
since the early 1970's.
In 2000, Border Patrol apprehended 1.6 million people crossing
between ports of entry.
In contrast, in 2017, the agency apprehended less than 310,000
people--a nearly 82 percent decrease.
Those of us who have worked on this issue for a long time have a
responsibility to share facts that offer perspective on the situation
at the border rather than foment fear for political gain.
Democrats have long supported smart, effective border security
measures and we will continue to do so.
What we will not do is sit idly by while President Trump tries to
undermine our values as a Nation of immigrants or prove his border
security bona fides on the backs of children.
We are better than that as a Congress and as a country.

Ms. McSally. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady
from Arizona, Ms. Lesko, a Member of the full committee, be
permitted to participate in today's hearing. Without objection,
so ordered.
We are pleased to have three distinguished witnesses before
us today. Mr. Ron Vitiello is the acting deputy commissioner of
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Previously he served as
the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.
As its chief operating officer, he was responsible for the
daily operations of the U.S. Border Patrol, assisting in
planning and directing Nation-wide enforcement and
administrative operations. Mr. Thomas Homan became the deputy
director and senior official performing the duties of the
director in January 2017.
Mr. Homan is a 33-year veteran of law enforcement and has
nearly 30 years of immigration enforcement experience. He has
served as a police officer in New York, a Border Patrol agent,
a special agent with the former U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, as well as a supervisory special agent
and deputy assistant director for investigations at ICE.
Mr. Francis Cissna was sworn in as director of USCIS on
October 8, 2017. Recently, he served as the director of
immigration policy within the DHS Office of Policy, during
which time he was selected for a detail to the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee where he worked on immigration-related
legislation.
Prior to that, Mr. Cissna served as acting director and
deputy director of immigration and border security policy in
the DHS Office of Policy. The Chair now recognizes Deputy
Commissioner Vitiello for 5 minutes to testify.

STATEMENT OF RONALD D. VITIELLO, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY

Mr. Vitiello. Thank you. Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member
Vela, distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
efforts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to achieve our
strategic and operational border security objectives.
My fellow witnesses have decades of practical experience
and I am grateful to work with such dedicated professionals to
secure the homeland. Tactical infrastructure including physical
barriers and complimentary capabilities have long been a
critical component of CBP's multi-layered and risk-based
approach to securing our Southern Border.
The recently-passed Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018
supports CBP's mission, including $1.4 billion for the largest
investment in border wall in more than a decade. We are eager
to put this funding to work to improve our Nation's security,
and encourage Congress to continue to support investments in
the high-priority border wall system.
In addition to our border security mission, CBP plays a key
role in our Nation's immigration continuum. We look forward to
working with Congress on the legislation needed to enhance the
security of our Nation, ensure effective immigration
enforcement, and protect American workers and taxpayers.
These legislative needs have a direct impact on CBP's
ability to perform our mission. In accordance with the
Department of Justice zero tolerance policy, Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen has directed CBP to refer
all illegal border crossers for criminal prosecution.
CBP will enforce immigration laws set forth by Congress; no
classes or categories of aliens are exempt from enforcement.
The number of individuals apprehended while trying to enter
the country illegally in between the established POEs and those
presenting themselves without entry documentation along our
Southern Border increased by 40 percent from February to March
2018.
When compared to March 2017, the increases are an
extraordinary 203 percent. The effort in ours used to detain,
process, care for, hold UACs and family units distracts our law
enforcement officer deployments, shrinks our capability to
control the border and make the arrest of smugglers and drug
traffickers and criminals much more difficult.
To enhance CBP's capability in Southwest Border sectors,
the Department of Defense, in conjunction with Board of State
Governors, has begun deploying the National Guard to assist in
stopping the flow of deadly drugs, other contraband, gang
members, criminals, and illegal aliens into the country.
Initial forces are already on the ground, assisting CBP. We are
working with DHS headquarters and DOD to ensure a seamless
coordination of effort.
With the support of Congress and in close coordination with
our partners, CBP will continue to secure our Nation's borders
through a risk-based deployment of infrastructure, personnel,
and technology.
We offer every assistance, working with Congress, on the
legislative changes that will help fulfill our missions. I want
to thank--I want to take a moment to thank and recognize the
men and women of CBP. They vigilantly carry out their border
protection responsibilities professionally and with an
integrity deserving of the public's trust.
I will work to ensure my representation of them matches
their dedication and commitment and the sacrifices that they
and their families make in service to this country.
Last Wednesday during National Police Week, we added three
more names to the CBP Valor Memorial, and did our best to
demonstrate to their surviving families and our returning
families that we will never forget their loved one. We will
always preserve their memories and honor the heroic work they
did while protecting us all.
Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and Members of the
subcommittee, I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald D. Vitiello
May 22, 2018
introduction
Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the efforts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to achieve our strategic and operational border security
objectives and to enhance our deterrence, detection, and interdiction
of illegal cross-border activity.
CBP is responsible for securing approximately 7,000 miles of land
border, 95,000 miles of shoreline, 328 ports of entry (POE), and the
associated air and maritime space from the illegal entry of people and
contraband into the United States. The border environment in which CBP
works is dynamic and requires continual adaptation to respond to
emerging threats and changing conditions.
legislative priorities
When President Trump took office last year, he issued a series of
Executive Orders to enhance border security, promote public safety,
minimize the threat of terrorist attacks by foreign nationals, and
protect American workers from unfair foreign competition. In January
2017, the President signed the Executive Order entitled Border Security
and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (EO 13767), which directs
executive departments and agencies to deploy all lawful means to secure
the Nation's Southern Border, prevent further illegal immigration to
the United States, and repatriate aliens with final orders of removal
swiftly, consistently, and humanely. E.O. 13767 sets a new standard of
operational control of the Southern Border and establishes the
foundation for securing the Southern Border by directing the provision
of necessary tools, resources, and policy goals for the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) dedicated men and women to fulfill their
critical mission.
But CBP is part of a system that neither begins nor ends at our
borders, and innovative technologies and enhanced interdiction
capabilities alone cannot prevent illegal crossings. The administration
seeks support from Congress to amend current law to facilitate the
expeditious return of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and family
units who are ineligible for relief. The administration supports
correcting the systemic deficiencies that created the asylum backlog,
and supports providing additional resources to reduce the immigration
court backlog and ensure the swift return of illegal border crossers.
CBP looks forward to working with Congress on the legislation needed to
enhance the security of our Nation, ensure effective immigration and
enforcement, and protect American workers and taxpayers. These
legislative needs have a direct impact on CBP's ability to perform its
mission.
CBP remains committed to working with Congress to address these
issues in support of the priorities of this administration and CBP's
mission set.
partnerships for border security
To fulfill our complex missions, CBP is working with DHS
components, our Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial
partners, and with our international counterparts to ensure that
information is shared quickly, resources are spent where they are most
needed, and that the American people and economy are kept safe.
Processing Claims of Asylum
Individuals who do not have proper travel documents and attempt to
enter the United States, either at a POE or between the POEs, may be
subject to expedited removal. If individuals placed into expedited
removal inform CBP officers that they are afraid to go back to their
home countries, they wish to apply for asylum, or that they fear
persecution or torture, they are detained and referred to a U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officer for a
credible fear interview. Usually these individuals are detained by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending this credible fear
interview, and the interviews are often conducted at detention
facilities. Individuals who are found to have credible fear are
referred to Immigration Court, where they may apply for relief from
removal, including asylum. Individuals who are found to not have a
credible fear are given an opportunity to ask an Immigration Judge for
a review of the negative determination before ICE removes them from the
United States.
To ensure that all claims for asylum are considered, DHS, in
partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ), is taking a number of
steps to ensure that all cases and claims are adjudicated promptly,
including sending to the border, as necessary, additional USCIS asylum
officers, ICE attorneys, and DOJ Immigration Judges.
Collaboration with the Department of Defense National Guard
The number of individuals apprehended while trying to enter the
country illegally in between established POEs, and of those presenting
themselves for entry without proper documentation at POEs along our
Southwest Border, increased by 37 percent from February to March 2018.
When compared to March 2017, the increase is an extraordinary 203
percent. CBP is committed to working with our domestic and
international partners to secure our border.
To enhance CBP's capability in Southwest Border sectors, the
Department of Defense (DOD), in conjunction with border State
Governors, has begun deploying the National Guard to assist in stopping
the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other
criminals, and illegal aliens into this country. Initial forces are
already on the ground assisting CBP by executing missions such as
logistical and administrative support, operating detection systems,
providing mobile communications, and augmenting border-related
intelligence analysis efforts. National Guard members will provide
added surveillance, engineering, administrative, and mechanical support
to our agents on the front line to allow CBP's agents to focus on their
primary responsibility of securing our border. National Guard personnel
will not conduct law enforcement activities, will not be assigned
responsibilities that require direct contact with migrants, and will
not be assigned missions that require them to be armed.
Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Partnerships
CBP hosts monthly briefings/teleconferences with Federal, State,
and local partners regarding the current state of the border--both
Northern and Southern--to monitor emerging trends and threats and
provide a cross-component, multi-agency venue for discussion. The
monthly briefings focus on drugs, weapons, currency interdictions, and
alien apprehensions both at and between the POEs. These briefings/
teleconferences currently include participants from: The government of
Canada, the government of Mexico, the government of Australia, ICE,
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), DOD's U.S. Northern Command,
U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Southern Command,
Joint Interagency Task Force--South (JIATF-S), the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Attorneys' Offices
(USAOs), Naval Investigative Command, State and Major Urban Area Fusion
Centers, and other international, Federal, State, and local law
enforcement as appropriate.
The Office of Intelligence (OI) hosts a bi-weekly fusion forum to
facilitate an open discussion with CBP's Federal, State, local, and
international partners on emerging trends and patterns, specific
problem sets confronted by each organization, and each organization's
attempts to address them. Additionally, OI personnel take part in a
variety of weekly or monthly conference calls related to a variety of
issues affecting CBP's mission including narcotics, terrorism, trade,
and migration.
CBP is enhancing our collaboration with other DHS components to
leverage the unique resources, authorities, and capabilities of each
agency to more effectively and efficiently execute our border security
missions against drug trafficking organizations, Transnational Criminal
Organizations (TCOs), terrorists, and other threats and challenges.
Under the Department's Unity of Effort initiative, the Joint Task
Forces' operations also increase information sharing with Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies, improve border-wide criminal
intelligence-led interdiction operations, and address transnational
threats.
International Partnerships
Throughout Central America, CBP leverages its attache and advisor
network to engage local immigration, border management, and police
authorities, as well as our Federal partners such as the Department of
State's U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and ICE to
enhance security, improve governance and promote prosperity in the
region. CBP efforts in the region include: Training, mentoring, and
sharing best practices with local law enforcement; providing assistance
in making Customs processes more efficient and transparent to enhance
trade facilitation; and building the capacity of law enforcement in
each country to counter drug smuggling activities, monitor, track, and
deter the illicit migration of third-country nationals, and facilitate
cross-border coordination.
investing in border security
CBP's proposed investments in border security leverage the
Capability Gap Analysis Process (CGAP), an annual, full spectrum
requirements analysis process. The CGAP creates a consistent and
repeatable, field-driven approach to conducting mission analysis and
planning aimed at identifying capabilities gaps across the complex
environments United States Border Patrol (USBP) and Air and Marine
Operations (AMO) agents work in every day. Capability gaps are captured
directly from the field using this process. These gaps are evaluated
through qualitative and quantitative analysis and other evidence to
provide information to decision makers about the border security
mission space across the Northern, Southern, and Coastal borders of the
United States. This methodology leads to informed investments that
achieve the greatest possible operational impact. As the threats along
the borders change, USBP and AMO will update this analysis as needed to
maximize the impact of future investments.
The CGAP is used by USBP to identify needs related to 12 master
capabilities: Communications; doctrine and policy; domain awareness;
human capital management; impedance and denial (I&D); information
management; intelligence and counter intelligence; mission readiness;
planning and analysis; security and partnerships; access and mobility;
and command and control. While CGAP identifies needs across all 12
master capabilities, four capabilities--I&D, domain awareness, access
and mobility, and mission readiness--are consistently prioritized by
field commanders as the most important. AMO uses CGAP to provide
qualitative and quantitative gaps associated with their seven mission
sets: Air Security; Land Security; Maritime Security; Extended Border
and Foreign Operations; Air and Maritime Investigations; Contingency
and National Tasking Operations; and Other Law Enforcement Operations.
These identified needs are then subject to appropriate review and
validation through the DHS requirements processes.
Impedance & Denial (I&D) is among the four capabilities that USBP
field commanders consistently prioritize during the CGAP process. I&D
is the ability to slow and/or stop the use of terrain for illicit
cross-border activity. This is achieved primarily through the use of
man-made infrastructure such as a physical wall, and the complementary
deployment of personnel, roads, and technology. Border barriers have
enhanced--and will continue to enhance--CBP's operational capabilities
by creating an enduring capability that impedes illegal cross-border
activity and facilitates the deterrence and prevention of illegal
entries. I&D investments are critical to protecting border areas with
short vanishing times where illicit crossers can quickly evade law
enforcement by ``vanishing'' into border communities. Investments in
I&D, and particularly in a border wall system, will help CBP obtain
operational control of the border and prevent illegal border crossings.
infrastructure
Tactical infrastructure, including physical barriers and
complementary capabilities, has long been a critical component of CBP's
multi-layered and risk-based approach to securing our Southern Border.
Tactical infrastructure also supports Executive Order 13767 Border
Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and CBP's operational
requirements, including the high-priority border wall system.
Between the Ports of Entry
The land along the border between the United States and Mexico is
extremely diverse, consisting of desert landscape, mountainous terrain,
and urban areas. Today, we have several types of barriers, including
steel bollard and levee wall, along nearly one-third, or 654 miles, of
the Southern Border. The recently-passed Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018 supports CBP's mission through investments in border
infrastructure and technology, port security, and recruitment and
retention efforts, to include $1.4 billion for the largest investment
in border wall in more than a decade. We are eager to put this funding
to work to improve our Nation's security, and encourage Congress to
continue to support investments in the high-priority border wall
system.
CBP is seeking to build on the successes of, and lessons learned
from, the construction and operation of existing barriers to deploy a
system that addresses dynamic cross-border threats. CBP is working with
industry and partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
incorporate additional alternative barrier design features and other
innovative solutions into our border barrier systems. Border barrier
systems are comprehensive solutions that include a concentrated
combination of various types of infrastructure such as walls, all-
weather roads, lighting, sensors, enforcement cameras, and other
related technology. Deployments of additional infrastructure will be
made using a multi-phased approach that meets USBP's operational
requirements, and which safeguards National security and public safety.
These deployments will be the results of a thorough analysis of threats
and mission effectiveness and will follow disciplined acquisition
processes overseen by DHS.
Throughout the planning, design, and construction process, CBP will
complete project, budget, real estate, and environmental planning to
ensure appropriate resource stewardship. CBP will leverage expertise in
Federal acquisition to maximize transparency and accountability and to
ensure the most effective and efficient solutions are deployed to meet
requirements, in accordance with the established DHS acquisition
lifecycle framework and acquisition review board oversight.
CBP is committed to ensuring that all stakeholder communities,
including Federal partners, State, local, and Tribal officials, and
impacted communities are kept informed and engaged throughout this
process.
At the Ports of Entry
CBP supports a vast and diverse real property portfolio, consisting
of more than 4,300 owned and leased buildings, over 28 million square
feet of facility space, and approximately 4,600 acres of land
throughout the United States. Constructing and improving CBP's physical
infrastructure is essential to keeping facilities operationally viable
for front-line and mission support functions. CBP, in coordination with
General Services Administration (GSA), continues to construct and
modernize land POEs along the Northern and Southern Borders, and to
complete additional enhancement and expansion projects within the
Office of Field Operations (OFO) portfolio. Thanks to the funding
provided in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus, CBP is working with the GSA
to ensure that our priority requirements in locations including Otay
Mesa, CA, and Alexandria Bay, NY receive much-needed updates. We look
forward to working with GSA and Congress to ensure that our physical
infrastructure meets CBP's needs now and in the future.
technology
Technology enhances CBP's operational capabilities by increasing
the ability of the men and women of CBP to detect and identify
individuals illegally crossing the border; detect dangerous goods and
materials concealed in cargo and vehicles; and detect and interdict
illegal activity in the air and maritime domains. For CBP, the use of
technology in the border environment is an invaluable force multiplier
that increases situational awareness. Technology enhances the ability
of CBP to detect illegal activity quickly, with less risk to the safety
of our front-line personnel.
At the Ports of Entry
Smugglers use a wide variety of tactics and techniques to traffic
concealed drugs and other contraband through POEs. CBP incorporates
advanced detection equipment and technology, including the use of Non-
Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment and radiation detection
technologies, to maintain robust cargo, commercial conveyance, and
vehicle inspection regimes at our POEs.
NII technology is a critical element in CBP's ability to detect
contraband, and materials that could pose nuclear and radiological
threats. CBP currently has 304 large-scale NII systems and over 4,500
small-scale systems deployed to, and between, POEs. These systems
enable CBP officers to examine cargo conveyances such as sea
containers, commercial trucks, and rail cars, as well as privately-
owned vehicles, for the presence of contraband without physically
opening or unloading them. This allows CBP to work smarter and faster
in detecting contraband and other dangerous materials. CBP officers
also utilize NII, as well as spectroscopic and chemical testing
equipment and narcotics detection canines, to detect and presumptively
identify illicit drugs, including illicit opioids, at international
mail and express consignment carrier facilities. Between October 1,
2010 and March 31, 2018, CBP conducted more than 84 million NII
examinations, resulting in more than 19,000 narcotics seizures and more
than $79 million in currency seizures.
Scanning all arriving conveyances and containers with radiation
detection equipment prior to release from the POE is an integral part
of CBP's comprehensive strategy to combat nuclear and radiological
terrorism. In partnership with Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
Office (CWMD), CBP has deployed nuclear and radiological detection
equipment, including 1,280 Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM), 3,319
Radiation Isotope Identification Devices (RIID), and 35,294 Personal
Radiation Detectors (PRD) to all 328 POEs Nation-wide. Utilizing RPMs,
CBP is able to scan 100 percent of all mail and express consignment
mail and parcels; 100 percent of all truck cargo; 100 percent of
personally-owned vehicles arriving from Canada and Mexico; and nearly
100 percent of all arriving sea-borne containerized cargo for the
presence of radiological or nuclear materials. Since the RPM program
began in 2002, CBP has scanned more than 1.41 billion conveyances for
radiological contraband.
In conjunction with CBP's many other initiatives, advancements in
cargo and conveyance screening technology provide CBP with a
significant capacity to detect dangerous materials and other
contraband, and continue to be a cornerstone of CBP's multi-layered
security strategy.
Technology Investments Between the Ports
Thanks to the support of Congress, CBP continues to deploy proven,
effective technology to strengthen border security operations between
the POEs, in the land, air, and maritime environments. These
investments increase CBP's ability to detect illegal activity along the
border, increase our operational capabilities, and improve the safety
of front-line law enforcement personnel.
Surveillance Capabilities
Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) systems are one of the technologies
deployed along the Southwest Border in Arizona. IFTs provide long-
range, persistent surveillance. An IFT system automatically detects
items of interest with radar, identifies and classifies them with day
and night cameras, and tracks them at the Command and Control Center
through the integration of data, video, and geospatial location input.
Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) are another technology
used by USBP in select areas along the Northern and Southern Borders.
These systems provide short-, medium-, and long-range, persistent
surveillance from towers or other elevated structures. Existing RVSS
are being upgraded with newer cameras, communication backhaul, command-
and-control programs, and additional towers.
In some areas along both the Northern and Southern Borders, USBP
uses Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS) to provide focused, short-range,
persistent surveillance. UGS are remotely monitored surveillance
systems that detect, identify, and track activity and subjects in areas
not easy to access or monitor with other technology. These sensors are
hand-installed, fixed but relocatable, easy to conceal, and adaptable
to numerous operational environments. Detection capabilities include
seismic, magnetic, acoustic, infrared, radar, microwave, photoelectric,
contact closure, and various others. Imaging UGS (I-UGS) provide photo
or video verification of detections and allow advanced image analytics.
Fixed systems provide persistent surveillance coverage to
efficiently detect unauthorized border crossings. Once detection is
confirmed, USBP can quickly deploy the appropriate personnel and
resources to interdict. Without fixed-system technology such as IFT,
RVSS, and UGS, USBP's ability to detect, identify, classify, and track
illicit activity would be significantly limited.
Mobile and Relocatable Surveillance Capabilities
Working in conjunction with fixed surveillance assets, USBP also
uses mobile and relocatable systems to address areas where rugged
terrain and dense ground cover may limit the effectiveness and coverage
of fixed systems. Mobile and relocatable technology assets provide USBP
with the flexibility to adapt to changing border conditions and
threats.
Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC) systems provide long-range,
mobile surveillance. They include radar and camera sensors mounted on
USBP vehicles. Mobile Vehicle Surveillance Systems (MVSS) are short-,
and medium-range, mobile surveillance equipment. They consist of camera
sensors on telescoping masts mounted on USBP vehicles. USBP agents
deploy with these systems, which detect, track, identify, and classify
items of interest using the video feed.
Another relocatable system is the Agent Portable Surveillance
System (APSS). Mounted on a tripod, it provides medium-range, mobile
surveillance and can be transported by two or three USBP agents. Two
agents remain on-site to operate the system, which automatically
detects and tracks items of interest and provides the agent/operator
with data and video of selected items of interest.
CBP's Tactical Aerostats and Re-locatable Towers program,
originally part of the DOD re-use program, uses a mix of aerostats,
towers, cameras, and radar to provide CBP with increased situational
awareness over a wide area. This capability has proven to be a vital
asset in increasing CBP's ability to detect, identify, classify, and
track activity along the borders.
The Cross Border Tunnel Threat (CBTT) program strengthens border
security effectiveness between POEs by diminishing the ability of TCOs
to gain access into the United States through cross-border tunnels and
the illicit use of underground municipal infrastructure. This system
helps CBP predict potential tunnel locations; detect the presence of
suspected tunnels and tunneling activities as well as project the
trajectory of a discovered tunnel; confirm a tunnel's existence and
location through mapping and measurements; and facilitate secure
information sharing across all stakeholders.
Technology in the Air and Maritime Domains
AMO increases CBP's situational awareness, enhances detection and
interdiction capabilities, and extends our border security zones,
offering greater capacity to stop threats before they reach our shores.
AMO's assets provide multi-domain awareness for our partners across
DHS, as well as critical aerial and maritime surveillance,
interdiction, and operational assistance to our ground personnel. AMO
performs its offshore functions in coordination with the USCG and DHS's
interagency partners.
To address maritime threats, and the capabilities needed to meet
those threats, AMO has recently acquired 41-foot, high-speed Coastal
Interceptor Vessels (CIV) to enhance Marine Interdiction Agents' (MIA)
ability to detect, intercept, and interdict suspect vessels entering
the coastal approaches of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. The CIV will provide MIAs with upgraded electronics,
and improved situational awareness through modernized navigation and
sensor technology. As with AMO's aircraft, the marine vessels also
support the Department's Joint Task Forces, as well as the Border
Patrol Sectors, AMO investigations and missions, ICE, and other
Federal, State, and local organizations.
Additionally, AMO's Small Vessel Standoff Detection radiation
detection capability increases the probability of detecting
radiological and nuclear materials that might be used in an attack.
This transportable equipment is effective against small private or
commercial vessels, and can detect a potential threat in advance of a
boarding.
Multirole Enforcement Aircraft (MEA) are sensor-equipped aircraft
for surveillance operations in regions where terrain, weather, and
distance pose significant obstacles to border security operations. The
MEA serves as a force multiplier for law enforcement personnel,
facilitating the rapid-response deployment of equipment, canines, and
people.
P-3 Long-Range Trackers and Airborne Early Warning Aircraft provide
critical detection and interdiction capability in both the air and
marine environments. CBP P-3s are an integral part of the successful
counter-narcotic missions operated in coordination with the JIATF-S.
The P-3s patrol a 42-million-square-mile area that includes more than
41 nations, the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and
seaboard approaches to the United States. Over the last 10 years, CBP's
P-3 operational efforts assisted in the seizure or disruption of the
delivery of more than 1.6 million pounds of cocaine, with an estimated
wholesale value of $63 billion. In fiscal year 2018 to date, CBP P-3
aircraft have flown 4,628 hours, and contributed to the seizure and
disruption of over 83,000 lbs. of cocaine, averaging 23.5 pounds of
cocaine for each hour a CBP P-3 flies.
Multiple AMO aircraft are equipped with electro-optical infrared
sensor systems that provide improved detection and identification
capabilities, greater standoff ranges for more covert operation and
safety, and have laser range finders, laser target illumination, and
Shortwave Infrared functionality. These systems enable AMO aircraft to
detect persons, vehicles, vessels, and aircraft during day, night, and
in adverse visibility conditions, thus enabling classification of
threats and enhancing mission value for ground agents.
Other critical components of AMO's aircraft fleet include the UH-60
Black Hawk helicopters, which are able to carry 8 agents with full
gear. The Light Enforcement Helicopter (LEH) is a multi-mission
helicopter used for aerial surveillance, tactical support, patrol of
high-risk areas, and to transport agents responding to illegal border
incursions, as well as serve search and arrest warrants. Another
important asset is the DHC-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA), which
bridges the gap between strategic assets, such as the P-3 and Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS).
AMO's aircraft have received a number of technological upgrades to
increase their utility. For example, avionics upgrades to the AS-350
helicopter allow operators to focus more of their attention on the
mission, making them more effective. AMO has also added electro-optical
infrared detection technology to its fixed-wing, light observation
aircraft, thereby greatly increasing its tactical capabilities.
UAS platforms are an increasingly important part of CBP's layered
and integrated approach to border security. CBP's UAS consist of an
unmanned aircraft, sensors, communication packages, pilots, and ground
control operators. UAS platforms are used for surveillance, detection,
and other mission requirements along the Southwest Border, Northern
Border, and in the drug source and transit zones. The UAS program has
logged over 49,200 flight hours since it began in fiscal year 2006,
contributed to the interdiction and disruption of the movement of
cocaine and marijuana with an estimated wholesale value of $1.18
billion. CBP can equip four UAS aircraft with Vehicle and Dismount
Exploitation Radar (VADER) sensor systems, which can detect human
movement along the ground. Since 2012, VADER detected over 64,500
people moving across the Southwest Border.
Important advancements have come in the area of data integration
and exploitation. New downlink technology allows AMO to provide a video
feed and situational awareness to law enforcement personnel in real-
time. In addition, the Minotaur mission management system will enable
the integration and geo-synchronization of multiple aircraft sensors,
mission databases, and intelligence-gathering devices and allow
multiple aircraft to share information from multiple sources, providing
a never-before-seen level of air, land, and maritime domain awareness.
AMO's Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) monitors the low-
altitude approaches to the United States. With 8 aerostat sites, the
TARS elevated sensor mitigates the effect of the curvature of the earth
and terrain-masking limitations associated with ground-based radars,
enabling maximum long-range radar detection capabilities. From fiscal
year 2014 through fiscal year 2016, TARS was responsible for detecting
86 percent of all suspected air smuggling flights approaching the
Southwest Border from Mexico.
A vital component of DHS's domain awareness capabilities, AMO's Air
and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) integrates surveillance
capabilities and coordinates National security threat response with
other CBP operational components, including USBP. It works with other
Federal and international partners.\1\ AMOC helps AMO and its partners
predict, detect, identify, classify, respond to, and resolve suspect
aviation and maritime activity in the approaches to U.S. borders, at
the borders, and within the interior of the United States. AMOC
utilizes extensive law enforcement and intelligence databases,
communication networks and the Air and Marine Operations Surveillance
System (AMOSS). The AMOSS provides a single display capable of
processing up to 700 individual sensor feeds and tracking over 50,000
individual targets simultaneously. The eight TARS sites represent
approximately 2 percent of the total integrated radars in AMOSS, yet
accounted for 53 percent of all suspect target detections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AMOC partners include the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), the Department of Defense (including the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)), and the governments of Mexico,
Canada, and the Bahamas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we continue to deploy border surveillance technology,
particularly along the Southwest Border, these investments in fixed and
mobile technology, as well as enhancements of domain awareness
capabilities provided by the AMOC, allow CBP the flexibility to shift
more agents from detection duties to interdiction of illegal
activities.
Access & Mobility
USBP has consistently identified Access and Mobility as a key
capability for gaining and maintaining operational control of the
Southern Border. Access and Mobility is the ability to access areas of
responsibility and, under all conditions, effect mobility for
responding to illicit cross-border activity. CBP's portfolio currently
includes over 900 miles of access roads. Roads are necessary to
increase access points and expand patrol roads in high-priority areas.
Patrol roads decrease travel time, improve incident response time, and
increase the effective patrol range of USBP agents. Roads are a force
multiplier and key in establishing operational control of the border.
hiring and personnel
Front-line and non-front-line personnel are one of the most
critical resources for improving border security. Mission readiness--
the ability to properly train and equip personnel--is critical to CBP's
ability to secure the border and protect the American people.
EO 13767 mandated the hiring of 5,000 additional USBP agents. To
implement this directive, and as operational demands continue to
evolve, CBP continues to explore all avenues to meet current and future
human capital needs. CBP subjects our recruitment and hiring practices
to an on-going cycle of analysis and refinement, working constantly to
strengthen our hiring capabilities and secure adequate staffing for
critical front-line operations and the network of personnel who support
these operations. CBP's strategy includes initiatives designed to
attract more applicants who are suited to the unique demands of CBP's
mission, expedite the pre-employment time line, refine the hiring
process to address potential bottlenecks, and reduce the attrition rate
of the existing workforce.
In pursuit of our hiring goals, CBP recruiters will continue to
participate in thousands of recruiting events, seeking to reach a
diverse spectrum of applicants. CBP has participated in close to 5,000
recruitment and outreach events since the beginning of fiscal year
2017. CBP's use of advanced data analytics to direct recruitment
efforts, deemed a best practice by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), has enabled CBP to identify demographics with low-
brand awareness of the CBP, and to refocus recruitment efforts toward
these gaps. This has resulted in an overall increase in applicants and
lowered the number of applicants it takes for one officer or agent to
on-board. Recruitment at events for veterans and transitioning military
personnel continues to be a top priority. CBP will continue to enhance
our data analytics capabilities, refining CBP's ability to identify
groups of people who are most likely to pursue or be interested in a
law enforcement career and providing us with targeted areas and
specific audiences for recruitment. In addition, CBP will focus on
digital advertising, and enhance branding through relationships with
community partners.
In the last 2 years, more than 40 individual improvements to CBP's
hiring process have resulted in significant recruitment and hiring
gains, despite record low unemployment around the United States and
intense competition for highly-qualified, mission-inspired people. With
support from Congress, CBP is making investments in our capability and
capacity to hire across all front-line positions. CBP is focusing on
efforts to attract qualified candidates and expedite their progress
through the CBP hiring process.
CBP's streamlined front-line hiring process has led to significant
reductions in the average time-to-hire. In the last 12 months, close to
70 percent of new USBP agents and 60 percent of new CBP officers on-
boarded in 313 days or fewer, with 17 percent of USBP agents and 19
percent of CBP officers on-boarding within 192 days. This is a
significant improvement from the 469-day overall baseline established
in January 2016. This streamlined process is reducing the number of
otherwise qualified candidates who drop out due to process fatigue or
accepting more timely job offers elsewhere, helping CBP grow its
workforce. CBP's background investigation time is approximately 90 days
for a Tier 5 level investigation, which is required for all of CBP's
law enforcement officer applicants and 90 percent of CBP applicants
overall. This is considerably less than the Government average for the
same level investigation. CBP is also recognized as having a best
practice quality assurance program, which other agencies regularly
visit CBP to learn about.
As a result of these improvements, CBP's fiscal year 2017 hiring
totals surpassed fiscal year 2016 totals by 21 percent for CBP
officers, 4 percent for USBP agents, and 91 percent for AMO air
interdiction agents. In fiscal year 2017 CBP reached the highest number
of USBP agent hires since fiscal year 2013 and the highest number of
air interdiction agents and MIA hires since fiscal year 2014. The total
number of front-line applicants increased by 73 percent between fiscal
year 2015 and fiscal year 2017, including a 41 percent increase from
fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017.
A significant challenge for CBP is that much of our work must be
carried out in remote locations. It can be difficult to attract
applicants who are willing to work in these locations, and it is a
significant factor in our attrition. A stable relocation program will
help meet USBP operational requirements and alleviate the workforce's
concerns about lack of mobility, which is significantly contributing to
increased attrition. CBP is working to develop programs that address
attrition through relocation and retention incentives that meet
employee aspirations, and at the same time enable CBP to staff these
locations. Recruitment incentives are also helpful in attracting new
personnel to join CBP, especially for positions in geographic locations
that are difficult to fill. CBP is thankful for the continued
dedication of Congress to working collaboratively with us to develop
solutions to this complicated challenge.
Consistent with the Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal
year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act concerning the alternative
polygraph exam format, CBP conducted a 6-month pilot program that
allowed the agency to compare data points from applicants tested with
the new, alternative format against applicants tested with the previous
format. CBP developed this pilot in collaboration with the National
Center for Credibility Assessment, which governs all Federal polygraph
programs. After an assessment of the pilot, which carefully evaluated
these metrics and measures to ensure the format maintained CBP's high
standard of integrity for applicants, CBP has implemented this test
format and has engaged with committee staff on our path forward. While
its format may change, the exam retains all of the critical test topics
of the previous exam and maintains CBP's commitment to high integrity
standards for its personnel.
Additionally, DHS supports the Anti-Border Corruption
Reauthorization Act of 2017, which was ordered as H.R. 2213 in the
House of Representatives and S. 595 in the Senate. The House passed
H.R. 2213 on June 7, 2017, thanks to the strong support of this
subcommittee and the co-sponsorship of Chairwoman McSally, and the bill
is currently pending vote by the Senate. This pending legislation
grants the Commissioner authority to waive the polygraph requirement
for three groups of applicants who have a demonstrated, long-standing
history of public trust and meet specific criteria: Current, full-time
State and local law enforcement officers; current, full-time Federal
law enforcement officers; and veterans, active-duty service members,
and reservists. We thank the Members of Congress for your continued
support as we seek to hire the men and women who will fulfill CBP's
complex and crucial mission in the months and years to come.
conclusion
The border environment is dynamic and requires constant adaptation
to respond to emerging threats and changing conditions. CBP continues
to work in close coordination with our partners to respond to these
threats and ensure the safety and prosperity of the American people.
With the support of Congress, CBP will continue to secure our Nation's
borders through the risk-based deployment of infrastructure, personnel,
and technology.
Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I
look forward to your questions.

Ms. McSally. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Director Homan for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. HOMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Homan. Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today and speak to the importance of
ICE's mission to protect America from cross-border crime and
illegal immigration, both of which threaten National security
and public safety.
Since President Trump's Executive Orders were issued early
last year, ICE and its partner agencies have made significant
progress in restoring--restoring the rule of law to our
immigration system.
Over the last fiscal year, ISIS increased arrests by over
40 percent, increased interior removals by 30 percent. We have
nearly doubled the number of MS-13 arrests over this year.
Reflecting our continued focus on enforcement against
public safety and National security threats, illegal
reentrants, and fugitives, 92 percent of all of our arrests
last year reflected one of these priorities.
These results reflect what the dedicated men and women of
ICE can achieve when they are empowered to fulfill their lawful
mission. But the reality is that we will not stop illegal
immigration unless we eliminate the pull factors. We need
Congress' help to do that.
Last fall, the Trump administration sent a series of----
Ms. McSally. The gentleman suspend for a minute. The Chair
wishes to remind our guests today that demonstrations from the
audience, including the use of signs, placards, and t-shirts,
as well as verbal outbursts, are a violation of the rules of
the House.
The Chair wishes to thank our guests for their cooperation
in maintaining order and proper decorum.
Mr. Homan. Last fall, the Trump administration sent a
series of policy priorities to Congress that would address the
misguided policies and loopholes that only serve as pull
factors for illegal immigration.
These priorities reflect the input of law enforcement
professionals and us three at the table who know best what we--
--
Ms. McSally. The gentleman please suspend.
Pursuant to my previous statement, would our guests please
lower their signs in accordance with House rules?
The Chair instructs the Capitol Police to remove the
protestors from the committee room. The committee will recess
until order is restored, pending the call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
Ms. McSally. The committee will come to order.
Director Homan, please continue.
Mr. Homan. Do you want me to start or do you want me to
start where I ended, ma'am?
Ms. McSally. You can start where you left off.
Mr. Homan. OK. OK. Last fall the Trump administration sent
a series of policy priorities to Congress that would address
misguided policies and loopholes that only serve as pull
factors for illegal immigration. These priorities reflect input
of law enforcement professionals who know best what we need in
order to close the loopholes and eliminate magnets for illegal
immigration. Us three at the table actually authored much of
what was sent up to the Hill.
This administration rightfully listened to us. I know that
many of you agree it is time that Congress do the same.
Entering this country illegally is a crime. If there are no
consequences for sneaking past the border, overstaying a visa,
skipping immigration court or even committing crimes while in
the country illegally, then there is going to be no integrity
in the entire system.
One major pull factor we need to address is the policies
governing the processing of unaccompanied alien children we
call UACs and family units and the legal constraints that
impede their removal from the country. These policies
ultimately encourage more parents to subject themselves and
their children to dangerous criminal smuggling organizations
and we unfortunately have seen that reflected in the recent
uptick in border apprehension of UACs and family units.
Since the Flores decision, ICE has been severely
constrained in the way we can process and detain minors, as a
result family units so we are often forced to release them
which all but guarantees they will skip the court date or not
abide by the court's decisions and not be sent home. This is
highlighted by the fact that 3.4 percent, only 3.4 percent of
all UACs from countries other than Mexico encountered at the
Southwest Border have been removed.
While ICE and our interagency partners have made progress
this past year on reducing the number of countries that refuse
to take their citizens back, we also need a solution that will
allow us to detain dangerous criminals whose home countries
won't take them back.
As a result of a 2001 Supreme Court decision, Zadvydas vs.
Davis, even illegal immigrants who are violent criminals can be
released from our custody and back into the community if their
home country won't take them back. That loophole can have
tragic consequences and we need Congress to help us.
We also need to address the dangerous pulls by sanctuary
jurisdictions that needlessly risk innocent lives to protect
criminals who are illegally present in the United States.
Sanctuary policies are shielding criminal aliens and
immigration violators from enforcement by refusing to honor ICE
detainers or allow ICE access to their jails.
For those who claim they want ICE to focus solely on
arresting, detaining, and removing criminals, it defies common
sense to prevent us from taking custody of them in local jails
and prisons, but that is exactly what is happening in sanctuary
cities.
To be clear, ICE is not asking law enforcement to do our
job. What we want is access to a jail to talk to somebody that
we know is here illegally in violation of Federal law that
committed yet another crime. It is incredibly frustrating.
As a result of these policies, my officers are forced to
make more arrests out in the community, at homes and
workplaces. Those arrests are riskier for both the public and
for law enforcement and they increase the likelihood that ICE
will encounter other illegal aliens who previously weren't on
our radar. In other words, policies aimed at restricting or
minimizing ICE's direct engagement in the community is actually
having the opposite effect by forcing ICE to increase its
presence in those very same communities.
These policies also undermine cooperation and partnership
between Federal, State, and local law enforcement. We should be
working together to uphold our shared priority of protecting
the public safety.
I am encouraged many of our law enforcement partners
throughout the United States have expressed their opposition to
these types of policies and continue to find ways to work with
us. I want to make sure everyone here today understands that
sanctuary cities do not protect the immigrant community. They
do not make the community safer. They do the exact opposite.
Finally, it is my hope that Congress will support the
administration's request for more ICE personnel resources so
that we can continue the progress we have made over the past
year with our existing resources.
These issues aren't just about enforcing law, they are also
humanitarian issues because we know the journey to the United
States can often be dangerous and deadly. Until and unless
Congress works with us to address these concerns, we are going
to see more caravans, more people making that dangerous journey
north, more people that die entering this country.
I have said it many times, there is a right way to come in
this country and a wrong way. It is ICE's job to make sure that
those who choose to come into United States illegally are
found, arrested and, if ordered by the immigration judge,
removed. That is the oath I have taken along with the other
20,000 law enforcement officers in ICE who are constantly
attacked simply for doing their Congressionally-mandated jobs.
In closing, as you know, I will be retiring from Federal
service next month after 34 years as a Federal law enforcement
officer. It has been the honor of my life to lead this agency
and the 20,000 men that work in this agency. They are American
patriots by the very fact they leave their homes every day and
put their safety at risk to protect their communities.
I will continue to be a strong advocate for the work force
and for the ICE mission and I urge Congress to work with ICE
and the administration on the issues I have highlighted here
today. I want to thank you again for giving me this opportunity
to testify and look forward to answering any questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Homan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas D. Homan
May 22, 2018
introduction
Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the role of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), in promoting homeland security and public safety through the
broad enforcement of approximately 400 Federal laws governing
immigration, border control, customs, and trade.
ICE enforces the immigration laws of the United States against all
removable aliens, consistent with Federal law. Immigration enforcement
operations have always been a regular part of ICE's duties and are
necessary to identify, arrest, detain, and remove those who present a
danger to our National security, are a threat to public safety, or
otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration system. All those
in violation of U.S. immigration laws may be subject to immigration
arrest, detention, and removal from the United States.
The ``caravan'' is the latest example of the need for an integrated
approach to border security, which combines physical barriers and
monitoring tools with the administrative tools necessary to regulate
the orderly flow of goods and people into the United States. Moreover,
the situation highlights the need for Congress to act to address the
loopholes that exist in current immigration laws, as many individuals
seeking to cross the border hold expectations that long-term entry to
the United States can be garnered by laying false claims to credible
fear, or otherwise thwarting our lawful immigration processes.
The current statistics are sobering. Overall, the number of illegal
aliens encountered at the border increased more than 200 percent when
compared to this same time last year. Perhaps more troubling, the
number of unaccompanied alien children encountered has increased over
800 percent. And the number of families encountered increased over 680
percent. While DHS has been apprehending and processing these crossers
with historic efficiency, our ability to actually remove those who come
here illegally cannot keep pace with the influx unless we make a number
of key changes to close existing loopholes in the system.
These legal loopholes are strong pull factors that entice those
looking to circumvent our laws, including groups who profit from
smuggling people. As Secretary Nielsen has made clear, interdiction
without the ability to promptly remove those without legitimate cause
undermines border security. And border security is National security.
For border security to work, illegal activity must have consequences,
and these loopholes must be closed. They are unacceptable, and more
than that, they are dangerous. We must do more to secure our borders
against these threats that are making our country vulnerable.
While this administration has taken initiative and made strident
efforts to address the pull factors that lead to illegal immigration,
the most essential reforms require legislation. Congress needs to
address sanctuary jurisdictions and affirm ICE's detainer authority.
Congress needs to end catch-and-release by ensuring adequate funding
for detention beds, mandatory detention for convicted criminals, and a
legislative fix for the Zadvydas v. Davis court decision.
credible fear claims and the immigration court backlog
While those with legitimate claims of asylum must be protected,
many of those seeking to enter this country illegally know that there
is no significant downside to making a claim of ``credible fear'' and
only a few key words are all it takes to keep an alien in the country
longer. A fact that is exploited by the smuggling organizations who
profit from them. DHS experience has shown that individuals seeking to
enter the country illegally know they can delay their removal by making
false claims of credible fear. Indeed, the standard for credible fear
screenings at the border has been set so low that aliens may easily
meet this threshold by including certain phrases and claims during
their credible fear interview. The smuggling organizations know this,
and they coach to aliens to make certain claims and to recite ``magic
words'' during their interview.
To compound this issue, family units who arrive at our border are
nearly always released from ICE custody into the interior of the United
States, as recent rulings in the Flores consent decree litigation
places a constraint on ICE's authority to detain an entire Family Unit.
This litigation requires that children be released from DHS custody
within a few days of arrival if they are not removed. In fiscal year
2017, approximately 71,500 members of family units were apprehended,
and ICE believes this number is on track to increase significantly in
fiscal year 2018.
With many of those arriving at the border claiming credible fear
and an immigration court backlog of more than 700,000 cases, it is
clear that we must elevate the threshold standard of proof in credible
fear interviews, as aliens who falsely claim credible fear in
expectation of parole or release are placing a strain on Department
resources, and preventing or delaying legitimate asylum cases from
being adjudicated. DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are working
together to explore options for addressing this increasing threat to
the security of our border.
prompt removal for those who cross illegally
A critical component of border security is being able to quickly
remove illegal aliens when they are apprehended by immigration
enforcement officers. However, the combination of legal loopholes, lack
of detention funding, and court backlogs often results in illegal
aliens being released shortly after their apprehension. Many of these
illegal aliens never appear for their immigration court hearings and
then, go undetected unless they get arrested for another criminal
violation, which happens repeatedly, with often tragic results. These
are preventable crimes, and more importantly, result in preventable
victims of criminal activity, that needlessly occurs as a result of
Congressional inaction.
Aliens arrested in the interior may be more likely to have
protracted immigration proceedings and appeals, which delays the
issuance of an executable final order of removal. Specifically, many
such aliens are not amenable to expedited removal--an accelerated
removal process in which aliens cannot apply for relief from removal
and when only very limited avenues for judicial review are available.
Only if aliens subjected to expedited removal are found to have a
credible fear of returning to the proposed country of removal are such
aliens referred to full section 240 removal proceedings, in which they
can apply for all forms of relief or protection from removal for which
they are eligible. Such cases also frequently require a more complex
and lengthy process to obtain travel documents, which further delays
the removal process. As a result, ICE is working with DHS and its other
components to evaluate options for returning aliens to their home
countries in a safe, humane, and lawful fashion.
end catch-and-release policies
``Catch-and-release'' policies are a significant pull-factor for
illegal immigration. Recent increases of illegal immigrants, of which
the migrant caravan is but a small part, require immediate
Congressional action to close loopholes that frustrate ICE's ability to
enforce the laws.
Court rulings which force ``catch-and-release'' for alien families
have long posed significant challenges for ICE in maintaining effective
control of the border, particularly when alien families decide to break
our immigration laws en masse, as is currently happening. These court
rulings have stripped ICE of the ability to detain these families,
meaning they must be released into communities across the United
States. In many cases, families do not appear for immigration court
hearings, and even when they do, many more fail to comply with the
lawfully-issued removal orders from the immigration courts.
Additionally, DHS and ICE support making detention mandatory for
all convicted criminals, to ensure our communities stay safe. Some
judicial decisions, such as Zadvydas v. Davis, restrict ICE's authority
to keep criminal aliens, who are pending removal, in custody. This
decision significantly restricts the ability of DHS to detain aliens
with final orders of removal, including serious felony offenders, if
their home countries will not accept their return. As a result, foreign
nationals who have been convicted of murder and rape--among other
crimes--are released back onto the streets of America instead of being
detained until they can be returned to their home country. In 2017,
more than 2,300 aliens were released because of that court decision,
including more than 1,700 convicted criminal aliens. Going forward, we
would like to work with Congress to address this serious public safety
issue.
sanctuary city legislation
Though clear legal authority exists for State and local law
enforcement to cooperate with ICE in its immigration enforcement
efforts,\1\ not all State and local jurisdictions cooperate with ICE.
Some jurisdictions refuse to honor ICE detainers, or even to share
information relating to potentially removable aliens. Some even prevent
ICE access to their jail population for purposes of conducting
interviews. This is a significant impediment because ICE often requires
interviews to determine alienage, gang affiliation, and removability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the broad
discretion of the Federal Government in the area of immigration
enforcement, as the authority of ICE officers to issue detainers is
firmly rooted in Federal law and practice. (Adapted from 93037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cooperation ICE receives from State and local law enforcement
agencies is critical to its ability to identify and arrest aliens who
are subject to removal from the United States pursuant to Federal law,
and who may be a threat to the public because they have been arrested
or convicted for criminal activity, much of it violent. ICE places
detainers on individuals whom it has probable cause to believe are
removable aliens in Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency
custody on criminal charges.
Unfortunately, some of the aliens who have been released after
local jurisdictions refuse to honor an ICE detainer have gone on to
commit additional crimes, including violent felonies. While these
crimes could have been prevented if ICE had been able to take them into
custody upon release from State or local criminal custody, and remove
them from the country, State or local laws and policies prevented ICE
from intervening, and these aliens were released back into the
community to reoffend. Such laws and policies that limit or prohibit
cooperation with lawful immigration enforcement needlessly jeopardize
public safety, waste Government resources, and send the wrong message
to those who seek to enter this country illegally, including criminals.
Furthermore, when jurisdictions fail to honor ICE detainers, ICE
must conduct at-large operations to locate these criminal aliens. Such
releases increase the risks to everyone involved; from members of the
public who may later become victims of crime, to the law enforcement
officers and aliens involved in subsequent arrests. Logistically
speaking, the failure to honor ICE detainers also increases the need
for ICE's presence in communities, and requires additional resources to
locate and arrest potentially dangerous aliens.
As always, ICE seeks to build cooperative, respectful relationships
with law enforcement partners, and continues to collaborate with them
to help ensure that aliens who pose a threat to our communities are not
released onto the streets to reoffend.
ICE is committed to using its unique enforcement authorities to
promote National security, uphold public safety, and preserve the
integrity of our immigration system. The use of detainers is a lawful,
efficient, effective, and safe means to carry out ICE's mission, and
ICE, DHS, and the Department of Justice continue to work together to
ensure that ICE is able to carry out this aspect of its public safety
mission.
ensure adequate bed funding and mandatory detention for criminals
Detention is a necessary tool utilized in its primary mission to
effectuate the removal of aliens ordered removed from the United
States. ICE's increased interior enforcement initiatives, as well as
the efforts of other agencies, resulting from EO 13767, Border Security
and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, and EO 13768, Enhancing
Public Safety in the Interior of the United States necessitates
additional detention capacity. The lawful detention of illegal and
criminal aliens ensures that they appear at their removal proceedings,
increases the likelihood that orders of removal are executed, enhances
public safety, and restores integrity to the immigration laws of the
United States. In addition, mandatory detention for all convicted
criminals will help ensure our communities are safe--for citizen and
lawful immigrant alike.
Currently, ICE's fiscal year 2018 budget provides funding for
40,520 average daily population (ADP) (2,500 family beds and 38,020
adult beds); this is approximately 675 adult ADP lower than current ADP
levels (fiscal year 2018 ADP 40,830). The current funding levels do not
allow for any increase in detention due to seasonal increases in border
apprehensions, or additional interior apprehensions, even though ICE
has identified additional detention capacity near the Southern Border
to accommodate the surge in apprehensions stemming from seasonality or
the deployment of the National Guard.
The fiscal year 2019 budget includes nearly $2.8 billion to expand
detention capacity to support an average daily adult population of
49,500 and an average daily family population of 2,500, for a total of
52,000 beds. ICE believes these numbers would provide appropriate
detention space for enforcement activities and ensure the end of
``catch-and-release'' at the border for those aliens ICE is lawfully
able to detain. Additionally, the budget also includes funding for the
Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program to sustain 82,000 average daily
participants.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and
for your continued support of ICE and its law enforcement mission. We
appreciate the chance to discuss the importance of immigration
enforcement and border security, and how we can work together to keep
our communities safe by closing legal loopholes that exist within
current enforcement authorities. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have at this time.

Ms. McSally. Thanks, Director Homan.
The Chair now recognizes Director Cissna for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF LEE FRANCIS CISSNA, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Cissna. Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee I am pleased to be
here today along with my colleagues from ICE and CBP to offer
thoughts on real border security.
In most people's minds, border security means physical
controls and surveillance. We have all seen the wall
prototypes, the documentaries that have followed Border Patrol
agents as they do their dangerous and exhausting work and other
evidence of the physical aspects of border control. I suggest
that true border security is much more than that.
While border security certainly does incorporate physical
control of the border, it must also incorporate the
administrative processes that govern the entry and exit of
individuals into the United States. Behind the border wall, as
both the Chairman and the Chairwoman have said, there must be a
wall of law.
As evidence that many in Congress understand this problem,
I point to H.R. 4760, the Scoring America's Future Act, as a
blueprint for meaningful immigration reform. I note that the
Chairwoman along with Congressmen Smith, Barletta, Rutherford,
and Bacon on this subcommittee and indeed Chairman McCaul
himself, are all co-sponsors of that bill.
This piece of legislation provides many of the tools that
could help us regain control of our borders while at the same
time improving our ability to administer an immigration system
that is responsive to our Nation's needs and obligations.
Now, I would like to mention the backlog in the USCIS
asylum caseload. The number of new asylum filings has tripled
between fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2017. The number
received in fiscal year 2017 was the highest annual number of
asylum claims received in over 20 years. USCIS currently faces
an asylum backlog of around 318,000 cases, a backlog of
critical proportions that cripples our ability to properly
screen and vet applicants while they wait for a decision. A
consequence of this 1,750 percent increase in pending asylum
applications is that true asylum seekers are lost in a haystack
of applications, many of them non-meritorious.
In my written testimony, I discuss how USCIS has taken
steps to address this backlog. I also mentioned several
loopholes that work to undermine our Nation's asylum system.
Now, I would like to share with you some background on this.
When Congress established the expedited removal process in
1996, Congress understood that a mechanism to screen for claims
for asylum was necessary. The compromise Congress came up with
was the so-called credible fear process. I would submit to you
that the present process at the border is neither expeditious
nor credible.
The statutory standard for credible fear screenings at the
border has been set so low that nearly everyone meets it. But,
over the years since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980,
certain courts have taken this generous approach and stretched
it almost beyond recognition ruling that people like former
gang members or victims of general gang violence may qualify
for asylum as a member of some sort of particular social group.
Someone only has to show that there is a ``reasonable
possibility'' of suffering persecution on account of a
protective ground in order to qualify for asylum. The credible
fear screening standard used at the border only requires that
someone establish that there is a significant possibility of
establishing eligibility for asylum in order to pass the
screening process.
What does this all mean? It means that an alien saying the
magic word ``asylum'' at the border only has to establish a
significant possibility that there is a reasonable possibility
that he or she will be persecuted on account of a protective
ground if returned home in order to be screened in. In other
words, they need to only show a possibility of a possibility.
Many of those seeking to enter this country illegally and
smuggling organizations who profit from them know that a few
key words are all it takes to get an alien through this
screening process. It should be no surprise, therefore, that we
have seen a 1,750 percent increase in the number of fear claims
being made in the expedited removal process between fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2016.
The loophole of this overly generous screening standard
when paired with insufficient funding for detention space,
court decisions that prevent us from detaining fear claimants
throughout the process of adjudicating their protection claims
and an overburdened immigration court system tasked with
hearing those claims is a recipe for the challenges that we are
dealing with at the border.
The evidence that the present system is being gamed is
obvious. According to data from the Department of Justice, the
Executive Office for Immigration Review through mid-January of
this year, 56 percent of pending cases they have that
originated from credible fear reviews that were conducted by
USCIS still had not filed asylum application.
The number of removal orders issued after the alien failed
to appear at the hearing on cases that originated from credible
fear has increased by over 1,350 percent. Finally, as announced
by EYR last week, the approval rate for defensive asylum cases
was only 20 percent and was only 22 percent for the first two
quarters of fiscal year 2018.
Secretary Nielsen has called on Congress to work with her
to quickly pass legislation to close these legal loopholes and
the asylum loophole, the loopholes and abuse of the asylum
process I just described are some of them. These are being
exploited to the detriment of the integrity of our immigration
system.
Like Secretary Nielsen, I stand ready to work with any
Member of Congress who seeks to support DHS's mission to secure
our country and correct these problems. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cissna follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lee Francis Cissna
May 22, 2018
introduction
Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today, along with my
colleagues from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to speak with you about an
integrated border security plan. My name is Francis Cissna, and I am
the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). My
testimony will lay out problems that exist within our Nation's asylum
system that compromise border security and the integrity of our
Nation's lawful immigration system, as well as steps that USCIS and
other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components are taking to
address them. I will also suggest statutory changes in areas where only
legislative action can provide the authorities needed to help secure
our borders and keep our country safe. I am hopeful that the necessary
changes will be realized, and I point to H.R. 4760, the Securing
America's Future Act, as a blueprint for meaningful immigration reform.
I further note that the Chairwoman, along with Congressmen Smith,
Barletta, Rutherford, and Bacon on this subcommittee are cosponsors of
the Securing America's Future Act.
USCIS administers the Nation's lawful immigration system, including
the adjudication of affirmative asylum claims and applications for
refugee status. USCIS officers work shoulder-to-shoulder with their ICE
and CBP colleagues--from conducting protection screening interviews at
detention centers to running real-time immigration record checks at the
National Targeting Center. The closer we work together--and not just
with our DHS partners but also with the Department of Defense and the
States that are stepping up and temporarily deploying the National
Guard--the better we secure our country. Stronger security requires
multiple layers, from physical controls and surveillance along the
border, to targeted interior enforcement, to a more aggressive
crackdown on the immigration fraud and abuse that diminishes the
integrity of our immigration system and harms American workers. It also
includes working with our foreign partners to ensure that their
immigration and enforcement policies and efforts reduce illegal flows
from and through their territories to other nations, including the
United States.
There is only so much we can do as a Department to enforce the rule
of law when serious loopholes exist within current law. Congress must
step in and give our officers the tools we need to better protect
asylum seekers and the American people. Allow me to lay out the
challenges we face, the actions USCIS has taken, and what more can be
done, especially with your help.
First, the backlog in the USCIS asylum process has swelled over the
last 5 years. The number of new asylum filings has more than tripled
between fiscal year 2014 and fiscal 2017; the number received in fiscal
year 2017 (141,695 asylum applications) was the highest annual number
of asylum claims received in over 20 years. USCIS currently faces an
asylum backlog of over 318,000 cases--a backlog of critical proportions
that cripples our ability to properly screen and vet applicants while
they wait for a decision. A consequence of this 1,700 percent increase
in the backlog of pending asylum cases over the last 5 years is that
true asylum seekers are lost in a haystack of applications, many of
them non-meritorious.
To stem the increase of frivolous filings and help those who truly
fear persecution, USCIS began to schedule asylum interviews for recent
applications ahead of older filings, beginning in February of this
year. Delays in the timely processing of asylum applications are
detrimental to legitimate asylum seekers. Furthermore, lingering
backlogs can be exploited and used to undermine National security and
the integrity of the asylum system. The result is that true victims
wait years to be processed. Those who file frivolous claims not only
circumvent the legal immigration system, but they could pose a threat
to public safety and National security.
Returning to a ``last in, first out'' interview schedule allows
USCIS to focus quickly on those applications that should be approved
while also identifying frivolous, fraudulent, or otherwise non-
meritorious asylum claims earlier and quickly place those individuals
into removal proceedings. This priority approach is not new. It was
first established by the asylum reforms of 1995 and was used for 20
years until 2014. The aim then, as now, was to deter those who might
try to use a backlog as a means to obtain employment authorization and
build equities in the United States. During the first 3 months that
this revised scheduling approach has been in place, the number of new
affirmative asylum applications received has fallen by approximately 30
percent from the number of filings received from November 2017 through
January 2018. While it is still too early to call this a permanent
trend, USCIS expects that this scheduling change will deter the filing
of non-meritorious claims.
Congress can help in closing loopholes for frivolous and baseless
asylum filings. The extended asylum processing times caused by the
growing backlog have led to the issuance of more Employment
Authorization Documents (EADs) and created an incentive (or pull
factor) for individuals to apply for asylum solely to obtain work
authorization. The current wait time for an asylum decision in the
backlog varies between USCIS Asylum offices, but is roughly 2 years or
longer overall. While the number of mala fide claims is difficult to
estimate, experience from the 1990's indicates that a significant
amount of the growth in receipts since fiscal year 2014 may be linked
to individuals pursuing work authorization and not necessarily asylum
status. While just less than 55,000 EADs were issued to individuals
with pending asylum applications in fiscal year 2012, over 277,000 such
EADs were issued during just the first three quarters of fiscal year
2017.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USCIS News Alert (Oct. 12, 2017), ``USCIS Makes Additional Data
on Employment-Based Visa Programs Available in Support of `Hire
American' Executive Order''; EADs by Classification and Statutory
Eligibility, Oct. 1, 2012-June 29, 2017 (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/
default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/
Immigration%20Forms%20Data/BAHA/eads-by-statutory-eligibility.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, approximately 20 percent of the Asylum Division's
affirmative asylum backlog comprises cases in which, at the time of
filing, 10 or more years had elapsed after the applicant's last arrival
in the United States. These applicants appear to be using the asylum
process to gain access to removal proceedings so that they can then
apply for cancellation of removal, a form of relief from removal that
can presently only be sought while in removal proceedings. With the
present backlog, these individuals can get authorization to work in the
United States while they wait for their asylum case to be reviewed,
have an asylum interview scheduled, and receive a decision to refer
their application to removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
In order to fully address these loopholes, new legislation is
needed. In order to deter frivolous filings, individuals who make them
should face penalties beyond simply having their application denied.
Under the statute, individuals who are found to have filed frivolous
asylum applications are permanently barred from receiving any future
immigration benefits, yet this finding is rarely made because the
definition of ``frivolous'' is too narrow and the notice requirements
too unwieldy. Expanding the definition of ``frivolous'' to capture the
types of abusive claims we are currently seeing and amending notice
requirements, for instance, would send a strong and clear message that
individuals are no longer welcome to abuse our asylum processes. USCIS
stands ready to provide technical assistance, as needed, to the
Congress as you consider remedies.
Attention also needs to be given to expedited removal and the
credible fear screening process--especially as they relate to the
Southern Border. The simple reality is that those who wish to gain
access to or remain in the United States know they can likely effect
that access and then delay their removal by simply saying the ``magic
words'' of ``fear'' or ``asylum.'' The standard for credible fear
screenings at the border has been set so low that nearly everyone meets
it.
Those with legitimate claims of asylum must be protected; however,
many of those seeking to enter this country illegally, and the
smuggling organizations who profit from them, know that a few key words
are all it takes to keep an alien in the country longer. Unfortunately,
there is no significant downside to making a false claim of ``credible
fear''. Additionally, family units who arrive at our border are nearly
always released from ICE custody into the interior of the United States
as recent rulings in the Flores consent decree litigation constrain
ICE's authority to detain an entire family unit. These rulings require
that children be released from DHS custody within a few days of arrival
if they are not removed. In fiscal year 2017, approximately 71,500
members of family units were apprehended at the Southern Border.
With continued claims of credible fear, and an immigration court
backlog of more than 650,000 cases, it is clear that we must elevate
the threshold of proof in credible fear screenings. Aliens who falsely
claim credible fear in expectation of parole are placing a strain on
Department resources, and preventing or delaying legitimate asylum
cases from being adjudicated. DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
are working together to explore options for addressing this increasing
threat to the security of our border.
Current law also prevents the Government from promptly removing
some unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who arrive in the country
illegally. Rather than being expeditiously removed to their home
countries, these minors are instead placed in full removal proceedings
before immigration judges and, pursuant to Federal law, are referred to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at taxpayer
expense, and subsequently released to the custody of a sponsor--
sometimes even a family member or friend who often lacks lawful
immigration status in the United States. As has been reported, violent
street gangs such as MS-13 have targeted UACs and other Central
American immigrant youth for recruitment. Dozens of suspected gang
members arrested in recent successful anti-gang operations, such as ICE
Homeland Security Investigations' ``Operation Raging Bull,'' were found
to have originally entered this country as UACs. We must come to terms
with the effects of UACs on our orderly immigration processes. Without
reform, border security will remain elusive.
The significant increase over the last few months in the number of
family units and UACs coming across the border illegally highlights the
urgent need for Congress to immediately pass legislation that:
Ensures the expeditious return of UACs and family units who
are not granted protection;
Tightens the credible fear standard; and
Closes loopholes that encourage and enable illegal
immigration and create a corresponding backlog in the courts.
The integrity of our entire immigration system is at risk because
frivolous asylum applications impede our ability to help people who
really need it. In order to address this, we need legislation that:
Imposes and enforces penalties for the filing of frivolous
asylum applications;
Closes any loopholes that allow serious criminals, gang
members, or terrorists to receive asylum in our country;
Guarantees the prompt removal of individuals whose claims
for protection are denied; and
Makes it easier to terminate asylum for anyone who takes
advantage of our generosity by claiming asylum but then returns
to their home country absent a material change in circumstances
or country conditions, especially when they are engaged in
activities that threaten the security of our country, the very
Nation that gave them refuge.
Asylum is about protecting people who are at risk of persecution in
their home country--that is, singled out for persecution on one of five
specific statutory bases; it is not about providing a way around the
regular immigration rules to pick and choose the country where you
would most like to live.
We are, and will continue to be, a Nation that provides protection
to those truly in need. We honor our international legal obligations
just as we expect other countries to honor theirs. To have border
security, however, we must have an asylum system with integrity that
puts the safety and security of the American people first.
We must work toward a comprehensive border security solution that
deters illegal immigrants from abusing our laws while ensuring that we
live up to our National promise of providing safe harbor to those who
need it. By fixing the asylum system, we can protect true asylum
seekers while also strengthening our immigration system for generations
to come.
conclusion
This President has made it clear that we will protect our borders
and our sovereignty. Secretary Nielsen has called on Congress to work
with her to quickly pass legislation to close the legal loopholes that
are being exploited by the smugglers, traffickers, criminals, and those
who want to ignore or bypass established immigration processes.
Deficiencies in the law prevent us from securing our borders and
protecting Americans. Like Secretary Nielsen, I stand ready to work
with any Member who seeks to support DHS's mission and secure our
country. I believe that Congress has a very good start on that work, as
evidenced in H.R. 4760.
Border security is more than just the much-needed wall and ``boots
on the ground.'' A system that allows individuals to make dubious
claims of asylum primarily so that they can live and work in the United
States undermines all of the time, effort, and resources that go into
physical security. We at USCIS look forward to continuing to assist
Congress, working closely with staff from both the Senate and the House
to provide technical assistance to the language of any legislation that
will address asylum loopholes and other vulnerabilities.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Ms. McSally. Thank you, Director Cissna. I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes for questions.
OK. So I just want to summarize the big picture here. We
have heard a lot of numbers. We have heard a lot of
information, a lot of data. So we have seen a 1,750 percent
increase, Director Cissna, between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal
year 2016 you said in asylum claims, correct? 1,750 percent,
that is a big number.
Mr. Cissna. Yes.
Ms. McSally. There is a lot of violence around the world.
There is a lot of poverty around the world. There is a lot of
tribulation and troubles from individuals around the world. But
this increase has gone up 1,750 percent. So the cartels and the
individuals have figured out, they simply have to say, I have a
credible fear, or I want to seek asylum and the bar is so low
it is a possibility of a possibility, 90 percent are released
into the interior of the United States?
Mr. Cissna. So the numbers are pretty bad. I mean, right
now credible fear screening rate, people who get positive
credible fear screenings last year was 76 percent.
Ms. McSally. OK, 76 percent.
Mr. Cissna. But the immigration courts might flip a few
more digits beyond that, so say it is like around 80 percent.
Ms. McSally. OK.
Mr. Cissna. Of that number that get through, the ones that
when their asylum claims are heard about right now between 22
percent, 25 percent something like that are actually granted
asylum.
Ms. McSally. OK. So, again, paint the picture. Most of them
say the right words, right? And then how many years later do
they get a court date on average?
Mr. Cissna. It could be several years.
Ms. McSally. OK. What percent actually show up?
Mr. Cissna. Well, the numbers that we have show that, well,
something like 50 percent I think never even file an asylum
claim.
Ms. McSally. OK.
Mr. Cissna. And in absentia orders, I don't have that
readily available.
Ms. McSally. More than half, right, Director Homan?
Mr. Cissna. Yes. A high percentage don't show up.
Ms. McSally. Yes.
Mr. Homan. Yes, I looked at those numbers this morning, the
family units of UACs----
Ms. McSally. Yes.
Mr. Homan [continuing]. Approximately 80 percent are in
absentia orders issued by immigration court which means 80
percent don't show up in court.
Ms. McSally. So I am just trying to paint the picture here.
Significant numbers are coming in. They are saying the right
words because the bar is so low. They are then released into
the interior of the United States for the court date years in
the future. The vast majority don't show up for that court
date. For those who do, only 20 percent, a little over 20
percent are actually granted asylum?
Mr. Cissna. Yes.
Ms. McSally. So, I mean, our system is being used for
people to be able to just drive a Mack truck through the
loopholes.
Mr. Cissna. I think the problem goes back, as I said in my
oral statement, to the very beginning of this process. The
whole idea of the credible fear system was to give some
protection to people who had legitimate fear of persecution in
their home countries when they were at the border so that they
wouldn't be expeditiously removed with everybody else.
But the reality is that the number of people coming to the
border seeking this type of protection and making these types
of claims is greatly overwhelming our ability to hold them
throughout the process. If you can't hold them, you have to let
them go. If you let them go, you end up with the problem.
Ms. McSally. Right. Just for everybody's understanding, I
mean, the asylum law is very specific that you personally are
going to be persecuted because of your race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group or
political opinion. You personally, when you go back to that
country, not that your country is in poverty, not that your
country has violence in general, just I just want you to
elaborate on that.
Mr. Cissna. That is correct. You have to demonstrate that
you have fear of persecution, that there is a credible fear
stage that there is a significant possibility that you will be
persecuted on those grounds. As I said in my oral remarks, the
courts have stretched those grounds a lot in the decades since
and the basis for asylum into our country is very generous. The
credible fear standard is even more so.
Ms. McSally. So, Director Cissna, if you are fleeing from a
country because of this persecution in one of these five
categories and your life is in danger, as soon as you step foot
into another country, say, Mexico, wouldn't that be a safe
place for you to settle?
Mr. Cissna. Well, what I and Secretary Nielsen and others
have been saying for a while now is that people who are fleeing
persecution in their countries should seek refuge in the first
safe country they come to.
Ms. McSally. Exactly.
Mr. Cissna. That is the basic point, yes.
Ms. McSally. Thank you. Exactly. That is the whole point.
If you really are legitimately fleeing because you are
personally being persecuted, then as soon as you are in a safe
country, you should be processed there. Can you share like what
Mexico is or is not doing related to this and increasing
partnership on this topic?
Mr. Cissna. Well, for the past several years, well, Mexico
does have an asylum system. It does have a working asylum
system and we at USCIS have, for several years now, sent people
to Mexico to help them build their capacity to expand and
improve their asylum processes and we continue to do that. We
continue to have discussions with them about that. People do
ask for asylum and receive asylum in Mexico. As I say, we at
USCIS are helping them to the degree they want and need help
from us to accomplish that better.
Ms. McSally. OK. Great. I am out of time. I am going to
come back in another round.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member Mr. Vela.
Mr. Vela. Thank you, Chairwoman McSally.
Commissioner Vitiello, family separation is very concerning
to me. With this new Zero Tolerance Program announced by the
attorney general, can you please explain the criteria CBP
personnel are supposed to use to verify family relationships?
Mr. Vitiello. Essentially, the agents and officers use
whatever information is available to establish familial
relationships. Sometimes these people have documents, sometimes
they don't. When it is in question, when we don't believe that
there is a familial relationship when a minor is involved, we
will refer that minor to HHS as an unaccompanied minor.
As it relates to day-to-day operations, there are typically
their statements along with documentation and our officer and
agents work to verify that. When we can't, then we let HHS sort
the individual as an unaccompanied minor.
Mr. Vela. Now, I don't know if you can answer this question
because this actually would be a question best-suited for
CBPOs, but is the process different for families who present
themselves at the ports of entry versus those that are
apprehended by Border Patrol between the ports of entry?
Mr. Vitiello. Between the ports we are now referring
anybody that crosses the border illegally. So Border Patrol is
referring 100 percent of the people that cross the border
illegally to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution,
at the ports that is not an illegal act if they come under the
same conditions. But the verification of family relationships
is essentially the same in both instances.
Mr. Vela. So with this new policy in place, at the point
that you are in a situation where you decide to separate the
families, where do the minors go?
Mr. Vitiello. The decision is to prosecute 100 percent. If
that happens to be a family member, then the HHS would then
take care of the minor as an unaccompanied child.
Mr. Vela. But can you tell us because over the past couple
of weeks we have seen reports of families that have been
separated but nobody can tell us where those children are
going. Do you know where they are going?
Mr. Vitiello. They are referred to Health and Human
Services to be placed in a shelter.
Mr. Vela. So you are telling me that I am better off asking
HHS?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, yes, they control the system as it
relates to where the shelters are and which ones they send them
to, et cetera. It is their work that will reunite families or
place them with a guardian.
Mr. Vela. This is probably a question for you, Director
Cissna. Yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that it
was asking the Department of Defense to send 21 prosecutors to
assist in the prosecution of people detained pursuant to the
new Zero Tolerance Policy. Within a few short weeks, Federal
courts along the Southern Border are now experiencing
tremendous backlogs because of this. Border Patrol agents and
Customs officials do not appear to have the personnel and/or
resources necessary to process the new detainees including
minors. There also appears to be an issue with the lack of
space necessary to house all of these defendants sentenced to
serve time. What is the administration doing to address these
concerns?
Mr. Cissna. I think that is probably better for ICE on the
detention issue.
Mr. Homan. As far as the detention capacity, we are well
aware of that. We are working with the U.S. marshals and DOJ on
identifying available detention space. I got my staff working
on that along with the Department and DOJ, so I think it will
be addressed. We want to make sure we don't get back to catch-
and-release, so we are identifying available beds throughout
the country that we can use.
As far as the question on HHS, under the Security Act 2002,
we are required, both the Border Patrol and ICE, to release
unaccompanied children to HHS within 72 hours. So we simply
once they identify within 72 hours a bed some place in the
country, our job is to get that child to that bed and HHS, it
is their responsibility to reunite that child some time with
the parent and make sure that child gets released to a sponsor
that has beeen vetted.
Mr. Vela. Three years ago, most of us that are here lived
through the issue with unaccompanied minors coming into this
country and to me I just find it ironic that with the new Zero
Tolerance Policy what we are essentially doing is creating a
new class of unaccompanied minors. I will save the rest of my
questions when we come back.
Although we may not see eye-to-eye on a lot of these
things, Director Homan, I would like to congratulate you on
your retirement and thank you for your service as well.
Mr. Homan. Thank you. As far as your question or your
comment, if they show up at a port of entry to make their
asylum claims, they won't be prosecuted and they won't be
separated. The Department has no policy just to separate
families for a deterrence issue. I mean, they are separating
families for two reasons, No. 1, they can't prove the
relationship. We have had many cases where children have been
trafficked by people that weren't their parents and we are
concerned about the child. The other issues are when they are
prosecuted, then they are separated.
Mr. Vela. So I just thank you for clarifying that, sir. Are
you saying that with the new Zero Tolerance Policy that at the
ports of entry that children are not being separated from
parents seeking asylum?
Mr. Homan. Not 100 percent. What I am saying is we separate
children from parents on two situations. No. 1, they don't have
evidence that they are actually a parent or legal guardian. As
I said, we have had cases where children were trafficked by
people claiming to be parent but weren't, so we have to protect
those children. The second issue if a parent is prosecuted,
then we have to separate them until the parent goes to U.S.
marshals and we have to, the children go to HHS. So it is not a
policy based on deterrence. It is a policy based on these two
issues, prosecution and can't establish relationship.
Mr. Cissna. I will just add, if they choose to use the port
of entry, that is not against the law so prosecution won't be
contemplated in those cases.
Mr. Vela. OK. Well, I am out of time. I yield back.
Ms. McSally. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the full committee,
Mr. McCaul, from Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director Homan, let me thank you for your many years of
stellar service to our Nation. We all congratulate you on your
retirement and I look forward to working with you in the
future.
When you talked about sanctuary cities, it just reminded me
when I was a young counterterrorism Federal prosecutor after
9/11 working with the joint terrorism task forces. A lot of
time we couldn't prove material support to a terrorist, so what
we would do in many cases was we were able to get them on
immigration violation and deport them from this country.
What I worry about what is happening in California, and I
wrote an article that California is building the wrong wall, is
that they are building a wall between Federal law enforcement
and local law enforcement. The idea that we would defy an ICE
detainer because this is a criminal alien and yet the State has
decided we are going to defy Federal law enforcement. To me, I
think the supremacy clause applies and eventually we are going
to win this is in the courts. But what can you tell me about
the danger, not only to your agents that have to chase these
people in the streets, but the danger from a counterterrorism
standpoint?
Mr. Homan. Well, there's two issues here and we always get
wrapped around the immigration issue, right, that a local State
agency has chosen to arrest somebody, take their freedom, and
lock them in a jail cell. If we know they are here illegally
based on some fingerprint submissions, we should have access
that person so we can enforce our law. They have already chosen
to arrest them, so apparently they think they are a flight risk
or public safety threat because they are locking them in a jail
cell. We should have access to that jail like every other
Federal agency does. DEA, FBI, they all get access, ICE should
be no different, so I agree 100 percent on that.
The other issue that is not talked about so much is how the
sanctuary cities affect criminal investigations, terrorism
investigations. We have had law enforcement agencies that have
left the JTTFs because we have HSI agents who work for ICE on
their task force.
As part of the California sanctuary law, we have lost our
access to the CalGangs databases. It is a California State
database that has all this information on gang members,
including MS-13 and numerous gangs. We can no longer access
that database because of these laws. So it affects greatly
National security and public safety and the criminal
investigative aspect of that. You have had cities out there
that pass policies in their city to not allow to assist ICE in
any way whatsoever.
Mr. McCaul. I think that is a point we need to be making as
well as the Kate Steinle incident; murder. But we should also
be talking about the National security. I have got a map I want
to point out. It has to do with special interest alien pathways
into the United States. This was given to me I think from your
agency, Director Homan.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. McCaul. DHS was created as a counterterrorism
department. This is what keeps me up at night, is when you look
at special interest aliens coming from Pakistan, from Turkey,
from Syria, from Iraq, from Moscow to Africa into the Western
Hemisphere with flights on air, sea, and land, and then the
pathway up into the United States, we know that thousands, it
is in the thousands of these special interest aliens try to
make it per year.
This is why I think closing the legal loopholes is so
important, because it does no good if they get in and you can't
deport them. It does no good if you can't prevent them from
coming in in the first place.
There is also a program I want you to talk about because I
would like this committee to authorize this program for you,
sir, is the bitmap program which deals with biometrics and
deals with how can we track these individuals that make this
journey from very dangerous countries of origin into this
hemisphere, and particularly into the United States.
Mr. Homan. Well, I agree with you on this chart. That is
the issue, right? If we learned anything from the 9/11
Commission, law enforcement needs to be talking together,
coordinating, sharing information. These sanctuary city laws
prevent that from happening. So 100 percent agree with you. I
am glad you brought it up. It is not just an immigration issue,
it is a public safety National security issue.
As far as these illicit pathways, that is the reason, as
you know after 9/11 you are exactly right, immigration
authorities got most of the people that are involved with
terrorist activities arrested because the FBI are still working
on the cases for that.
As far as bitmap, we are working with our attache offices
overseas in Central America and South America on identifying
those routes to United States, many known terrorists that these
other countries will enroll them in the bitmap, take some
prints, feeds into our system along with the DOD and gives us a
shot of who is coming, who is on their way.
So Panama has been very successful. Panama has a great
program down there. People that were known terrorists had been
turned around in Panama, sent back before reaching our shores.
I like to use then Secretary John Kelly said we would rather
play the away game, than play the home game. So we want to
expand bitmap. It is very important that we expand that to
other parts of the country. It has already proven successful.
It has already proven people that want to do harm to this
country had been stopped on the way rather than at the border
or inside United States. So a significant, significant
investment needs to be made there.
Mr. McCaul. Yes, and I couldn't agree more.
Madam Chair, I look forward to working with you on
authorizing this report and the program. I yield back.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The full committee Chairman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Correa from California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank our guests today for the good work they are
doing for this country. Thank you very much. I wanted to focus
also a bit on the big picture. We talked about 300 percent
increase referring to what? The Chairperson referred 300
percent increase in what kind of crossings?
Mr. Cissna. In the family units and----
Mr. Correa. Yes.
Mr. Cissna [continuing]. Unaccompanied children.
Mr. Correa. What were the actual numbers?
Mr. Cissna. I can get that to you. I probably have it here,
but about 240,000 apprehensions so far this year. About a third
of those would be people not from Mexico who are unaccompanied
children or part of a family unit.
Mr. Correa. We talked about a 1,750 percent increase. Was
that fiscal year 2008 to 2016? Did I get that correct?
Mr. Cissna. There are two increases that are about 1,750
percent. One was in the number of pending asylum cases over the
past 5 years.
Mr. Correa. Over the 5 years. Not 1 year, 5 years.
Mr. Cissna. Five years, yes. Then the other one was the
number of----
Mr. Correa. What were the actual numbers on that?
Mr. Cissna. So I have that. Let me see.
Mr. Correa. If you get that----
Mr. Cissna. Yes.
Mr. Correa. While you are getting that for me, I got
another question.
Mr. Cissna. Yes.
Mr. Correa. We talked about cartels, we talked about these
folks coming over looking for asylum. Are there cartels sending
them over with drugs? When they get to the border, do these
folks looking for refugee status? Are they coming in with
drugs? So they check in to say I want asylum, by the way, they
have a backpack full of drugs. Is that what happens?
Mr. Cissna. I am not sure we see that very often. I think
that is more of a rare occurrence. But I can tell you that most
if not all----
Mr. Correa. Does that happen 100 percent of the time, a
couple of times, 30 percent of the time?
Mr. Cissna. I would just say that most everyone in this
situation is being smuggled. The way that the----
Mr. Correa. So you don't have actual numbers. You don't
have actual numbers. I would like to get some of those from
you. I am sorry I got just a couple of minutes left here. The
other question is you talked about a caravan, 1,000, 1,500 that
left for the United States. How many of those actually made it
to the border, to the U.S. border? It sounds like you don't
have that number either, but I hear it is about 300. What I
love to do and I will ask, I will request, I will put in a
question for you that I want to see what Mexico is doing
because my understanding is there is a major effort at this
Southern Border of Mexico to address this issue and that they
are doing quite a bit in cooperating with the United States. It
is just it is something that I don't have at my fingertips and
appears that you don't either so I would love to get an answer
to that.
Finally, Mr. Homan, if I can, I won't put any words in your
mouth, but you said illegal immigrants are dangerous?
Mr. Homan. I don't believe I used those words, no.
Mr. Correa. I am sorry?
Mr. Homan. I did not say that. I don't think I did.
Mr. Correa. OK. Again, because the issue I am having in the
State of California is I got my farmers asking for more workers
and they have actually called me from Republican areas saying,
``Lou, we need more workers on our fields.'' And I told them
call the administration. I can't do anything. But, as you know,
ag is one of our top industry not only in California but in
southern States and it appears that we need those farm hands so
that is why I am saying we are not thinking of these folks as
terrorists, are we, or dangerous.
Mr. Homan. No. The statement I made is entering this
country illegally is a crime. It is a violation of Federal law.
Mr. Correa. But yet they are needed at these farms as farm
workers, correct?
Mr. Homan. Then I think it is up to the Congress to make
some changes in the guest worker program whatever you think you
need, but violating the laws of this country isn't the answer.
Mr. Correa. But yet they are needed and the pool is
economic. If I can, let me talk to you about another kind of
political refugee asylum seeker which those are the folks that
have a lot of money and they are transferring their money into
the United States. What is it? Five hundred thousand dollars
gets you what kind of a visa?
Mr. Cissna. It is the EB-5 program.
Mr. Correa. Those people are also fearing for their
economic lives in some of these countries, correct?
Mr. Cissna. Perhaps.
Mr. Correa. Possibly from China and some of the others. So
do we look at those as welcome or not welcome and what is the
distinction?
Mr. Cissna. Well, the EB-5 program is a program established
by Congress.
Mr. Correa. They are following the law just like these
asylum seekers?
Mr. Cissna. Correct.
Mr. Correa. Under existing laws.
Mr. Cissna. Yes, under existing laws there is an asylum
program and there's a need----
Mr. Correa. Are these asylum seekers just from Central
America or they come from all over the world?
Mr. Cissna. Asylum seekers come from anywhere.
Mr. Correa. Any other specific areas, Syria, Iraq?
Mr. Cissna. Syria, China, Venezuela.
Mr. Correa. China? There is no war in China. What is the
issue there?
Mr. Cissna. Well, there could be political persecution.
Used to be you could be a member of the Falun Gong. Previously,
it was the one-child policy that drove a lot of refugees from
China.
Mr. Correa. Again, gentlemen, I thank you for the great job
you have done. I will follow up with some questions later on
with you.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. McSally. Gentlemen yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Bacon from Nebraska for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today and sharing your
expertise. I think you have made a compelling case that our
policies and loopholes undermine our security, undermine our
law and we need to get that fixed. We can have the best
physical security in place, but if we are doing catch-and-
release or if we have an asylum policy that is being used as a
loophole we undermine all those efforts. So I, for one, support
more physical security, but I know we got to fix these laws so
that they support each other and that they defend our border
and give us the rule of law. We want legal immigration, not
illegal immigration.
Now, I want to piggyback on what the Chairman of our
committee have brought up and it is a special interest and only
pathways to the United States. I think this is an area that
does not get the visibility that it should get. We know the
folks are coming here through pathways through South and
Central America but originating from the Middle East, some
perhaps are looking for asylum but some are coming here for
nefarious reasons, suspected semi-terrorists.
We had Homeland Security Secretary here this past month. I
asked her about it, so what at the unclassified level can you
tell us about this and she made the statement at the
unclassified level that we are tracking roughly 15 suspected
terrorists a day somewhere in transit coming here. I think the
American people need to know this. We are not doing a good
enough job about that. So is there anything you can add at the
unclassified level about suspected terrorists using these
pathways and trying to abuse these policies to come to our
country?
Mr. Homan. Well, the Secretary is right. Like I said, the
bitmap program has already identified those who want to harm
this country on their travel here. This is the whole issue by
the Southern Border and the President wanting the wall and
having a true border security.
Question from the gentleman from California was criminal
cartels move product. They don't care if it is just illegal
alien looking for farm work, whether it is drugs, whether it is
weapons or whether it is a terrorist. They are in the business
of moving product into United States illegally and that is how
they make their money.
So when you talk about sanctuary cities that dangle the
carrot out that you will get to the city and you can even
commit a crime you would be protected--very criminal
organizations that have murdered Border Patrol agents, murdered
my agents, smuggled guns, smuggled weapons, smuggled
terrorists. This is same illicit pathways. That is why when we
talk about border security and border wall and closing these
loopholes that is why it is so important. As I said earlier,
this is not an immigration issue. It is National security issue
because the people that want to harm this country use the same
pathways, right? They are being bankrolled by the lack of
strong policy.
Mr. Bacon. The Homeland Security Secretary, so let me just
ask point blank. Have we caught suspected terrorists trying to
enter our country through these pathways?
Mr. Homan. Well, the detail she gives you is a recognition
that when someone applies for entry or is encountered by one of
our officers, they are hitting on the database that the
Government keeps of known and suspected terrorists so that is
happening regularly.
Mr. Bacon. So the answer is yes? We have caught known or
suspected or interdicted known or suspected terrorists coming
here. I think we do too often put this as an immigration issue
which clouds the more fundamental issue of border security and
terrorism.
I think and I guess I will close with just this thought.
Why aren't we doing a better job as homeland security or in
your areas of communicating this because I feel like it seems
to be lost. I think if the American people knew of the
magnitude of terrorists from the Middle East trying to come
through our Southern Border using these alien pathways to the
United States in this handout, it would change the discussion.
It would raise the support levels for what we are trying to do
to improve our physical security and policies. I think the
debate becomes easy where we can show that there is actual
physical terrorist threat trying to come here. I just don't
know that we are making that case. Can we do better or what is
your--am I off-base on this?
Mr. Homan. I can tell you, we are trying. But you know
what, there is a vast amount in the media that don't want to
report it.
Mr. Bacon. Right.
Mr. Homan. They want to make this a case against
administration. They want to make this about immigrant families
trying to better--I can't blame anybody for wanting to be part
of the greatest country on earth, which is the right way to do
it, but we are telling a story, promise that that story doesn't
get past. The wall has been put up by NGO's and these groups
that don't want American people to hear the truth. That is why
I am out a lot trying to talk. I know Ron is out talking a lot.
We are trying to get that story out that this is more than just
immigration. We are talking about our country's sovereignty. We
are talking about National security of this country.
Mr. Bacon. I think some folks perceive this as a
hypothetical issue versus a real issue. I think the more real
we make it with tangible names, tangible pictures of faces of
folks who come here who had terrorist designs on our country, I
think this debate gets easier.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. McSally. Gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Barragan from California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am going to go
ahead and my colleague just said he wanted to make this more
real. I want to introduce into the record a statement by Olivia
Caseres, a mother who participated in the caravan during the
fall of 2017 into the record. She is from--may it go into the
record?
Ms. McSally. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
English Translation of Letter by Olivia Caseres
I am Olivia, I am 29 years old, I am Salvadoran. I am a young
entrepreneur who was on my way to starting my own small business
together with my life partner Jose, of 30 years of age, a graduate with
a degree in Journalism and Communication. Due to lack of opportunities
we were forced to try to succeed on our own. But our life changed due
to the insecurity that reigns in our country and we were forced to
leave everything behind. We joined the caravan in October of 2017. We
found in it protection and support since Mexico is also very insecure,
full of dangers for migrants, and coming supported with other migrants
like us gave us to a certain extent a bit of safety. The path isn't
easy, especially not for parents like us who were coming with our
children. It is very dangerous but we know and we are aware that we do
it to save their lives. All we are looking for is a safe place for them
to grow and be good people.
In my experience, turning ourselves into immigration, presenting
ourselves at the port of entry to request asylum, is very hard. The
officers tend to intimidate you and I think that our only crime is to
present ourselves and ask for protection. PROTECTION that in our
countries isn't there, SECURITY that doesn't exist. And in the
detention center the treatment is as if we were criminals. The food is
horrible, we are arranged on the floor, one nearly on top of the other.
Now I am here at my aunt & uncle's. They give me room and board and
basic necessities that my children have. With the separation of
children, in my experience, being separated for 85 days from my 15-
month-old baby, who was torn from the arms of his father on November
16, 2017. It has not been the least bit easy to get over that and less
so to face the consequences that the separation from his father has
caused 4-year-old Andree. Facing a child who is angry and misbehaved,
who I constantly ask why he behaves and acts this way, and his answer
is BECAUSE I MISS DAD. He says he will go back to being the boy he was
before when his dad is back with us. 16-month-old Mateo because a
completely different child. He is afraid of people and only wants to be
with mommy. At night his crying is full of fear. This makes it clear
that separation affects children psychologically, regardless of their
age the changes are drastic and many times irreversible. And indefinite
detention in the [detention] centers I feel is even more cruel because
our only crime is looking for security and to save our lives and give
our children a safe life. Stop this inhumane and cruel treatment we are
being subjected to for the simple act of saving our lives.
Olivia Caceres /signed/.
I, Alexander Mensing, do swear and confirm that I am fluent in the
Spanish and English languages and that the foregoing is a true and
accurate English translation of the Spanish-language original to the
best of my knowledge.
Alexander Mensing, May 20, 2018.

Ms. Barragan. So Olivia is from El Salvador, one of the
deadliest countries that is not in a war zone and she talks
about how difficult it is to turn yourself in. She talks about
what it is like to be intimidated by agents and being separated
from her child. For 85 days, her 15-month-old baby had been
separated and that her child was never the same and has come
back. Those are real stories. That is what is happening. Now,
we love to talk about this issue about the MS-13 gangs.
We love to paint immigrants as criminals. That is not the
complete facts. That is very offensive for me to see continuing
to happen. It is continuing to message this. This anti-
immigrant agenda. There are many, lots of good immigrants.
Then I hear this rhetoric, more DACA-like people. Guess
what? DACA-like people are the people we need in this country.
They have served this country. They have gone to college. They
produce and they contribute to the economy.
So to put them into the same category is completely
offensive. Now, I happen to know about some of these people who
come over and seek asylum. Why? Because I represented a family,
an unaccompanied minor when I was an attorney on a pro bono
level and I had to go find his mom who was also in detention.
Now, it is extremely hard to get asylum. It is very hard to
get asylum. The standard is very hard and it is very high. Now,
I had unlimited resources at a big law firm. I could hire
experts. Even then I couldn't get asylum. Was it a fraud? No.
Did she and they get protections? Yes, under a different
category. It took years. But there are people who come to this
country because they are fleeing the violence.
In my particular case, they already killed one of her sons.
Guess what? When one of your children is killed and you have
one left, you are going to run. You are going to try to seek
safe haven.
So it makes me sick to my stomach to keep hearing over and
over again, painting the broad stroke and the picture as though
these are folks who are coming here to do harm. So, it is just
unbelievable to me how this rhetoric continues and to see it
continue in a campaign season just gets even worse and worse.
Just because you don't get asylum doesn't mean that it is a
fraud. I think that is just so important for me to state.
Now, I want to move on to the issue of family separation.
According to the New York Times more than 700 children had to
be taken from adults claiming to be their parents since
October, including more than 100 children under the age of 4.
Secretary Nielsen disputed this figure at a May 15 Senate
Homeland hearing. She said that the 700 children figure was an
HHS number and not a DHS figure. Does anybody on this panel
know what the DHS figure is?
Mr. Vitiello. We can for the record get back to you with
the actual number of people who were in CBP custody. It was
either unable to determine whether there was a familial
relationship that we could prove and were comfortable with or
somebody was prosecuted having crossed the border illegally and
then that caused the family separation. We can get back to you
and give you the exact number of that.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Let me tell you, it is hard for some of
these families, when they are fleeing violence, and they are
leaving their country, they are not exactly saying, ``Let me go
and look for documentation so that I can prove this is my
child.''
I had a hard time in my own case having to find people
there on the ground to get the documents that we needed to make
a case, right? People are leaving because they are in distress,
because they are facing violence and they are fearful, right?
It is not generally something that they are thinking about
before they take off. How do I prove this is my child? I will
tell you right now if I had to go find something to prove my
relationship with my mother, it would probably take me a little
while.
So, I understand how difficult this is. Can you tell me how
we are counting and tracking children that are separated from
children?
Mr. Vitiello. So everybody that is taken into custody goes
through like sort-of a booking procedure, right? We get the
biographical information. So all of that is in the
documentation systems at CBP.
So that is how we try to establish whether they are related
or not using those documents. But that all becomes part of
their record. Because as they come that part of that processing
is referring them for a removal hearing.
Ms. Barragan. Right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Homan. Can I respond to the speech that was made?
Ms. McSally. Absolutely.
Mr. Homan. First of all, no one on this panel is anti-
immigrant. We are law enforcement officers who are enforcing
law that you all enacted. So to sit there and say that we are
anti-immigrants is wrong.
We are enforcing laws. If you think it is OK to enter this
country illegally and shouldn't be arrested that is just wrong.
The laws clearly say when you enter the country illegally, it
is a crime.
No one is up here saying all illegal aliens are criminals,
a certain percentage of them are criminals. They commit yet
another offense after they are here. I have said many times I
certainly understand the plight of these people. I feel bad for
some of these people. But I have a job to do. I have to enforce
law and uphold the oath that I took to enact the laws enacted
by you, Congress.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Director Homan.
The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes, Mr. Rogers from Alabama for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, all, for
being here and thank you for your service to our country. I
understand that and you all may have talked about this in your
opening statements. I was a little late, I apologize for that,
that in March a nearly 1,500-person caravans, mostly Hondurans,
started on a mission to make a 2,000-mile trek to our border
that was organized by some sort of radical advocacy group.
Was that accurate? The characterization of that caravan?
They came through Mexico to get to our Southwest Border and
under the pretense that they were in danger. Was there evidence
that they were in danger once they were in Mexico that you all
are aware of? Do you know how many of that group made it to the
port of San Isidro?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, my staff gave me the number. Congressman
Correa had the same question. Our records indicate that we
arrested crossing illegally between the ports of entry 122
people who claimed to be part of the caravan and then 333 of
them presented themselves at the port of entry and claimed
asylum.
Mr. Rogers. Do you know if any of those individuals in that
caravan petitioned Mexico for asylum?
Mr. Vitiello. In discussions with Mexico, they did resettle
some of the original group.
Mr. Rogers. Do you know if any of that roughly 500 that you
just described tried to stop and stay in Mexico?
Mr. Vitiello. I don't know.
Mr. Rogers. Director Cissna, do you know how many of these
immigrants have received an initial determination of credible
fear in the United States?
Mr. Cissna. Yes. USCIS received, referred to us from ICE so
far, a total of 327 cases of people that we think were part of
this so-called caravan, at least they self-identified or we had
evidence that they were.
Of those 327, we have completed 216 of these credible fear
screenings. Of that, 205 got positive screenings.
Mr. Rogers. Amazing. Do you have any estimate, Mr.
Vitiello, of how many immigrants in that caravan may have
slipped through and are now in the country that we just don't
have a handle on?
Mr. Vitiello. I don't know that number.
Mr. Rogers. OK. I know--I am sorry? Back in 2010, President
Obama ordered the National Guard down to the border in a
support capacity, wasn't whole lot said about it but recently
when President Trump did the same thing, there was a big fuss
made about it.
What exactly is the role of the National Guard when they
are working at the border in concert with CBP?
Mr. Vitiello. Much like the previous deployments that we
got great assistance from the National Guard, we are
specifically asking for a number of things. The aviation
support is some of the biggest percentage of what they will
give us will be in that.
There are also a number of roles in sector headquarters and
at stations helping us watch the screens that the camera feeds
come into the comp centers, helping us dispatch. We are looking
at other roles for them to play.
But it is essentially that kind of support that allows us
to then redeploy the agents that may have to do that work. So
it gives us a bit more capacity in the locations where they are
doing that work instead of Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Vitiello, do you believe a physical border
wall is effective in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants
into our country?
Mr. Vitiello. It has been very effective and we expect it
to continue to be.
Mr. Rogers. Do you believe that in addition to a physical
wall, security systems that support that wall are effective in
deterring illegal immigration into our country?
Mr. Vitiello. When the President directed us to make those
plans, all of the estimates and all of the action planning that
we have done is in fact that, it is a system that brings a
number of capabilities, impedance and denial by the wall
itself, access and mobility so roadways and avenues toward the
border get there conveniently.
A number of agents are part of the request that we put
forward. You have to have all three of those things--personnel,
technology, and infrastructure to make it successful.
Mr. Rogers. At present, does CBP have the resources
physically and financially to secure our Southwest Border?
Mr. Vitiello. Across the board, no. But we are using all of
the money that the 2018 appropriation gave us to improve
conditions as it relates to those three--personnel, technology,
and infrastructure.
Mr. Rogers. It seems to me that this caravan that got so
much publicity was a manufactured event to try to exploit our
Southwest Border. Would that be a fair characterization given
that those people for weeks were traveling and once they were
out of Honduras seemed to be out of harm's way?
Mr. Vitiello. It does highlight the discussion about
loopholes. These folks, a number of them knew that when they
made that claim for asylum that they were going to be released
into the country.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. So unfortunate.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. McSally. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes, Mrs. Demings from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you to our witnesses for being here. It is good to see
you again.
Commissioner, I would like to address how unaccompanied
minors, how they have reasonable--how reasonable fear
interviews are conducted. As a former social worker, a former
law enforcement officer, and a former crimes against children
detective, I have seen children who experience confusion, fear,
sometimes they are even silent after experiencing trauma.
I am sure that we all here understand these challenges and
want to make sure that CBP agents have training and the
resources necessary to screen unaccompanied minors with the
care and consideration that every child certainly deserves.
What is the status of CBP's efforts to address and
implement GAO's 2015 recommendations for Border Patrol agents
and OFO officers to screen unaccompanied minors?
Mr. Vitiello. We have made a number of improvements since
2014 and have responded to GAO's requests and agreed with a lot
of their findings. There is a number of training curricula out
there for agents to use in the interview setting when they are
with family units and unaccompanied minors.
So there is an on-line course that agents have to take that
is mandatory. There is some specific training and then the
skills that agents use. So, we try to make sure that the people
who are doing that interview and those processes are trained
and have the heart to do it.
Most of our work force, all of our work force speaks
Spanish, more than half of them are native speakers if you
will, they are Latino or Hispanic people. Then a lot of them
are families. So, we understand from that human perspective the
situation that these children are in and do everything we can
to make them feel comfortable.
We have made a number of improvements in the enforcement
systems to record when people are fed, when their interviews
are taking place, whether they got a chance to. How long they
have been in our custody.
So, we have improved the systems and the accountability
within the systems and then invested into some facilities that
are specifically designed for this population.
Mrs. Demings. Since 2014, how would you critique the
success of the training that you do have in place? How do you
feel it is working? What adjustments, if any, have you made
since then?
Mr. Vitiello. We have gotten better. The system adjustments
and the things that we have done to make sure that those
facilities, I mean, they are Border Patrol stations. It is
where people are getting arrested and interviewed before they
move on through the system.
So, we try to understand that this population is a bit
different than the larger population. I think we have done a
good job in making those adjustments.
Mrs. Demings. OK. Thank you.
Director Homan, under what circumstances does ICE detain or
otherwise assume custody of individuals apprehended at or near
the Southwest Border? If you talked about that earlier I am
sorry, I was late, so you could just----
Mr. Homan. ICE has appropriated for the detention of those
in the country illegally. So everybody that Border Patrol
apprehends, if they do not immediately remove them then we will
get custody of them and we will detain them until they have the
hearing.
Mrs. Demings. OK. And----
Mr. Homan. That is on a case-by-case basis. We don't detain
everybody. It is quite a risk and danger to the community if
Border Patrol process and per expedited removal processing,
they are mandatory detained, so we will detain them.
Mrs. Demings. OK. Under what circumstances does ICE refer
individuals who are apprehended at or near the border to DOJ
for prosecution?
Mr. Cissna. We do that.
Mr. Homan. Our Border Patrol does that as part of the zero
tolerance. We will present people for prosecutions if we
criminally arrest them. When they are charged with a crime we
will present them, but as far as zero tolerance, the Border
Patrol is doing that work.
Mrs. Demings. OK. Did you want to add to that?
Mr. Vitiello. So based on the attempt to end catch-and-
release, Justice Department put out word through their system,
and then the Secretary followed that up with direction to CBP
to refer all border crossers in between the ports of entry.
Anybody that enters the country illegally will be referred for
prosecution.
Mrs. Demings. OK. Thank you.
Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. McSally. The gentlelady yields back.
Now we are going to start the second round here.
Director Cissna, I want to go over the numbers again of the
people in the caravan. You said 370, sorry, 327 were referred
for asylum processing, I think you said, 216 were screened and
205 received a positive screening?
Mr. Cissna. That is correct. So far there----
Ms. McSally. So far?
Mr. Cissna. Yes. So there may be more cases coming.
Ms. McSally. OK.
Mr. Cissna. But that is what we have so far.
Ms. McSally. So of the 216 screened, 94.9 percent because
of this very low bar of proving a possibility of a possibility
have made it through. Where are they right now? Have they been
released into the interior of the United States?
Mr. Cissna. I can't account for all of them. I would have
to ask my colleague at ICE, but what I can say is that the
issue here is once they are screened, once they have the
credible fear screening and it is positive--of course it is
negative and there were a handful that were negative, they will
get removed if the IJ upholds the decision.
But if it is positive the idea is that they would be sent
to an immigration judge who would then determine with finality
whether they are going to get asylum or not. If these are
family units, as you may know, because of the Flores settlement
agreement, we may have to release them within 20 days. There
may not be enough time to get to the immigration judge before
we have to let them go.
Ms. McSally. So that brings this to the next point, in your
testimony you talked about--which I totally support last-in-
first-out, because if you put them to the end of the line 2
years from now, you are just creating a whole other problem
which is inhumane in of itself as people are then settling
down.
So if you are doing the last-in-first-out, what is the time
frame right now?
Mr. Cissna. Well the last-in-first-out refers to regular
asylum applications. This is the 318,000 cases that we have
here.
Ms. McSally. OK.
Mr. Cissna. But it is connected to the credible fear thing.
Because of the surge in credible fear work, we have had to
divert people from regular asylum work to do all this stuff at
the border.
One of the results of that is that the backlog for regular
asylum went up and up and up and up. So the only way that we
can--one of the best ways we can think to address that enormous
multi-hundred-thousand-person backlog is to do last-in-first-
out by concentrating on the most recent cases, weeding out
quickly and deporting the people who don't merit the benefit
and then moving on to the other cases.
Ms. McSally. All right. Well, please keep us posted on how
these cases progress. I just want to make it clear again, you
are doing everything you can with the administration in order
to close these loopholes, but there are legal things that we
have to do Congressionally in order to help you.
But just to be clear, 100 percent prosecution between the
ports of entry, you are going to be prosecuted is the new
policy. However, if you present yourself at a port of entry and
say I have a credible fear, you will have no prosecution and
these loopholes will apply.
So why isn't everybody doing that? This is not a commercial
message to them to start doing that. It seems like the cartels
are smart and the people are smart. They figure out how to take
advantage of our loopholes.
So why don't they just all line up at the ports of entry? I
am very concerned with the backlog then with the legitimate
traffic. We have talked about the manning there being bogged
down.
What the heck is preventing us from, I know they are on
U.S. soil then from sort-of backing up and just working with
Mexico and saying ``Turn around, you are in Mexico. If you have
a credible fear, work with them.''?
Mr. Vitiello. We are in discussions for that exactly.
Mexico has done some as it relates to the caravan. They do
quite a bit for us on the Southern Border, but obviously there
is a lot more to do. There is a lot more work to do on both
sides. So, yes, we would prefer that people don't make the
journey at all, but Safe Third is a way for this to get solved.
We think that the, 100 percent----
Ms. McSally. To clarify you mean Safe Third Country where
they get--they do their claims in Mexico.
Mr. Vitiello. Correct.
Ms. McSally. Yes.
Mr. Vitiello. Correct. The 100 percent prosecution that may
drive more traffic to the port of entry, but it is a safer
condition. They don't have to go into the hands of a smuggler
to be in that situation. We think that is better for everyone.
Ms. McSally. Is there anything we can do though to put some
staff sort-of right at the actual international boundary and to
work with Mexico right there, so that we are not like having to
process all of them without us passing an act of Congress?
Mr. Vitiello. So what we are trying to do now is regulate
how many people come to the port and where they come. So, we
are in discussions with them. That is by national agreement. We
have several agreements with Mexico on how to repatriate people
when people will refuse at the port and those kinds of things.
So we are having those discussions with them now. Again, bottom
line is we really don't want people to make this journey.
Ms. McSally. Exactly.
Director Cissna, two more questions. For those who are
claiming a false asylum claim, you talk in your written
testimony about how there is no teeth to that. So can you talk
a little bit about that?
Also in your written testimony you talk about you are
concerned about people filing now, realizing this loophole and
they have been in the interior of the United States now for
maybe up to 10 years, but they are realizing if they say they
have a credible fear it gives them a work permit, and this is
now a workaround for them to go from being illegal to being
legal using this loophole?
Mr. Cissna. Yes, there are many such loopholes. The one you
just referred to is, this is for regular asylum cases. It is
well-known that if you file for asylum and 6 months go by and
we haven't heard your case, you get a work permit.
So, a lot of people we believe do this on purpose because
they know that the backlog is so huge that we will never get to
their case.
Ms. McSally. Right.
Mr. Cissna. They get a work permit and they can wander
around, working freely in the economy for as long as it takes
to get their case. Now, many of those people have legitimate
claims and many don't. The people who don't clog up the system
for the people who do, making the granting of their correct
benefit delayed.
Ms. McSally. So for those who don't have a legitimate
claim, they have been in the country illegally for a long time.
They have now have identified a loophole. They can just apply,
say they have a credible fear, apply, and within 6 months they
now have a legal work permit.
Mr. Cissna. Yes, and some people in fact, apply for asylum
on purpose knowing they don't have a good case because not
because so much they want the EAD, the Employment Authorization
Document.
They intentionally want to get thrown into immigration
court. They want that because there are certain avenues of
relief they can get in immigration court that they think that
they can get, one is called cancelation of removal.
So, they file these bogus claims on purpose, intentionally
to get into court. That also clogs up our system. So, we are
wrestling with that as well. Trying to get through those cases
as quickly as we can.
Ms. McSally. OK. Unless you want over, so I am going to go
over a little bit more. But just on the no teeth to the false
asylum claims, can you just speak to that?
Mr. Cissna. Well, if you file a false claim, usually the
penalties, you receive a notice to appear in the immigration
court you will get deported. What we would like at DHS that we
proposed is that there will be more teeth. There will be more
penalties put on to put on to fraudulent claims.
We also want the definition of what constitutes a
fraudulent or frivolous claim. Doesn't necessarily have to be
fraudulent, frivolous claim as well. If that were better
defined, we could weed out with greater efficacy these bad
cases that clog up the system for legitimate asylum seekers.
Ms. McSally. Thanks. I just want to mention that tightening
that up is in our bill, the Securing America's Future Act.
Mr. Cissna. That is right.
Ms. McSally. Thank you.
Mr. Homan. If I can add to that, ma'am. One thing ICE is in
the process of doing, we are going to step up our enforcement
against family units that have final orders for removal. They
have had their due process and have been ordered to remove by
the immigration judge.
Of course I expect a lot of letters saying, why are we
targeting families and not criminals? But if they are given
their due process and the Federal judge makes the decision, if
we don't execute those decisions, there is no integrity in the
system. So you are going to see a lot more enforcement here in
the very near future on that.
Ms. McSally. Thanks.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Vela for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vela. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I ask for unanimous consent to enter statements from the
Church World Service, Amnesty International, the National
Immigration Forum, the American Immigration Council, and the
National Domestic Workers Alliance into the record.
Ms. McSally. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Church World Service (CWS)
May 22, 2018
As a 72-year old humanitarian organization representing 37
Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions and 22 refugee
resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service (CWS)
urges the committee to affirm the right of all people to seek asylum
and protections at the U.S. border. Children, families, women, and men
are fleeing violence, gang conscription, human trafficking, and sexual
exploitation in the Northern Triangle. Since 2005, in Honduras alone,
murders of women and girls have increased by 346 percent, and murders
of men and boys have grown by 292 percent.\1\ The U.S. Government has
failed to recognize these trends as a refugee and humanitarian issue.
Ahead of the committee's hearing regarding the Pueblo Sin Fronteras
caravan of 1,100 people fleeing violence in Central America, CWS urges
Congress and the administration to recognize and uphold our moral and
legal \2\ obligations to welcome people seeking protection from
persecution and violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Observatory of Citizen Security, La Violencia Contra Las
Mujeres. 2012. http://
www.observatoriodeseguridadciudadanadelasmujeres.org/materiales/
INFORME_VCM_C.A.- .pdf; Washington Office of Latin America, Three Myths
about Central American Migration to the United States. 2014. http://
www.wola.org/commentary/3_myths_about_central_ameri-
can_migration_to_the_us.
\2\ Article 14, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml; U.S. Code Title 8: Aliens and
Nationality, Chapter 12: Immigration and Nationality, Section 1158:
Asylum. http://uscode.house.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States already has robust border security measures in
place, spending more than $18 billion on immigration enforcement per
year, more than all other Federal law enforcement agencies combined.\3\
This includes drones, mobile surveillance systems, video surveillance
towers, 11,000 underground sensors, 700 miles of fencing, Blackhawk
helicopters, and 18,127 Border Patrol agents at the Southern Border
alone. The United States also has a rigid system for applying for
asylum. International \4\ and domestic \5\ immigration laws have
established numerous procedures to ensure the integrity of the U.S.
asylum system, as well as important safeguards to prevent individuals
from being returned into harm's way. Arriving asylum seekers are
subject to mandatory biographic and biometric checks reviewed against
various Federal databases by well-trained fraud detection officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a
Formidable Machinery. The Migration Policy Institute. http://
www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf.
\4\ The Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 2, 3, 6 and
22. www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx; The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14. www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
index.shtml; United Nations General Assembly, Declaration on
Territorial Asylum, 14 December 1967, A/RES/2312(XXII).
www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f05a2c.html; United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, A Framework for the Protection of Children
www.unhcr.org/50f6cf0b9.html; United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html.
\5\ Immigration and Nationality Act 208, 8 U.S.C. 1157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon arriving at the U.S. border, asylum seekers are placed in
immigration detention pending a determination by an asylum officer
regarding whether they have a credible fear of persecution as a result
of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership
in a particular social group. Those determined to lack a credible fear
of persecution are subject to removal without further review.
Individuals found to have a credible fear of persecution may be subject
to detention while they await further consideration of their asylum
claim by an immigration judge, or they may be released on a case-by-
case basis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
determination that they do not pose a security or flight risk. Current
law strictly prohibits granting asylum to any person who has engaged in
terrorist activity or otherwise poses a threat to the security of the
United States.
Due to the high standards and burden of proof, as well as the rigid
process of the U.S. asylum system, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) denies protection to many asylum seekers who are fleeing
persecution. The DHS Office of Inspector General released a report in
May 2015 that found that in some areas, Border Patrol refers
individuals for criminal prosecution despite the fact that they have
expressed fear of persecution.\6\ Border Patrol officials themselves
indicated that the process for referral to prosecution did not take
into account expressions of fear of persecution; individuals go through
the U.S. court system and only after serving their prison sentences can
they re-express a fear of persecution and then meet with an asylum
officer to have their case heard. These practices violate existing U.S.
law and treaty obligations and prevents legitimate and viable claims
from moving forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DHS Office of Inspector General, Streamline: Measuring Its
Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, OIG-15-95, 15 May 2015. https://
www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-95_May15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to preventing vulnerable populations from being
considered for protection in the United States, DHS has also failed to
address its existing asylum backlog, with about 223,433 cases still
awaiting adjudication at the end of 2016. There are approximately
72,000 asylum-seekers in detention, including families and children, in
jail-like conditions with pending cases. A recent report by Human
Rights First documents cases of asylum-seekers being turned away at
ports of entry and details complaints that CBP officers are coercing
individuals, including asylum seekers, to withdraw their applications
for admission. Life-saving programs such as the Central American Minors
(CAM) program have been terminated, and there are approximately 6,000
children who have had their applications deleted, not even receiving an
interview.
CWS encourages Congress to prioritize the protection of vulnerable
individuals. Real solutions must address root causes, rather than
escalating enforcement and preventing individuals from seeking safety.
CWS is committed to working with Congress and the administration to
develop sustainable solutions to enhance the stability of the region
and the protection of vulnerable populations.
______

Letter from Amnesty International
May 21, 2018.
Rep. Martha McSally,
Chair, Homeland Security Committee, Border Security Subcommittee,
Washington, DC.
Rep. Filemon Vela,
Ranking Member, Homeland Security Committee, Border Security
Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
Re: May 22 hearing on ``Stopping the Daily Border Carvan: Time to Build
a Policy Wall''

Dear Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and Members of the
Subcommittee: On behalf of Amnesty International (``AI'')\1\ and our
more than two million members and supporters in the United States
(U.S.), we hereby submit this statement for the record. AI is an
international human rights organization with major offices around the
world, including in the U.S. and Mexico. One of AI's top global
priorities is refugee protection. Within the Americas, AI's top refugee
focus is on the Northern Triangle region of Central America (Honduras,
El Salvador, Guatemala), where we have researched the underlying causes
that have led to large numbers of people fleeing the Northern Triangle
region in search of protection. AI has also researched the experiences
of refugees in Mexico and the experiences of people requesting
protection at the U.S. border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April and May 2018 AI researchers conducted a multi-week
research mission along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, from the Pacific
Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Our team documented not only the
situations of asylum seekers who sought to present themselves at U.S.
ports of entry, but also the conduct of U.S. border and immigration
authorities in facilitating and processing their asylum claims under
U.S. law.
AI researchers met with dozens of asylum seekers along the U.S.-
Mexico border, including in all four U.S. border states. AI interviewed
many of those asylum seekers in detention at Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (``ICE'') facilities.
Despite numerous requests by AI, Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') officials declined to meet with AI researchers at ports of
entry (``POEs'') or CBP field offices in California, Arizona, and
Texas. Although AI researchers requested to meet with CBP leadership in
San Diego in advance of the caravan, at both their San Diego Field
Office and at the POE itself, officials declined those requests. They
also declined to respond to emails requesting more information about
CBP's capacity to receive asylum seekers, and its preparation for the
reception of the caravan.
the preliminary findings of amnesty international's research mission
indicate violations of both u.s. and international law by department of
homeland security (``dhs'') agencies, in their treatment of asylum
seekers (at borders and in detention) and in the reception of their
asylum claims
CBP is turning away large groups of asylum seekers at POEs along
the Southern Border, thereby forcing asylum seekers to wait in perilous
situations on the Mexico side of the border, where some have been
subjected to further human rights violations.
On April 29 and 30 CBP closed its doors entirely to approximately
200 asylum seekers as they arrived in a ``caravan'' in Tijuana, to
present themselves at the San Ysidro POE. That mass turn-away occurred
mere minutes after a press conference announcing their intention to
seek asylum at the POE. Most of those asylum seekers were families from
the Northern Triangle of Central America; half of them were children,
and approximately 15 percent of them were transgender individuals.
The announcement by CBP on April 29 that it would not admit any of
those asylum seekers came days after DHS Secretary Nielsen announced
that DHS was deploying additional asylum officers and other personnel
to swiftly adjudicate the claims of those very same people from the
caravan who were seeking asylum. Based on Secretary Nielsen's own
statement, and that the administration had been tracking the progress
of the caravan through Mexico for a month, DHS clearly had the capacity
to admit those asylum seekers in need of international protection at
the U.S. border.
AI researchers documented, in real time, the negative effects
caused by CBP's failure to process the applications of asylum seekers
who presented themselves at the San Ysidro POE. AI researchers spoke
with the coordinator of a group of 32 Central American trans asylum
seekers from the caravan, at an LGBT shelter in Tijuana where they were
staying after having been repeatedly turned away by CBP personnel at
the San Ysidro POE between April 29 and May 1. On the evening after
first being turned away by CBP on April 29, two of the trans women
asylum seekers from the group were detained by municipal law
enforcement authorities in Tijuana. One of those women informed AI on
May 2 that the other had been beaten by municipal police when detained
and then could not be located after she was released.
Asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable in Mexican border areas,
including to abuse by law enforcement authorities or criminals due to
their often-irregular status or otherwise precarious situations. The
longer they wait to present their asylum claims to CBP, the greater
they are at risk of violence, deportation back to their countries of
origin, or other harm. On May 6, a group of men with guns attacked and
robbed the shelter where 11 LGBT asylum seekers were staying (including
minors, and trans women from the caravan), setting the door on fire.
According to the shelter's legal representative and the coordinator of
the group of trans asylum seekers, the men returned a few hours later
shouting homophobic slurs at the asylum seekers, and threatened to kill
them if they did not leave the neighborhood. Following those death
threats, the trans asylum seekers returned with an immigration lawyer
to the San Ysidro POE to request asylum and were once again turned away
by CBP.
CBP's repeated turn-backs of asylum seekers in the caravan
subjected these people to additional human rights violations while they
waited in Mexico--in short, pushing vulnerable asylum seekers further
into harm's way.
The unlawful rejection of asylum claims by CBP is not a new
phenomenon. AI has documented similar turn-aways of asylum-seeking
families and unaccompanied minors for months prior to the recent
caravan. A shelter coordinator in Tijuana informed AI that CBP had
turned away approximately 20 of the unaccompanied minors whom his
shelter hosted in 2017, without allowing them to claim asylum at the
U.S. border, and at least 5 already in 2018. The shelter coordinator
said that most of those unaccompanied minors were Mexican nationals who
had fled from Guerrero and Michoan, two of Mexico's most violent
states. AI spoke with one of those Mexican children at the shelter in
January 2018 after she was turned away; the shelter coordinator
informed AI on April 30 that the minor was only later received by CBP
when accompanied by a lawyer to the POE. Prior to the caravan's arrival
in April 2018, another shelter in Tijuana informed AI researchers that
CBP turned away half of a group of 50 Mexican women seeking asylum at
the San Ysidro POE. The shelter reported that CBP personnel at the San
Ysidro POE had on several Sundays in 2018 declined to admit any asylum
seekers at all.
mexico is not a uniformly safe country for all asylum seekers
The Trump administration is reportedly seeking to negotiate a
``safe third country agreement'' (``STCA'') with Mexico, like the
existing STCA with Canada, to make it a first country of refuge for
asylum seekers. In two recent statements, DHS insisted that any asylum
seekers in the caravan should seek refuge in Mexico, rather than in the
United States: ``Individuals of the `caravan' seeking asylum or other
similar claims should seek protections in the first safe country they
enter, including Mexico.''
However, AI has concluded, based on our research, that Mexico
cannot be considered a uniformly safe country for all asylum seekers.
AI has identified an alarming pattern of Mexican immigration officials
forcibly returning Central American asylum seekers to their home
countries, where their lives are potentially at risk. While Mexico no
doubt also has a responsibility to protect refugees, the U.S. cannot
shirk its legal obligation to protect refugees. U.S. authorities must
provide individualized and fair assessments of asylum claims presented
by people seeking protection at its borders and in its territory.
In a January 2018 report, AI found that Mexican migration
authorities (``INM'') routinely turn away thousands of people from
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala to their home countries without
considering the risks to their lives and security upon return, in many
cases violating international and domestic Mexican law by doing so. In
a survey of 297 people who were detained by INM, AI found that 75
percent of those people detained by INM were not informed of their
right to seek asylum in Mexico, despite the fact that Mexican law
expressly requires this and public officials assured AI that the
requirement is complied with. Even more alarming, AI found that INM
forcibly deported 40 percent of those people to their home countries,
despite the fact that they explicitly sought asylum in Mexico or
expressed fear for their lives in their country of origin.
As Mexico does not always protect asylum seekers' rights, Mexico
cannot be considered or treated as uniformly safe country for all
asylum seekers. As such, anyone seeking asylum in the United States
must have her or his claim received and assessed fairly and impartially
on the merits. Without an individualized assessment of each asylum
seeker's claim, there is a heightened risk of refoulement to ill-
treatment, persecution, or other irreparable harm, in violation of
national and international law.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Amnesty International report, No Safe Refuge (2016);
available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/3825/2016/en/
(at pp. 6-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
u.s. authorities must protect asylum-seeking families and children from
persecution--not turn them back to potential harm
Based on the aforementioned preliminary findings of AI's recent
research mission along the southern U.S. border, DHS must stop turning
back asylum seekers, and the U.S. Government should not consider Mexico
to be a uniformly safe country to receive all asylum requests for
international protection.
The global system established to protect women, men, and children
from harm is not a ``legal loophole.'' All countries are able to impose
necessary and proportionate legal restrictions on entry into their
countries, in order to achieve legitimate aims. However, governments
are also prohibited under international law from forcibly returning
people in need of international protection to any country where they
would be at risk of persecution or other serious human rights
violations. International law likewise prohibits governments from
deporting such individuals at risk to a third country that may
subsequently deport them to the country where they are at risk of
serious harm.
While apprehensions and ``inadmissibles'' at the southern U.S.
border have been at near-record lows over the last year, global refugee
numbers are at their highest levels since World War Two. This is a
moment when the United States should be shielding people seeking asylum
from persecution and violence, not pushing them back into harm's way.
the crisis does not lie with the caravan, but with the u.s. immigration
courts which have long been under-funded and under-resourced
Many of the asylum seekers arriving at the southern U.S. border are
children and families from the Northern Triangle of Central America.
According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, many of the children fleeing the
Northern Triangle region have strong protection claims. Those arriving
to the United States are requesting relief through the long-established
legal procedures to review asylum claims, in line with U.S. obligations
under international refugee law and human rights law. Many asylum
seekers are presenting themselves to border agents in order to
affirmatively request asylum, and are not seeking to evade authorities.
All arriving asylum seekers are subject to a well-established legal
regime and institutional process established by DHS and the Justice
Department to assess individual asylum claims. DHS asylum officers are
well-versed in interviewing individuals who have suffered trauma, and
have specific knowledge of country conditions and training on
evaluating witness credibility. A secondary level of review involves an
immigration judge who examines witness testimony, documentary evidence,
and State Department country conditions in evaluating the individual
asylum claim.
The asylum process is extensive and rigorous, and is designed to
ensure that those with strong refugee claims are not deported to
conditions of persecution or torture, in accordance with U.S. legal
obligations under the Refugee Convention and Convention Against
Torture. However, due to a long-standing shortage of immigration
judges, the asylum process in some cases takes years to conclude.
DHS has stated that the objective of indefinitely detaining asylum
seekers is to deter them from entering the United States in search of
safety. The President's recent deployment of the National Guard to the
Southern Border is also part of the administration's plan to deter,
detain, and punish people seeking protection, in violation of U.S.
obligations under international law and standards.
In sum, there is indeed a crisis, but it is not a border security
crisis embodied by caravans of children and families traveling through
Mexico. The crisis lies with the U.S. immigration courts, which have
been under-resourced for years and are thus unable to adjudicate asylum
claims in a timely manner. That funding crisis, fortunately, can be
readily addressed by Congress which controls the power of the purse.
amnesty international's policy recommendations
To Congress:
Exercise oversight of DHS, CBP, and ICE to ensure that turn-
backs of asylum seekers are halted and all people who present
themselves at POEs are given the opportunity to seek asylum.
Press the administration to halt negotiations with Mexico as
a potential Safe Third Country for asylum.
Dramatically increase funding for immigration judge teams
and DHS asylum officers, to reduce the multi-year backlogs.
Decline to fund the President's expansion of Border Patrol,
and continuation of CBP operations--absent rigorous external
oversight of CBP and Border Patrol.
Decline to fund DHS's expansion of immigration detention,
which sweeps in children and asylum seekers.
To the Trump administration:
Halt CBP turn-backs of asylum seekers. As required by
international law, CBP must provide a fair and accessible
asylum process for all people seeking international protection
in the United States.
Halt negotiations with Mexico to designate it as a Safe
Third Country for all asylum seekers, as Mexico is not always
safe for asylum seekers passing through the country.
Discontinue plans outlined in the Border Security Executive
Order to return arriving asylum seekers to Mexico to await
their asylum proceedings, in violation of international law.
End detention of all children, whether unaccompanied or in
family units. Locking up children is never in their best
interest.
Implement policies to limit the detention of people seeking
asylum, to only when it is determined to be necessary and
proportionate to a legitimate purpose, based on an assessment
of the individual's particular circumstances.
For more information, please contact Joanne Lin.
Sincerely,
Joanne Lin,
National Director, Advocacy and Government Affairs, Amnesty
International USA.
Brian Griffey,
Regional Researcher/Advisor, Amnesty International.
______

Statement of the National Immigration Forum
May 22, 2018
The National Immigration Forum (the Forum) advocates for the value
of immigrants and immigration to the Nation. Founded in 1982, the Forum
plays a leading role in the National debate about immigration, knitting
together innovative alliances across diverse faith, law enforcement,
veterans, and business constituencies in communities across the
country. Coming together under the Forum's leadership, these alliances
develop and advocate for legislative and administrative policy
positions. Through our policy expertise and work with diverse
constituencies, the Forum works to uphold America's long-standing
tradition as a Nation of immigrants and build public support for
comprehensive immigration reform, sound border security policies,
balanced enforcement of immigration laws, and ensuring that new
Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status to reach their
full potential.
introduction
The National Immigration Forum thanks the subcommittee for the
opportunity to provide its views on the matter of border security
policies along the Southwest Border. The Forum fully supports policies
that promote safety and security along the border, as well as that
facilitate trade, tourism, and the economic health of the United
States. We also thank the dedicated men and women of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) who work every day to keep our Nation's borders
secure and facilitate commerce and travel into the United States. We
acknowledge and appreciate the complexity and importance of their
mission, which is charged every day with overseeing customs, travel,
immigration, and border security responsibilities.
We know that creating a secure border takes more than just
investing resources on one or a few components of CBP's approach to
border management. We also have concerns about altering U.S. laws to
make it more difficult for migrants, mostly women and children, to
receive asylum. We urge the Members of the subcommittee to address the
on-going need to invest in a comprehensive approach to ensure our
Nation's security at the border and in policies that are humane,
transparent, and encourage commerce. We also urge the subcommittee to
consider the impact these policies have on tens of millions of
individuals, including Americans living along the Southwest Border.
Congress should also fix our broken and out-of-date immigration
system. Leading National security officials agree that having a 21st-
Century immigration system that promotes safety and security, benefits
American workers and our economy, and provides earned legalization for
otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants living in the United
States would have the most significant impact in promoting security at
our borders.\1\ We must choose policies that keep us safe, while
staying true to our principles as a Nation of immigrants. Congress can
find a common-sense, humane solution that boosts security while
protecting economic innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tom Ridge, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), stated, ``I think [a comprehensive immigration
approach] will add more to border security than any number of fences we
can put across the border.'' Chertoff, Michael, Janet Napolitano, and
Tom Ridge, ``8th Anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) Roundtable,'' interview by Andrea Mitchell, Georgetown University
(March 2, 2011): https://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/03/02/8th-anniversary-
roundtable-transcript.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the southwest border has more resources than ever
America's Southwest Border has never been more secure. The United
States has built nearly 700 miles of physical barriers along the
Southwest Border, with the rugged terrain and the Rio Grande acting as
natural barriers in other areas.\2\ To complement these physical
barriers, the Border Patrol stationed 16,605 agents in the Southwest
Border in fiscal year 2017--nearly double the number compared to fiscal
year 2000.\3\ Between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2017, Congress
increased the Border Patrol's budget approximately 380 percent from
about $1 billion to nearly $3.8 billion.\4\ At the same time, the
average annual number of apprehensions made by each Border Patrol agent
dropped from 191 in fiscal year 2000 to 18 in fiscal year 2017--under 2
apprehensions per month.\5\ The most recent data available shows each
Border Patrol agent along the Southwest Border apprehended on average
about 2.3 migrants in April 2018, a small increase above fiscal year
2017, but far below fiscal year 2000 levels.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``U.S. Border Patrol Mileage of Pedestrian and Vehicle Fencing
by State,'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (September 22, 2017):
https://www.cbp.gov/document/stats/us-border-patrol-mileage-pedestrian-
and-vehicle-fencing-state.
\3\ ``U.S. Border Patrol Fiscal Year Staffing Statistics (Fiscal
Year 1992-Fiscal Year 2017),'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(December 12, 2017): https://www.cbp.gov/document/stats/us-border-
patrol-fiscal-year-staffing-statistics-fy-1992-fy-2017.
\4\ ``Enacted Border Patrol Program Budget by Fiscal Year,'' U.S.
Border Patrol (December 2017): https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/
assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP%20Budget%- 20History%201990-2017.pdf.
\5\ During fiscal years 2000 and 2017, the Border Patrol
apprehended an estimated 1.6 million migrants and 304,000 migrants
crossing the Southwest Border between ports of entry, respectively. The
Border Patrol stationed 8,580 Border Patrol agents along the Southwest
Border in fiscal year 2000 and 16,605 agents in fiscal year 2017. We
divide the number of apprehensions by the number of Border Patrol
agents, which yields an average of 191 apprehensions per Border Patrol
agent in fiscal year 2000 and 18 apprehensions per Border Patrol agent
in fiscal year 2017. ``Southwest Border Sectors Total Illegal Alien
Apprehensions by Fiscal Year,'' U.S. Border Patrol (December 2017):
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/
BP%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Apps%20FY1960%20%20FY2017.pdf;
``U.S. Border Patrol Fiscal Year Staffing Statistics (Fiscal Year 1992-
Fiscal Year 2017),'' supra note 3.
\6\ During the month of April 2018, the Border Patrol apprehended
38,234 migrants crossing the Southwest Border between ports of entry.
Divided by the 16,605 Border Patrol agents stationed in the Southwest
Border in fiscal year 2017, this yields an average of 2.3 apprehensions
per Border Patrol agent in April 2018. ``Southwest Border Migration FY
2018,'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Last Updated May 3, 2018):
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving forward, Congress should carefully determine which uses of
American taxpayer funds are most appropriate. We support building
physical barriers along the Southwest Border where the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), with the input of border security experts,
local communities, and border residents determines it is appropriate.
We also encourage Congress to invest on expanding the use of technology
along the border, which CBP already relies on and often serves as a
better force multiplier than a fence.
The Forum believes that investing in additional Border Patrol
agents is not the most appropriate use of American taxpayer funds.
Given the decline in the average number of apprehensions per Border
Patrol agent over the last 15 years, as well as the agency's struggle
to hire an additional 1,933 agent positions with funds already
obligated by Congress in fiscal year 2017, the Forum believes that
border security funding is best applied elsewhere.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Border Patrol is mandated by Congress to maintain an
active-duty presence of 21,370 agents, but did not meet that staffing
goal in fiscal year 2017 due to recruiting and hiring difficulties.
``U.S. Border Patrol Fiscal Year Staffing Statistics (Fiscal Year 1992-
Fiscal Year 2017),'' supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should invest in the CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO),
which oversees the flow of commerce and immigrants at all 328 ports of
entry. CBP found in 2014 that adding a single CBP OFO officer to a port
of entry would result in annual benefits of a $2 million increase in
our country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), $640,000 saved in
opportunity costs, and 33 jobs added to the economy, because it would
help speed the flow of commerce.\8\ Investments in CBP OFO also help
curtail major drug traffickers, with CBP statistics showing that 81
percent of hard drugs caught along the border between fiscal year 2012
and fiscal year 2016 were caught at ports of entry.\9\ Yet, OFO
currently has a staffing shortage of at least 3,811 CBP OFO officers,
representing a vulnerability in our country's border security.\10\
Investments to increase personnel levels at ports of entry would help
better manage the flow of commerce and increase public safety,
particularly amidst the opioid epidemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry: Fiscal Year 2014
Report to Congress,'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (March 10,
2014), 13: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
Resource%20Optimization%20Model%20FY%202014%20Public%2004-24-14.pdf.
\9\ Prendergast, Curt, ``Most Hard Drugs Smuggled Through Legal
Border Crossings,'' Tucson.com--Arizona Daily Star (May 6, 2017):
http://tucson.com/news/local/border/most-hard-drugs-smuggled-through-
legal-border-crossings/article_46653d40-7f63-5102-bb38-38da58c06-
a76.html.
\10\ ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Workload Staffing
Model,'' Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security
(July 2014): 4 and 6, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2014/OIG_14-
117_Jul14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another investment to ensure safety at our borders is to fund a
Federal program to eradicate the invasive and nonnative carrizo cane
and salt cedar plants along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. This effort
would provide the Border Patrol with greater visibility and access to
the Rio Grande.\11\ Finally, we encourage Congress to invest in funds
to implement the use of body-worn camera technology at CBP. The
evidence indicates that body-worn cameras lead, in one study, to 88
percent fewer complaints against officers and fewer assaults, creating
a win-win solution for the public and law enforcement.\12\ It is
indisputable that the Southwest Border has never had as many resources
as it does today. The data suggest that it has never been more secure.
We support continued investment in thoughtful and effective border
security policies that increase safety and facilitate trade, while
improving border management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Nixon, Dennis E., ``Common Sense Border Security: Thoughts
from Dennis E. Nixon,'' (January 2017): https://www.ibc.com/en-us/
Newsroom/Documents/Common%20Sense%20Border%-
20Security%20Solutions.pdf.
\12\ Lopez, James, Jacinta S. Ma and Josh Breisblatt, ``Body
Cameras and CBP: Promoting Security, Transparency and Accountability at
Our Nation's Borders,'' National Immigration Forum (November 6, 2015):
11 and 12. http://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Body-
Cameras-and-CBP-Report-11062015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
border crossings are at near-record low levels
The number of apprehensions along the Southwest Border between
ports of entry has dropped from an all-time high of 1.6 million
apprehensions in fiscal year 2000 to fewer than 304,000 in fiscal year
2017.\13\ This reduction represents an 81 percent decrease and is the
lowest number of apprehensions since fiscal year 1971, more than 40
years ago.\14\ Between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017, border
apprehensions fell about 25 percent, from nearly 409,000 apprehensions
to less than 304,000.\15\ The Trump administration lauded this
reduction by stating it ``undeniably prove[s] the effectiveness of
President Trump's commitment to securing our borders.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Southwest Border Sectors Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions
by Fiscal Year,'' supra note 5.
\14\ Ibid.
\15\ Ibid.
\16\ Kopan, Tal, ``Trump Admin Grapples with Rise in Border
Crossing Numbers it Once Touted,'' CNN (January 10, 2018): https://
www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/politics/border-crossings-up-trump-effect/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, the Trump administration has cited the number of
border apprehensions in April 2018 to justify the administration's
border security policies, including policies that will lead to
separating parents from their children.\17\ CBP notes that border
apprehensions between and at ports of entry in April 2018 increased 223
percent compared to April 2017.\18\ Yet, this figure obscures that the
number of border apprehensions so far in fiscal year 2018 remains on
par with the number of apprehensions in the same period of fiscal year
2017 and 6 percent below the same period of fiscal year 2016.\19\ In
addition, the number of apprehensions in April 2018 is not unusually
high, only 5 percent above April 2016 and 14 percent below April
2014.\20\ Overall, the number of people attempting to enter the United
States continues to trend downwards compared to the all-time high
levels in the early 2000's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Kopan, Tal, ``DHS Secretary Defends Separating Families at the
Border,'' CNN (May 15, 2018): https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/15/politics/
dhs-separating-families-secretary-nielsen-hearing/index.html;
``Authorities and Resources Needed to Protect and Secure the United
States,'' U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs (May 15, 2018): https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/
authorities-and-resources-needed-to-protect-and-secure-the-united-
states.
\18\ Calculations made by the National Immigration Forum.
``Southwest Border Migration Fiscal Year 2018,'' supra note 6.
\19\ Ibid.
\20\ Ibid.

SOUTHWEST BORDER APPREHENSIONS \21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year-to-Date Apprehensions April Apprehensions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2018......................... 288,066.................... April 2018................. 50,924
Fiscal Year 2017......................... 286,853.................... April 2017................. 15,766
Fiscal Year 2016......................... 306,578.................... April 2016................. 48,502
Fiscal Year 2015......................... 243,339.................... April 2015................. 38,296
Fiscal Year 2014......................... 311,312.................... April 2014................. 59,119
Fiscal Year 2013......................... 278,947.................... April 2013................. 54,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ibid.

Moreover, as the number of people crossing the border declines, the
amount spent by the Border Patrol per apprehension at the border
increases. The Border Patrol spent on average $630 per apprehension in
fiscal year 2000, compared to $12,500 per apprehension in fiscal year
2017--an increase of almost 2,000 percent.\22\ As the overall trend of
illicit crossings along the Southwest Border goes down, we must invest
in border security policies where the American taxpayer gets the best
return, including border technology and CBP OFO officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Calculations made by the National Immigration Forum. ``Enacted
Border Patrol Program Budget by Fiscal Year,'' supra note 4;
``Southwest Border Sectors Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions by Fiscal
Year,'' supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
separating parents from children is deeply troubling
The Trump administration's decision to implement a new ``zero-
tolerance'' policy to criminally prosecute all migrants crossing the
Southwest Border between ports of entry without authorization,
including parents accompanied by their children, is deeply troubling
and will lead to the separation of thousands of families. As a country,
we should not separate parents and children--in some cases parents and
infants--in an attempt to deter people who are fleeing violence from
legally seeking asylum or working for a better life in the United
States. Such a policy is short-sighted, cruel to families, harmful to
children, and wholly contrary to American values.
Criticism about the Department of Justice's policy comes from many
corners, including those who promote the Christian value of family
unity. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops noted that separating
parents and children ``would be extremely detrimental to basic child
welfare principles'' and ``ineffective to the goals of deterrence and
safety.''\23\ Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic
Christian Leadership Conference, stated that the practice could
``inadvertently [incentivize] a family to break apart.''\24\ Others,
like Erick Erickson, conservative radio host and blogger, expressed
concern about the ``potential abuse of children separated from their
parents'' and urged the Trump administration to reconsider.\25\
Conservative columnists Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gerson characterized
the policy as ``undo[ing] America's reputation as a decent country''
and a ``betrayal of American values,'' respectively.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Separating Families at the Border: A Costly Practice,''
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: https://
justiceforimmigrants.org/what-we-are-working-on/immigrant-detention/
separating-families-at-the-border-a-costly practice/.
\24\ Shellnutt, Kate, ``Families Who Cross the Border Together
Won't Stay Together,'' Christianity Today (May 11, 2018): https://
www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/may/families-cross-border-separate-
immigration-central-america.html.
\25\ @EWErickson, ``In theory I'm not opposed to strong deterrents
to discourage illegal immigration. In practice, I am gravely concerned
about the potential abuse of children separated from their parents and
think the gov't needs to rethink this,'' Twitter (May 13, 2018):
https://twitter.com/ewerickson/status/995706812769939457?s=11.
\26\ @JRubinBlogger, ``This admin plans to undo America's
reputation as a decent country. ``When adults are prosecuted and
jailed, their children will be separated from them, . . . The DHS says
700 children have been separated from their parents.'' Twitter (May 8,
2018): https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/993829981192118273;
Michael Gerson, ``America's President is the Bully of Children,''
Washington Post (May 14, 2018): https://www.washingtonpost.com/
opinions/americas-president-is-the-bully-of-children/2018/05/14/
178c941c-579c-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?utm_term=.69e9a923b6f2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experts from more than 200 National and State organizations
involved in the fields of child welfare, juvenile justice, and child
health, development, and safety pointed out that separating parents and
children will compound the trauma many migrant children face and ``the
time it would take them to recover and return to a trajectory of good
health and normal development.''\27\ In one recent case, DHS separated
a woman from her 7-year-old daughter for a period of 4 months before
they were reunited.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Urgent Appeal from Experts in Child Welfare, Juvenile
Justice and Child Development to Halt Any Plans to Separate Children
from Parents at the Border,'' Electronic Mail to U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristjen M. Nielsen (January 23,
2018): https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/
2018_01_23_child_welfare_-
juvenile_justice_opposition_to_parent_child_sep.pdf.
\28\ Rosenberg, Mica, ``Asylum Seeker in Detention Sues U.S.
Administration Over Family Separation,'' Reuters (February 26, 2018):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/asylum-
seeker-in-detention-sues-u-s-administration-over-family-separation-
idUSKCN1GA- 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once separated from their parents, the children will be treated as
unaccompanied alien children (UACs), the same as if they had arrived in
the United States without an adult. They will be placed in the custody
of the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) and, after a time, placed with a sponsor while their
cases are considered by immigration courts. HHS recently disclosed that
ORR has lost track of nearly 1,500 children placed with sponsors in the
United States, increasing our concern that implementing a policy to
separate parents and children will have dire consequences for the
children.\29\ ORR data also showed that more than 700 children have
already been separated from adults claiming to be their parents since
October 2017, including more than 100 children under the age of 4.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Burke, Garance, ``Federal Officials Lose Track of Nearly 1,500
Migrant Children,'' PBS News Hours (April 26, 2018): https://
www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/Federal-officials-lose-track-of-nearly-
1500-migrant-children.
\30\ Dickerson, Caitlin, ``Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been
Taken From Parents at U.S. Border,'' The New York Times (April 20,
2018): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-
separation-ice.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the threat of separating parents and children will not
deter a parent whose children's lives are at risk living every day in
countries where gangs, drug cartels, and transnational criminal
organizations prey upon families. The three neighboring Northern
Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador consistently
rank among the most violent countries in the world.\31\ El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras still have the world's highest murder rates and
significantly higher homicide rates than neighboring Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, and Panama.\32\ Separating parents and children is unlikely
to deter them from making the journey to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Gagne, David, ``InSight Crime's 2016 Homicide Round-up,''
Insight Crime (January 16, 2017): https://www.insightcrime.org/news/
analysis/insight-crime-2016-homicide-round-up/.
\32\ Cara Labrador, Rocio and Danielle Renwick, ``Central America's
Violent Northern Triangle,'' Council on Foreign Relations (January 18,
2018): https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-
northern-triangle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A policy that seeks to break up families is troubling and
problematic both for the parents and children who will suffer great
harm and the U.S. communities whose burden it will be to care for these
displaced and broken children. Rather than pull families apart, we
should aim to protect them. We should allow families to participate in
existing alternatives to detention programs that are effective and less
expensive that detaining them.
asylum seekers are not in violation of u.s. law
Migrants who reach the Southwest Border and petition for asylum at
a port of entry or between ports of entry are engaging in a process
that is in accordance with U.S. laws and international treaties,
primarily the Refugee Act of 1980 and the United Nations 1967
Protocol.\33\ The United States has a legal obligation to provide
protection to those who are unable or unwilling to return to their home
country due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being
persecuted in the future ``on account of race, religion, nationality,
and/or membership in a particular social group or political
opinion.''\34\ The way we treat asylum seekers as a Nation is proof
that we can be a country of laws and grace. On the contrary, changing
laws to make it more difficult for people to receive asylum would defy
American values and extinguish a flame of hope for thousands of
persecuted people, including women and children. We must allow asylum
seekers fleeing violence and persecution to make their case under
current law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``Asylum in the United States,'' American Immigration Council
(May 14, 2018): https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/
asylum-united-states.
\34\ ``Refugees & Asylum,'' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (Last Updated November 12, 2015): https://www.uscis.gov/
humanitarian/refugees-asylum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants of asylum in the United States are not easy to obtain.
Asylum seekers who tell a CBP officer or agent along the Southwest
Border that they fear returning to their home country are referred for
a credible fear interview and have the burden of proving that they have
a ``significant possibility'' of establishing eligibility for asylum.
If the asylum officer determines that the asylum seeker has a credible
case, the asylum seeker is referred to an immigration court to prove
their case before an immigration judge, who makes the final
decision.\35\ In fiscal year 2016, an estimated 8,700 people were
granted ``defensive asylum'' in the United States, which governs the
asylum process for migrants who arrived in the United States without
authorization, including those who arrived as part of a caravan.\36\
That same year, 101,000 people made defensive asylum claims in the
United States--in effect, less than 1 in 10 were granted asylum.\37\
Under current law, America's asylum process is a long-standing, legal,
and humanitarian effort that is difficult and includes numerous
safeguards against fraud. It provides an opportunity for asylum seekers
with valid claims to find safe haven in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Asylum in the United States,'' supra note 34.
\36\ ``Table 16. Individuals Granted Asylum Affirmatively or
Defensively: Fiscal Years 1990 to 2016,'' 2016 Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Last Updated January
8, 2018): https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/
table16.
\37\ ``Fiscal Year 2016 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
Report,'' U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 10: https://
www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2016/removal-stats-
2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must also recognize that Central American migrants traveling to
the United States to request asylum are for the mostly women and
children fleeing persecution and violence at home. The overwhelming
majority of these migrants pose no danger to the American people.
Although the journey north is very dangerous, the migrants see it as a
better and safer option than staying countries where they face threats
from local gangs and other groups. As a Nation, we must respond to
these humanitarian situations with compassion and common sense, not by
closing the policy door on people with valid asylum claims.
conclusion
The National Immigration Forum looks forward to working with the
subcommittee for the opportunity to provide its views on the matter of
current immigration and border security policies along the Southwest
Border. We thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing and
considering policies to secure our borders while facilitating trade,
tourism, and the economic health of the United States. We encourage the
subcommittee to recognize that the overall trend of border
apprehensions along the Southwest Border is going down, especially when
compared to the all-time high number of apprehensions in fiscal year
2000. We also note that separating parents and children is a troubling
policy that will not serve as a deterrent and is contrary to American
values, including the values of family unity and child protection. We
also recognize that migrants traveling to the United States to request
asylum are engaging in a process that is in accordance with U.S. laws.
Moving forward, we encourage Congress to focus on border security
investments in areas where the American taxpayer gets the best return--
such as increasing CBP OFO officers at ports of entry, not Border
Patrol agents in areas where the average number of apprehensions has
already fallen precipitously.
We urge Congress to override policies that encourage the separation
of parents and children, such as the administration's recently
announced ``zero-tolerance'' policy that will charge parents
criminally.
Finally, we discourage Congress from making it more difficult for
migrants to request asylum in accordance with existing U.S. law.
Migrants with valid asylum claims should be able to make their case for
protections that they are afforded under existing laws.
______

Statement of the American Immigration Council
May 22, 2018
The American Immigration Council (``Council'') is a non-profit
organization which for over 30 years has been dedicated to increasing
public understanding of immigration law and policy and the role of
immigration in American society. We write to share our analysis and
research regarding the Nation's asylum system and the United States'
obligations, as well as our deep concern around the administration's
family separation policies and increased prosecution of migrants for
entry-related offenses.
This month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) have implemented a ``zero tolerance'' policy
for those who cross the Southern Border without authorization.\1\ This
policy means DHS is referring all migrants who cross the border without
authorization for criminal prosecution and DOJ has been directed to
accept as many of these referrals as practicable.\2\ If these migrants
arrive with children, the families will be separated when the parent(s)
is referred for prosecution. The result will be a de-facto policy of
family separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Public Affairs, ``Attorney General Announces Zero-
Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry,'' Department of Justice,
April 6, 2018, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-
announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry; ``Secretary
Nielsen Statement on Arrival of Central American `Caravan,' ''
Department of Homeland Security, April 25, 2018, https://www.dhs.gov/
news2018/04/25/secretary-nielsen-statement-arrival-central-american-
caravan.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, with high levels of violence in parts of Central America,
migration patterns have shifted in recent years, with more migrants
seeking protection in the United States. Despite domestic and
international legal obligations to protect migrants fleeing persecution
and torture, the U.S. Government nonetheless subjects individuals
fleeing such harm to criminal proceedings, which violates international
law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Prosecuting Migrants for Coming to the United States,''
American Immigration Council, May 1, 2018, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigration-prosecutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are resources from the Council that seek to further explain
these disturbing new policies and the United States' responsibilities.
family separation
In December 2017, the Council, in collaboration with other
organizations, filed a complaint with the DHS Office for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on
behalf of numerous asylum-seeking families who were separated at the
U.S.-Mexico border. The complaint lifted up the cases of 15
individuals--including toddlers--who were separated from their family
members shortly after their arrival at the U.S. border, and which
served to illustrate an increasing trend of family separation at our
Southern Border.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Immigration Council, et al., ``Complaint Documents 15
Cases of Family Separation at the Border,'' American Immigration
Council, December 11, 2017, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
advocacy/family-separation-at-the-border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forcibly separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border is an
illegal and amoral practice. The United States should honor its legacy
of providing safe haven to those fleeing violence and its commitment to
the fundamental value of family unity and reunification.
immigration prosecutions
Over the last two decades, the Federal Government increasingly has
utilized the criminal courts to punish people for immigration
violations. Particularly on the Southwest Border, Federal officials are
vigorously prosecuting migrants either for entering the United States
without permission or for reentering the country without permission
after a prior deportation or removal order. Tens of thousands of
migrants are subjected to criminal prosecution for these crimes every
year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, ``Immigration
Prosecutions for February 2018,'' March 26, 2018, http://trac.syr.edu/
tracreports/bulletins/immigration/monthlyfeb18/fil/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government's approach to charging these entry-related offenses
imposes heavy costs on migrants and the Federal Government alike. With
high conviction rates for these Federal offenses, many migrants are
subjected to mandatory incarceration in Federal prison for months or
longer. For the Federal Government, such prosecutions are an extremely
costly use of finite law-enforcement resources and have no demonstrated
deterrent effect on future migration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Rebecca Gambler, Border Patrol: Actions Needed to Improve
Oversight of Post-Apprehension Consequences, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, January 2017, 36, https://www.gao.gov/assets/
690/682074.pdf; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Inspector General, Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border
Crossing, OIG-15-95, May 15, 2015, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/
2015/OIG_15-95_May15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council's factsheet, Prosecuting Migrants for Coming to the
United States, provides basic information about entry-related offenses,
including the significant costs incurred by the Government for
conducting these prosecutions, the individuals who are subjected to
them, and how the Government's rationale for carrying them out is not
supported by the data.
fast-track removals and asylum law
Migrants who reach the U.S. border without a valid visa will be
placed in expedited removal, a fast-track removal process described in
the Council's Primer on Expedited Removal.\7\ Because expedited removal
does not apply to asylum seekers, DHS has pressed Congress to make
drastic changes to our asylum laws to strip away these important
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``A Primer on Expedited Removal,'' American Immigration
Council, February 3, 2017, https://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/primer-expedited-removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to seek asylum, which is discussed in the Council's
factsheet, Asylum in the United States, is a right enshrined in both
international and domestic laws.\8\ The majority of the migrants
currently presenting themselves to Border Patrol between the ports of
entry and to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the ports along the
Southern Border are seeking humanitarian relief after fleeing
persecution, grave violence, and even death. Under U.S. law,
immigration officials are required to process any individual who
presents at a port of entry and states a fear of return to their
country or a desire to apply for asylum.\9\ With threats of prosecution
and family separation for those who fail to enter at a port of entry,
more asylum seekers can be expected to arrive at the ports. CBP,
however, has been stalling and holding off those arrivals, unlawfully
refusing entry to asylum seekers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Asylum in the United States,'' American Immigration Council,
May 14, 2018 https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/
asylum-united-states.
\9\ 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separating families, criminally prosecuting migrants, and
obstructing their ability to apply for asylum are cruel and un-
American. These policies are punitive, costly, and run counter to our
ideals. The United States can and must do better.
______

Statement of the National Domestic Workers Alliance
May 22, 2018
The National Domestic Workers Alliance is the Nation's leading
voice for dignity and fairness for the millions of domestic workers in
the United States, most of whom are women of color and immigrant women.
Today, we join millions of Americans across the country in urging
Congress to protect the best interests of children, women, and migrant
families who come to our country seeking asylum, and reject the
dehumanizing rhetoric the Trump administration is deploying against
immigrants to justify the militarization of the border and the
separation of immigrant families.
The Trump administration's treatment of a caravan of migrants
traveling through Central America and Mexico seeking safety at our
Southern Border is emblematic of how our Government treats asylum
seekers generally. Contrary to what the administration portrayed in the
media, a vast majority of the members of the caravan were women,
children, youth, parents, and transgender women who fled their homes to
escape political repression and violence, extreme poverty, and abuse.
We write to express our concern that migrants seeking asylum, such
as those traveling in the caravan, are being turned away at the border,
are being criminally prosecuted, and that the administration is
separating children from their families. We urge Congress to reject the
policy proposals the Trump administration continues to offer as
solutions as they will do nothing to address border security, but will
instead endanger vulnerable people and call into question our Nation's
moral standing.
The right to seek asylum is enshrined in United States and
international law. Asylum is not a ``loophole,'' as the Trump
administration would like the public to believe, and individuals
seeking asylum must be allowed to make their claims in a fair and
efficient manner. The administration's practice of refusing to process
asylum seekers and forcing vulnerable people, including families with
small children and transgender women, to remain outside the gates of
the ports of entry is unconscionable. With regard to the caravan, it
was widely reported that these asylum seekers set up tents and slept
outside for days, ``huddled under donated blankets''\1\ waiting to be
processed. This wait also compromised the safety of caravan members as
a group of transgender women were robbed by armed men, attacked
repeatedly, and had their shelter set on fire.\2\ Customs and Border
Protection's (CBP) assertion that they do not have sufficient capacity
to process asylum seekers \3\ is a poor excuse, as the agency is one of
the most over-resourced law enforcement agencies in the entire Federal
Government.\4\ As part of its oversight function, Congress must ensure
that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, including CBP
officers, do their jobs and allow asylum seekers to make their claims
in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Kirk Semple, US Lets A Few Members of Migrant Caravan Apply
For Asylum, New York Times (April 30, 2018) at https://www.nytimes.com/
2018/04/30/world/americas/mexico-migrants-caravan-asylum-seekers.html.
\2\ See Jorge Rivas, The Nightmare Isn't Over For Trans Women On
The Refugee Caravan, Splinter News (May 8, 2018) at https://
splinternews.com/the-nightmare-isnt-over-for-trans-women-on-the-
refugee-1825866317.
\3\ See Sandra Dibble, Uncertainty greets Central American asylum
seekers as officials say San Ysidro Port of Entry already at capacity,
San Diego Tribune (April 29, 2018) at http://
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-asylum-caravan-
20180428-story.html.
\4\ See Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, and
Claire Bergeron, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise
of a Formidable Machinery, Migration Policy Institute (January 2013) at
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/us-spends-more-immigration-
enforcement-fbi-dea-secret-service-all-other-Federal-criminal-law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration's plan to prosecute every person who
crosses the border in between ports of entry \5\ in an effort to deter
migration will have a profound effect on asylum seekers and families
with children. This announcement is not only irresponsible and a
violation of National and international laws, it is immoral.
Individuals seeking asylum must be given the opportunity to make their
claims. If these individuals are prosecuted, they will be criminalized
and barred from accessing protection. DHS Secretary Nielsen's
statements directing these individuals to ports of entry as an
alternative \6\ is disingenuous at best, as CBP has stated no plans to
increase its processing capacity. Future petitioners for asylum will
inevitably face the same fate as those in the caravan and be forced to
wait for days and perhaps even weeks to access protection, jeopardizing
their health and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, Memorandum
for Federal Prosecutors Along The Southwest Border, (April 6, 2018) at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download.
\6\ Michael D. Shear, Trump Tirade Is Culmination of Immigration
Frustration, New York Times (May 11, 2018) at https://www.nytimes.com/
2018/05/11/us/politics/trump-nielsen-
immigration.html?login=email&auth=login-email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, this ``zero-tolerance'' policy will, in effect,
separate children from their families. If adults who arrive with
children are to be prosecuted, they will be taken to Federal jails and
their children rendered unaccompanied, placing them in the custody of
Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. Reports have
indicated that the administration has been separating children from
their parents for months--in fact, since October, more than 700
children have been separated from their families, ``including more than
100 children under the age of 4.''\7\ Ripping children apart from their
parents in order to deter migration is callous, cruel, and betrays our
deeply-held American values. The American Academy of Pediatrics has
condemned this policy, saying that ``highly stressful experiences, like
family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's
brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term
health. This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress--known as
toxic stress--can carry life-long consequences for children.''\8\
Congress must demand that an end this cruel practice immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Caitlin Dickerson, Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been
Taken From Parents at U.S. Border, New York Times (April 20, 2018) at
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-separation-
ice.html.
\8\ Colleen Kraft, AAP Statement Opposing Separation of Children
and Parents at the Border (May 8, 2018 at https://www.aap.org/en-us/
about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/
StatementOpposingSeparationofChildrenandParents.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the efforts of thousands of Americans who have stood up to
welcome refugees, there are still hundreds of asylum seekers in
detention and children waiting for an opportunity to be reunited with
their families. How we treat refugees seeking safety is not a test of
our National security, but a test of our National character.
Today, the National Domestic Workers Alliance urges Members of the
House Committee on Homeland Security, and all Members of Congress, to
consider the real implications of turning our backs on those seeking
protection at our Southwest Border, including children and families.
This is not who we are as a country. Our legacy--and the future we
hope to leave to our children--call on us to be a Nation that welcomes
and defends the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. Vela. Commissioner Vitiello, kind-of as a follow-up to
the question about the distinction in how people are treated at
the ports of entry versus between the ports of entry. With the
new Zero Tolerance Policy in place, if someone is apprehended
between the ports of entry and claims credible fear, what
happens to them?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, in the situation where zero tolerance,
they will be referred to the Justice Department for criminal
prosecution for illegal entry. If they claim credible fear,
that is a separate matter.
So while they are in custody, they could have an interview
by one of Francis' people or once they are concluded with the
U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department, that will be a
separate matter for them.
Mr. Vela. Did you want to follow up?
Mr. Cissna. Yes. Just because you are being prosecuted
under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) doesn't mean that you can't also make an
asylum claim. If that happens, I think what we expect will
happen, I don't think we have seen many cases where this has
happened yet under the new Zero Tolerance Policy.
That person would go through the prosecution process and
then be sent back into ICE detention. At that point, then we at
USCIS would interview them in the normal course for their
credible fear screening. So, they are not incompatible, the two
processes.
Mr. Vela. Well, what I am wondering about is, and you may
be familiar with this Article 31 of the Refugee Convention,
right? Which says the contracting States and United States is
one of those, shall not impose penalties on account of their
illegal entry or presence on refugees who are coming directly
from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in
the sense of article 1 enter or are present in their territory
without authorization.
So what is your take on the United States agreement back in
1968 as that would apply to these people that are crossing
between ports of entry?
Mr. Cissna. My understanding of the principal commitment
that we made under the protocols of the convention, actually,
are that we are not going to return people to a country where
they may suffer persecution.
We are not doing that. If they make a legitimate claim to
asylum, we will hear it. We will do the credible fear screening
and they may in the end get asylum. But that doesn't mean that
they didn't violate the law.
That doesn't mean that they didn't violate the 8 U.S.C.
1325(a). The law is the law. They should be prosecuted and
punished for that. But that doesn't mean they can't get also
get asylum. We are not going to throw them back to a country
where they can be persecuted if they have a legitimate asylum
claim. We would not be therefore be violating the protocol of
the convention.
Mr. Vela. But to be clear and we may agree or disagree as
to whether this is the right thing to do or not, what is
happening with these people who claim credible fear between
ports of entry. They are being taken right into our criminal
justice system, correct?
Mr. Cissna. I believe so, yes, right.
Mr. Vela. Commissioner Vitiello, on the issue of, we had
some discussion about terrorists on the Southern Border. The
last time we checked we had encountered more terrorists on the
Northern Border than on the Southern Border. Is that still true
or has that changed?
Mr. Vitiello. I would have to look at the data. I think
it's probably still true.
Mr. Vela. You made some reference to the fact that some of
the--or a good portion of personnel in Border Patrol are
Spanish-speaking, right?
Mr. Vitiello. Correct. It is a requirement of the--it is a
pass/fail requirement at the academy.
Mr. Vela. So you can understand the serious concern that
some of us might have with the incident in Montana here over
the weekend, right? Where two American citizens were questioned
about their citizenship just because they were speaking
Spanish.
Mr. Vitiello. So I am aware of that video. I did watch it
on YouTube. I have looked at the full reporting from Havre
sector. It happened in Havre, Montana. Just let me start out by
saying that there is a policy in the Federal Government in law
enforcement against racial profiling.
The Secretary has a statement out on it. CBP has its own
policy statement that prohibits the racial profiling as a
tactic used in law enforcement investigations or encounters. We
expect our people, whether they are arresting someone, whether
they are interacting with the public, bad guy or good guy, they
treat those people with professionalism, respect, and dignity,
so. We hold them to account for when they don't do that.
In the case of Montana, we have asked our Office of
Professional Responsibility to review the matter. So I don't
want to prejudge it. I want them to do all the fact-finding.
Then I am happy to come back and give you the full circumstance
about what happened.
But the bottom line, we expect our people to act with
professionalism and when they don't, we are going to hold them
to account for that.
Mr. Vela. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. McSally. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Correa from California for 5
minutes.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up on
those comments on racial profiling. State of California
Democrats and Republicans got together to pass laws against
racial profiling. I can tell you in my life taking the train
from San Diego to Orange County, I have been profiled. It was
me, nice Marine sitting right next to me, guess who gets the
question, are you an American citizen or not? lt is just
something we live with. Yes, we got to live with it. Let me
take a few moments to talk about big picture. Anybody here
think MS-13 is good actors, bad actors? We all agree they are
bad actors, for the record.
Is there some of these folks coming from El Salvador,
Guatemala, do you think they have legitimate fear for their
lives given that MS-13 is alive and well in those countries?
The answer is probably yes.
So my question is, this is a public policy hearing today
trying to iron out public policy. Is it the law or is it
loopholes when it comes to refugees? If you get somebody who
comes from El Salvador, do we want to change the law to say
there should not be a loophole for those folks that have a
reasonable credible fear for their lives?
I am asking you, folks. Do you want to close that loophole?
Mr. Vitiello. We want to be in a situation in where people
who cross the border illegally if they have a legitimate
refugee or asylum claim that they are put into that system and
allowed to do that. What is happening here now or what is
happening on the border now is that people are making that
claim and they are not being held by ICE until their hearing,
so their due process gets lost to their own effort because they
don't show or----
Mr. Correa. My process here. We talked a little while ago
about our other partners, if I may call them partners, Mexico,
in many ways, and I think, I don't want to put any words into
your folks' mouths here, but you said there was some
cooperation with Mexico.
I have talked to folks in your agency and they tell me that
there is a lot of cooperation with Mexico. That the numbers of
those folks coming across in those caravans were drastically
reduced by the Mexicans, but they have their own laws they have
got to follow when it comes to humanitarian issues.
So my question to you is would you advocate a stronger
cooperation with the Mexicans when it comes to our National
security? Including this issue of asylum seekers?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes. Yes. To be precise, we do have some very
good working relationships.
Mr. Correa. Do you have suggestions? You are the experts.
You are the policy makers. Do you have any suggestions how we
can work with the Mexicans to make sure that we make this
hemisphere a little bit safer for everybody involved? I am
asking you as a policy maker. You are the expert. Give us some
opinions.
Mr. Vitiello. Yes. We are continuing the discussion on all
elements of security as it relates to the hemisphere with
Mexico. They are a strong partner and in fact they have helped
us co-host bi-nationally a conference on the northern triangle
to help them understand what the Government's challenges are.
Where the investments need to be made in that part of the
world.
So Mexico is a great partner in that. But Safe Third is one
of those things. A Safe Third country, Mexico does have asylum
system. So if it can be strengthened----
Mr. Correa. So the majority of these folks in the caravan
did get turned back at the Mexican territory as opposed to
reaching our border?
Mr. Vitiello. A number of them did get settled.
Mr. Correa. A majority. Because of the 1,000 to 1,500
started, and some of us quoted that, and you said about 300
arrived at the border that we know of. It is more than half
didn't get to the U.S. border.
Mr. Vitiello. We encountered almost 500 of them. I am aware
of the media reports and in direct discussion with the Mexico
they settled a number of them.
Mr. Homan. But, sir, if we can add, we do need----
Mr. Correa. Yes, sir.
Mr. Homan. We need to close the loopholes. We need
Congressional action on making----
Mr. Correa. Is that a loophole, sir, or is that changing
the law to tighten up on who is a refugee or not?
Mr. Homan. Well, either or. You got to----
Mr. Correa. Well, sir, you----
Mr. Homan. But I understand that people----
Mr. Correa. You are the policy maker advising us. Is it----
Mr. Homan. What----
Mr. Correa. Do you think the laws are too lax when it comes
to whether you fear for your life or not? Or it is something
else that you want to change in these loopholes?
Mr. Homan. Laws are too lax. There are loopholes we need to
have addressed. When----
Mr. Correa. What would you tighten? You say it's too lax,
what would you tighten?
Mr. Homan. When USCIS approved 85 percent and the
immigration court only approves 20 percent there is something
being lost here. If only 20 percent are winning their claim in
front of the immigration court, that shows there is a problem.
There is going to be a system. Now, I certainly can say
that do I think some of these people have a solid claim and
they are escaping fear? Of course. Well, I also think many of
them are taking advantage of a loophole in a small threshold.
What the problem with that, they are clogging up the system. So
if there is people in this world that----
Mr. Correa. Then is it an issue of enough money being sent
to the Judicial branch so they can speedily advocate on these
claims?
Mr. Cissna. I think it is both substance and process. If
you change nothing but change the process, that would be a big
help. If you kept the system as it was, but at least we could
detain people until a full process of their asylum claim was
heard, so----
Mr. Correa. So that is the process not the loophole?
Mr. Cissna. Well, that is one issue, it is the process and
resources to be able to hold people and address the Flores
settlement situation and address all his resources to hold
people as long as it takes to hear their full asylum claim.
The other issue is substance, what should be the credible
fear standard? I know the Goodlatte Bill has a provision in
there that talks about divorcing the credibility assessment
from the substantive assessment. That would be helpful if that
happened.
There are other people who would say that the asylum--the
basis of asylum itself may need to be reexamined. That is a
separate issue as well.
Mr. Correa. Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. McSally. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes, Ms. Barragan from California for
5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. You know, I heard the comment that the fact
that only 20 percent qualify for asylum means that there is an
abuse happening. One of the reasons it could be so low is
because these people are not entitled to counsel.
As I mentioned, it is very hard to meet the legal
requirements. You almost cannot increase the standard. It is
already so high. I actually believe if we gave people counsel,
you would see that 20 percent number increase. By quite a bit.
So I am not sure, I don't think the logic follows it,
because only 20 percent are granted asylum. Therefore there are
all these abuses. Having been in the system, having litigated
asylum cases, I know first-hand how challenging it is, and I
know the difference it makes when you do have counsel.
Most people who don't have an extremely difficult time
because it is so high. I want to go back to the issue of, I
think Mr. Cissna that you had mentioned. How does USCIS
determine a person's asylum claim is fraudulent? Like how is
that assessment made?
Mr. Cissna. Well, before, I mean, the person could just be
ineligible, flat-out ineligible. That is different from being
fraudulent. Both things are happening and----
Ms. Barragan. Yes, I want to know about the fraudulent. How
do you guys determine it when asylum claim is fraudulent?
Mr. Cissna. I think if the person says something that
manifestly does not conform with the facts on the ground, we
would determine that the person was lying and therefore made a
fraudulent claim.
Ms. Barragan. Do we have any numbers about how many were
actually fraudulent under that definition you just explained?
Mr. Cissna. No, we don't have any numbers on how many
people are making fraudulent claims either in credible fear or
in regular asylum yet, but we are working on that.
Ms. Barragan. Do you have any numbers on how many asylum
claims were denied by USCIS in recent years that have led to
perjury charges?
Mr. Cissna. No, I don't have that available.
Ms. Barragan. Could you get those to me in writing?
Mr. Cissna. Sure.
Ms. Barragan. If you could, that would be great. I want to
also touch upon the incident that occurred, the Montana
incident. The CBP has about a 100-mile radius of jurisdiction
where you can engage with somebody, pull somebody over for
reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation or crime. Is
that correct? Roughly?
Mr. Vitiello. Roughly, yes The court through case law has
given us jurisdiction to do a number of things near the
immediate border.
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Mr. Vitiello. Loosely defined at 100 miles.
Ms. Barragan. If you take a look at the map, like most of
Los Angeles alone is in that because of the west, being on the
coast, correct?
Mr. Vitiello. I think that is true for a number of coastal
States.
Ms. Barragan. How often would you say a CBP officer is
going to engage with somebody and start questioning them about
their status just because they are speaking Spanish? How often
do you think that is happening?
Mr. Vitiello. I don't think it happens very often at all. I
think they are trained to do a number of things and look at a
number of factors before they make an account or they make a
stop for someone. In this case, it was roughly 40 miles or so
from the border.
Ms. Barragan. OK. So should I advise my constituents that
are within 40 miles of the border they shouldn't be speaking
Spanish anymore?
Mr. Vitiello. No. I wouldn't do that.
Ms. Barragan. What advice could you give? Because, look, I
speak Spanish. It was my first language. It is actually an
asset in this country to be able to speak two languages,
especially Spanish. Because there is a shortage of, actually,
workers who employers seek to speak two languages. Spanish is
often one of them. I get questions now of, well, does this mean
I shouldn't speak Spanish anymore? As somebody who is at CBP,
what advice do you think I should I give them?
Mr. Vitiello. I am not sure. I have a number of social
engagements, I have worked on the border for many years. I
speak Spanish myself. It is not something that people should be
concerned about if they are here legally.
Ms. Barragan. In this case, the people actually showed ID
even though they don't have to. They were still detained for
another 35 to 40 minutes. In that case, what is somebody
supposed to do? You have shown your ID. You are still being
detained.
Mr. Vitiello. I would like for our Office of Professional
Responsibility to do a complete review of the incident, and
then I am happy to come back or put in the record if it is done
by then, the total circumstance of that case.
Ms. Barragan. OK. If that happens to somebody, are they
allowed to pull out their cell phone and just start documenting
that they are being held for 35 to 40 minutes or whatever it
is?
Mr. Vitiello. Our agents are regularly filmed in the
performance of their duties. CBP has made an investment in
changing policy and allowing for us to use incident-driven
video recordings. So we are going to be investing in and
deploying a number of cameras in the work space. Some of those
will be actually be worn by agents.
Ms. Barragan. The agents are not going to delete the
videos, right?
Mr. Vitiello. There is a whole policy that surrounds how we
use the video and how it is stored and collected and et cetera.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. McSally. The gentlelady yields back.
In summary, as we wrap up, I want to thank the gentlemen
for their testimony today and their service. We talked today
about trying to build the policy wall in order to secure our
country, secure our border and stop having people take
advantage of loopholes in the law.
To summarize, some of those loopholes that we have been
working together with you to close, the first is to raise the
standard of the initial asylum interview that happens at the
border which is so low that nearly everybody can make it
through.
The second is to hold individuals as long as it takes for
them to have due process in order to process their claim. The
third is to make it inadmissible in our country if you are a
serious criminal or gang or gang member or terrorist which I
cannot believe isn't part of the law, but we actually have to
change that law.
The fourth is to have a swift removal of you if you are
denied in your claim. The fifth is to terminate your asylum if
you were to get it, if you return back to your country without
any material change in the conditions there. Clearly, if you
are afraid for your life, but go back to visit then something
is not right there. So your asylum should be considered for
termination.
The sixth is that there could be an expeditious return of
unaccompanied minors to non-contiguous countries, so that we
can swiftly return them just like we can to Mexico.
The last is to increase the penalties for false asylum
claims in order to deter and hold people accountable if they
file for those. Is that a good summary of many of the loopholes
we are talking about today?
Mr. Vitiello. Agree.
Ms. McSally. Thank you.
These all are in our bill, the Securing America's Future
Act. These are common-sense reforms that will keep our country
safe and keep our communities safe. I just want to encourage,
don't have any Members left here, all Members, on both sides of
the aisle, look at our bill. Read our bill. Study our bill.
If you have suggested improvements to our bill, then please
bring them to us. We will work with you in order to get the
bill to a place that we can get 218 people to vote for it and
get it out of the people's House, the House of Representatives.
The time is urgent as someone who represents a border
community who is dealing with these public safety threats and
National security threats on a daily basis in the communities
that I represent.
As you are all and your agents are out there every single
day dealing with these threats. The time is urgent. This is not
time to play politics with these issues. This is time for
people to solve this issue and to close these loopholes to keep
us safe.
I want to thank the gentlemen for their testimony and the
Members for their questions. I want to particularly thank
Director Homan for your 34 years of service to our country in
many law enforcement positions. God bless you in your
transition out. Thanks for your service and all you have done
for us.
Mr. Homan. Thank you.
Ms. McSally. Members of the committee may have some
additional questions for the witnesses. We will ask you to
respond to these in writing. Pursuant to committee Rule VII(D),
the hearing record will be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Questions From Ranking Member Filemon Vela for Ronald D. Vitiello
Question 1a. Can you please explain the criteria and process CBP
personnel are required to use for verifying family relationships?
Answer. A family unit is defined as a parent or legal guardian
along with accompanying minors. CBP determines familial relationships
on a case-by-case basis. U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents and Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) officers review all available information,
including any available documentation, in order to determine the
validity of a claimed familial relationship. Additionally, agents and
officers conduct thorough interviews to detect potentially fraudulent
claims of familial relationship.
Question 1b. Is this process different for families who present
themselves at ports of entry than for those apprehended by Border
Patrol?
Answer. The process to determine a familial relationship is the
same regardless of how the family enters the United States.
In all instances, CBP strives to ensure the safety and welfare of
any child an agent or officer may encounter.
Question 2a. Can you please explain what CBP does to ensure family
units are kept together, per its 2015 National Standards on Transport,
Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS)?
Answer. CBP's National Standards on Transportation, Escort,
Detention, and Search (TEDS) policy States in part that ``CBP will
maintain family unity to the greatest extent operationally feasible,
absent a legal requirement or an articulable safety or security concern
that requires separation.'' In accordance with these standards, family
units may be separated in certain situations, including:
the parent/legal guardian is subject to criminal
prosecution;
evidence of abuse that would indicate that the child's
safety is at risk; and
the familial relationship cannot be verified.
This list is not exhaustive and the operational decision to
separate a family unit is made after taking the safety and well-being
of the child or children into account.
Question 2b. How does the administration's zero-tolerance directive
for adult border crossers hinder your ability to keep families
together?
Answer. DHS strives to keep the family unit together as long as
operationally feasible. ``Zero tolerance'' does not introduce a new
procedure for CBP and ICE agents. Existing protocols already address
how to process families and the procedures to follow in the event that
a family is separated for any reason.
On June 20, 2018, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13841, in which he indicated the administration's policy of maintaining
family unity. Additionally, on June 26, 2018, the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California issued an order that, among
other things, preliminarily enjoins DHS from detaining parents in DHS
custody apart from their minor children in most cases, and requires ICE
to reunite separated alien children with their parents in most cases.
ICE and CBP are working with partner agencies to ensure compliance with
that order.
Question 2c. Do your 2015 TEDS still apply to Border Patrol's
operations?
Answer. CBP's U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) complies with the TEDS
policy.
Question 3. In July 2015, GAO recommended that CBP revise the
methods and questions used by Border Patrol agents and OFO officers to
screen unaccompanied alien children. What is the status of CBP's
efforts to address these recommendations?
Answer. CBP currently use the CBP-Form 93 Unaccompanied Alien Child
Screening Addendum to screen all UACs. In response to the GAO's July
2015 recommendations, the CBP-Form 93 is being revised and expected to
be finalized as early as December 2018.
Question 4a. In July 2015, GAO found that CBP personnel were not
properly screening all Mexican unaccompanied children who had credible
fear of returning to Mexico and who were victims of a severe form of
trafficking in persons. The related recommendations remain open. Why
has CBP not issued updated guidance per these recommendations?
Answer. CBP complies with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Homeland
Security Act of 2002, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), and all CBP policies and guidance
for the processing and treatment of minors, including unaccompanied
children. While no new guidance is necessary, the implementation of the
updated CBP-93 will enhance the UAC screening process.
Question 4b. What is the status of CBP's efforts to address these
recommendations?
Answer. USBP has been following all existing policies and legal
injunctions to adhere to all legal concerns. All items in GAO's
recommendations are being addressed through careful and thorough
guidance to follow all regulations/policies/court orders to facilitate
the safe and least restrictive screening and custody while in USBP
facilities. In conjunction with the Office of Training and Development,
USBP is working toward updating existing TVPRA training which will be
available in the CBP distance learning module. The revised CBP-93 is in
its final stages of review and is expected to be available in 2018. In
April 2018, the Memorandum of Agreement between CBP, ICE, and HHS was
signed and went into effect. This MOA outlined the requirement to
formulate a Joint Concept of Operations between DHS and HHS and went
into effect in July 2018.
Question 4c. In the absence of such guidance, how is CBP ensuring
that agents and officers are complying with trafficking preventions
requirements and addressing the weaknesses that GAO identified in 2015?
Answer. CBP complies with relevant laws and settlement agreements.
CBP screens all unaccompanied children for trafficking concerns, and
all CBP personnel receive training on the requirements of the TVPRA and
the Flores Settlement Agreement.
Question 5a. The Secretary and other leaders, such as yourself,
have been telling people who are seeking asylum to go to our ports of
entry. Otherwise, DHS intends to refer these asylum seekers to the
Department of Justice for criminal prosecution if they attempt to
approach a Border Patrol agent. However, we have heard reports from
groups and asylum seekers themselves that CBP in the past improperly
turned away or dissuaded people trying to file asylum claims at certain
ports of entry. Is CBP preventing people from filing their asylum
claims?
Answer. CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) processes all persons
who apply for admission to the United States at ports of entry (POEs)
and does not turn away anyone who is seeking asylum. Those applicants
for admission who do not have the proper documentation significantly
adds to the processing times at POEs. OFO does not deny any applicant
for protection who expresses an intent to seek asylum or has a fear of
return to their country of origin regardless of the ultimate
disposition of the case. CBP processes applicants for admission to the
United States, denies inadmissible travelers entry and, refers
travelers who seek protection to appropriate officials for claims to be
heard. OFO is committed to our multi-faceted National security mission
set which includes the safe, secure, and orderly processing of all
travelers as expeditiously as possible without compromising safety or
security of the homeland. The number of inadmissible travelers CBP is
operationally capable to process varies depending on overall port
volume and enforcement actions. Upon completion of CBP inspection,
inadmissible applicants for admission who express a fear of return are
referred to ICE/ERO for long-term custody. CBP only maintains custody
of inadmissible applicants for the minimum time necessary to complete
the inspection and for ICE/ERO to accept custody.
Question 5b. What kind of guidance have you issued to your field
directors to make sure this doesn't happen?
Answer. CBP recognizes the importance of thoroughly training our
front-line officers. Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs)
receive training on the proper processing, treatment, and referral of
aliens who express a fear of return. This training begins with CBP
Field Operations Academy, and is reinforced through Post Academy
training and the periodic issuance of memoranda and policy reminders/
musters.
CBP leadership, through memos, messaging, and conference calls,
continually reiterates to its field managers that any traveler who
request asylum or expresses a fear of return to their home country or
country of last residence is referred to United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers or the immigration courts
who make a final decision on asylum applications. CBP OFO does not
decide the merits of any asylum claim or application.
Question 6. In April, CBP noted that capacity issues at San Ysidro
Port of Entry slowed down the processing time for asylum seekers. I
presume that the persistent CBP officer staffing shortage is one of the
factors affecting these capacity issues. How has CBP prepared, if at
all, for additional asylum seekers at ports of entry?
Answer. At U.S. ports of entry, CBP Officers perform a variety of
border security and facilitation activities to include counter-
terrorism activities, narcotics interdiction, trade enforcement, the
facilitation of lawful trade and travel, and the processing of
individuals who arrive at the ports of entry. Finite personnel and
budgetary resources must be prioritized across these mission sets to
ensure that the homeland is protected, that the United States meets its
domestic and international legal obligations regarding processing of
asylum seekers, and that economic security is provided.
CBP OFO is committed to our multi-faceted National security
mission set which includes the safe, secure, and orderly
processing of all travelers as expeditiously as possible
without compromising safety or security of the homeland.
The number of inadmissible travelers CBP is operationally
capable to process varies depending on overall port volume and
enforcement actions.
Upon completion of CBP inspection, inadmissible applicants
for admission who express a fear of return are referred to ICE/
ERO for long-term custody. However, the family remains with CBP
at the POE until ICE/ERO takes custody of the subjects.
CBP only maintains custody of inadmissible applicants for
the minimum time necessary to complete the inspection and for
ICE/ERO to accept custody.
Ports of entry also face capacity and facility constraints. Ports
of entry were neither intended nor designed for the long-term detention
of individuals; they are intended as short-term processing facilities
used until individuals can be turned over to another appropriate
agency.
When resources and capacity constraints are reached at a port of
entry, it may be necessary to temporarily limit the processing of
additional individuals who may require temporary holding at the port
until resources and space become available. These conditions were
common during the last migrant surge in 2016, and are occurring again
in 2018. When port resources and capacity are reached, some aliens
arriving at a port of entry who do not express a fear of return to
Mexico may need to wait in Mexico until they are able to enter the port
of entry for processing. In many cases, aliens waiting in Mexico have
access to shelters and support from non-governmental organizations
(NGO's).
Question 7. In 2015, the DHS Inspector General reported that:

``Border Patrol does not have guidance on whether to refer to
Streamline prosecution aliens who express fear of persecution or fear
of return to their home countries. As a result, Border Patrol agents
sometimes use Streamline to refer aliens expressing such fear to DOJ
for prosecution. Using Streamline to refer aliens expressing fear of
persecution, prior to determining their refugee status, may violate
U.S. obligations under the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees, which the United States ratified in 1968.''

What has the Border Patrol done since 2015 to offer guidance to its
agents regarding compliance with this protocol?
Answer. In response to the DHS Inspector General report on Criminal
Consequence Initiative, formerly known as Streamline, the Chief of the
USBP, issued a guidance memorandum on September 30, 2015 and muster
module to the field regarding the process of Credible Fear referrals.
This has been put into practice and is standard operating procedure.
Question 8. How do CBP intake and screening processes differ, if at
all, for people who arrive at a port of entry and claim fear compared
to those who claim fear after being apprehended by Border Patrol agents
between ports of entry?
Answer. CBP carries out its mission of border security while
adhering to U.S. domestic and international legal obligations related
to the protection of refugees and other vulnerable persons. The laws of
the United States, as well as international treaties to which we are a
party, allow people to seek protection on the grounds that they have a
well-founded fear being persecuted in another country because of their
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion, or that there are substantial grounds for
believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture
if sent to another country. CBP understands the importance of complying
with U.S. legal obligations and takes them seriously. Accordingly, CBP
has designed policies and procedures based on these legal standards, in
order to protect vulnerable persons.
All persons in custody are screened for Credible Fear. If Credible
Fear is expressed, it is notated on Form M-444 electronically sent to
USCIS and printed for the A-file. Sometimes it is necessary to record
additional information on the I-867 a and b (sworn statement) to
capture facts in support of the refugee's claim. The File is annotated
on the front as CREDIBLE FEAR for all parties to see. An appointment is
scheduled with USCIS Asylum Officer after transfer from USBP to ICE/
ERO.
From the USBP side, if the alien has not already told the agent
upon apprehension that he or she is claiming fear or seeking asylum,
the agent will screen for fear during the processing of the alien. For
an unaccompanied child this is documented on the CBP-93, for adults it
will be on the I-215 or I-867A/B or I-877. The alien is also given the
M-444 or M-488 concerning their fear interview. The alien is turned
over to ERO or ORR, depending on age, family unit, etc. The case is
referred to an asylum officer with USCIS, who determines if the fear is
founded or not. At that point, USBP has no further dealings with the
illegal aliens, unless they are re-apprehended crossing illegally again
into the United States.
Question 9a. The Attorney General's April 6, 2018, memorandum
directs each United States Attorney's Office, in consultation with DHS,
to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for all first-time illegal entrants
along the Southwest Border. How, if at all, are foreign nationals who
are apprehended between ports of entry prioritized for referral to DOJ?
Answer. On May 5, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland Security
promulgated the following zero tolerance policy prosecution priorities,
which are listed in priority order:
1. All adult aliens (with criminal history)
2. All adult aliens (with smuggling activity)
3. Single adult aliens and adult aliens accompanying children (non-
contiguous country/OTM)
4. Single adult aliens (contiguous country/Mexico and Canada)
5. Adult aliens accompanying children (contiguous country/Mexico
and Canada).
Following Zero Tolerance implementation and after the President
signed E.O. 13841 on June 20, 2018, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP)
Headquarters issued guidance to the field to refer all amenable single
adults who violate 8 USC Sec. 1325 for prosecution. Adults who are part
of a family unit will be referred for prosecution if:
There is a concern that detention of an alien child, with
the child's alien parent/legal guardian would pose a risk to
the child's welfare; or
The parent/legal guardian has an outstanding criminal
background or warrant (beyond a simple Section 1325 violation).
Sector Chiefs were instructed to consider all circumstances of the
apprehension and exercise discretion when referring an adult in a
family unit for prosecution.
Question 9b. How does CBP ensure that individuals referred to DOJ
and who have articulated fear claims receive access to a credible fear
interview by USCIS?
Answer. During processing, all apprehended aliens are asked
specific questions regarding any fear they may have of returning to
their country of origin to ensure that each is afforded the ability to
indicate an intention to apply for asylum, a fear of return, or a fear
of persecution or torture. All claims of fear made in USBP custody are
documented and referred to USCIS or to an immigration judge, as
appropriate. An appointment is scheduled with USCIS Asylum Officer
after transfer from USBP to ICE/ERO or to USMS for their criminal
hearing.
Question 9c. Under what circumstances is CBP referring foreign
nationals to DOJ for prosecution before the individual received a
credible fear interview with USCIS?
Answer. CBP reviews each case before referring the case for
prosecution. Criminal prosecution does not preclude, deny or otherwise
inhibit an alien from applying for asylum, and all claims of fear made
in USBP custody are referred to USCIS or to an immigration judge, as
appropriate. In many cases, aliens are referred for criminal
prosecution and receive their credible fear interview once they return
to ICE custody after serving their sentence, if any.
Question 10. What type of information does Border Patrol track
regarding individuals that the agency refers to DOJ for immigration-
only offense prosecutions, as well as individuals that Border Patrol
refers to USCIS for credible fear interviews?
Answer. USBP utilizes the ``e3 system'' as the official system of
record for all processing. The e3 system collects and transmits
biographic, encounter, and biometric data for identification and
verification of individuals encountered at the border for CBP's law
enforcement and immigration mission. USBP captures all information
related to the alien's apprehension, to include name, date of birth,
country of birth, biometrics and processing disposition prior to the
individual's transfer to ERO.
Question 11a. Is it now the policy of the Trump administration to
question the citizenship of anyone who is conversing in a language
other than English?
Answer. No.
Question 11b. What kind of training measures is the Border Patrol
providing to its agents so that we do not have a repeat of the Montana
incident recorded in mid-May 2018 in which a Border Patrol agent
questioned two U.S. citizens after he overheard them speaking in
Spanish?
Answer. Agents receive training in CBP's authority to engage with
the public pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and applicable statutes.
On-going training and updates are provided to address changes in the
law.
Questions From Honorable J. Louis Correa for Ronald D. Vitiello
Question 1a. For the past 10 fiscal years, how many asylum seekers
that originally intended to come to the United States are provided
asylum and assisted by the Mexican government?
Answer. CBP does not track how many asylum seekers were either
assisted by or granted asylum by the Government of Mexico.
Question 1b. How many asylum seekers actually reach the U.S.-Mexico
border?
Answer. CBP tracks the number of cases where applicants for
admission request asylum or express a fear of return. This reflects the
number of aliens that present themselves with a credible fear indicator
at a port of entry for the past 10 years.
Fiscal Year 2008.--824
Fiscal Year 2009.--718
Fiscal Year 2010.--1,898
Fiscal Year 2011.--2,636
Fiscal Year 2012.--2,815
Fiscal Year 2013.--7,951
Fiscal Year 2014.--12,985
Fiscal Year 2015.--17,286
Fiscal Year 2016.--33,856
Fiscal Year 2017.--26,841
Fiscal Year 2018 (May).--33,568
Sum.--141,378
Question 1c. Of those asylum seekers that reach the U.S.-Mexico
border, what is the number and percentage that are granted asylum in
the United States?
Answer. DHS defers to DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR) to to answer this question. EOIR adjudicates asylum applications
filed by individuals who are in removal proceedings before EOIR,
including those who established a credible fear.
Question 1d. Can you please describe how Mexico has helped CBP by
assisting migrants along its Southern Border?
Answer. Mexico's National Migration Institute (INM) has helped CBP
through things such as Operation Leonidas that aims to secure Mexico's
Southern Border. INM's actions have strengthened the base for our
collaborative engagement on traveler facilitation initiatives.
INM now rescues (including apprehends) more Central Americans, in
Mexico, than CBP does along the Southwest Border. These numbers reflect
our commitment to and progress in working with the Government of Mexico
to make a substantial impact on the flow of irregular migration.
Question 1e. How has CBP helped the Mexican government in efforts
to build up its border management?
Answer. Since the inception of the Merida Initiative, approximately
$2.7 billion in funds have been allocated toward building capacity
among Mexican law enforcement and judicial institutions to combat the
production and trafficking of illicit drugs, strengthen border
security, and investigate and prosecute transnational organized crime.
In addition, the 21st Century Border Management Initiative and the
Security Coordination Group (SCG) continue to be mechanisms through
which the United States and Mexico develop and implement joint security
priorities.
The day-to-day work under this Joint Declaration is guided by the
binational Executive Steering Committee (ESC)--which last met in Mexico
City in November 2017--and is carried out by its three working groups:
The Infrastructure subcommittee, chaired by the Department
of State, is charged with developing and monitoring the
implementation of a national plan for land border priorities.
The subgroup coordinates plans for new ports of entry (POEs),
the modernization of existing POEs, and upgrades to the
infrastructure feeding into them at and between POEs along the
U.S.-Mexico border.
The Secure Flows subcommittee, chaired by CBP, is mandated
to facilitate secure and efficient flow of people and goods
across the U.S.-Mexico border by managing risk, promoting and
improving trusted trader and traveler programs, developing new
technology at POEs, segregating lanes, exchanging information,
harmonizing manifest data, and engaging in capacity building
measures with GOM.
The Law Enforcement and Security subcommittee, co-chared by
DHS Office of Policy and Department of Justice, aggregates
policy priorities and concerns to develop a coherent U.S.
Government approach to border coordination and to address
smuggling corridors used to move contraband via air, land, and
sea.
The SCB is a high-level bilateral policy dialog between all the
U.S. and Mexican agencies who handle security-related topics. The SCG
was originally convened by the National Security Council (NSC);
however, it is now co-hosted by DHS and the Department of State (DoS).
The last meeting of the SCG took place in Mexico City, Mexico in mid-
October, 2017.
The U.S. Government supports the Government of Mexico (GOM) in its
continued migration control activity in the Guatemala-Mexico border
region. Most recently, DHS deployed two multidisciplinary teams to
Mexico's Southern Border in order to support INM's current enforcement
operation to stem the northward flow of Central American migrants
entering Mexico.
The U.S Government encourages GOM officials to visit CBP facilities
along the U.S. Southwest Border to further strengthen the between CBP
and INM personnel in order to continue sharing best practices and
increase cooperation regarding migration management.
Questions From Honorable Nanette Barragan for Ronald D. Vitiello
Question 1. According to the New York Times more than 700 children
had to be taken from adults claiming to be their parents since October
2017, including more than 100 children under the age of 4. Secretary
Nielsen disputed this figure at a May 15 Senate Homeland hearing. She
said that the 700 children figure was an HHS number and not a DHS
figure. What is the DHS figure for the number of children separated
from their family member since October 2017, disaggregated by month?
Answer. For fiscal year 2018 through April, U.S. Border Patrol
(USBP) is unable to provide a breakdown of ages. The data was manually
provided from the field as it was not captured in a system until late
April. Changes were made on April 19, 2018 to the records system to
capture this data electronically. During Zero Tolerance, the USBP
separated 2,706 family units from May 5, 2018 to June 20, 2018.
Question 2a. Can you please explain what process CBP personnel are
supposed to follow when they unable to verify familial relationships?
Answer. A family unit is defined as a parent or legal guardian
along with accompanying minors. [0]CBP determines familial
relationships on a case-by-case basis. U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents
and Customs and Border Protection (CBP[0]) Officers review all
available information, including any available documentation such as
but not limited to birth certificates and passports, in order to
determine the validity of a claimed familial relationship.
Additionally, agents and officers conduct thorough interviews to detect
potentially fraudulent claims of familial relationship. [0] In the
event of a separation, electronic records for all family members are
linked in the in e3 Detention Module (e3DM) to facilitate contact or
reunification at a later date.
Question 2b. Of the 700 children who were separated from adults
claiming familial relationships since October 2017, how many of these
instances led to be human trafficking charges?
Answer. Specific data for the cases named by HHS are unavailable.
DHS/CBP cannot obtain exact details on the underlying 700 cases to
determine if/how many trafficking cases are associated with these
cases.
Question 3a. In January 2017, CBP's Office of Professional
Responsibility publicly released a report on its activities for fiscal
year 2015. Has any subsequent reporting occurred?
Answer. No subsequent reporting has been released.
Question 3b. When will reports for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 be
released publicly?
Answer. The CBP Office of Professional Responsibility combined
Annual Report for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 is currently in the works
but does not have a release date at this time.
Questions From Ranking Member Filemon Vela for Thomas D. Homan
Question 1a. This last December, the Inspector General issued a
report that found extremely serious problems with the treatment of
detainees and conditions at various ICE detention facilities across the
country. What are you doing to correct the many violations that
facilities are committing?
Question 1b. What, if anything, has been done in the past 6 months
to address the very serious issues raised by the DHS Inspector General?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) concurred
with the Inspector General's single recommendation to address the
findings in its report on detention facilities. The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) found that ICE's proposed corrective action met the
recommendation's intent, and ICE engaged in a detailed assessment of
the facilities identified in the OIG report. ICE corrected the
identified concerns; however, two areas remain under continued
monitoring. When ICE is confident that all concerns have been fully
addressed, ICE will provide this information to the OIG, likely in the
next few months.
ICE notes that all facilities holding detainees are held to a high
standard of care, and must meet or exceed Federal detention-related
requirements, including those of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug
Administration, National Fire Protection Association, the Life Safety
Code, National Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and similar
regulatory agencies. ICE will continue to aggressively monitor
conditions at these facilities with a special emphasis on the areas
identified by the OIG.
Consistent with the one OIG recommendation, ICE has increased its
monitoring and visits of the three facilities outlined in the report,
with a special focus on the issues listed in the report such as
language access, segregation, medical care, environmental health, and
food safety. ICE is also hiring Federal staff to accompany contract
inspectors during the annual audits in an effort to further improve
oversight.
Question 2a. How many families does ICE currently have in its
custody?
Question 2b. How many of these families have been referred to ICE
custody since the beginning of the zero-tolerance policy that took
effect in early May 2018?
Answer. The zero-tolerance policy went into effect on April 6,
2018. As such, ICE ERO has provided the following information regarding
Family Residential Centers (FRCs),\1\ where families are held together
as a unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ICE FRCs includes Berks County Family Shelter, Karnes County
Residential Center, and South Texas Family Residential Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE Initial Book Ins into FRCs between 4/6/2018--6/2/2018.--
Total: 6,996.
ICE Currently Detained Aliens in FRCs as of 6/2/2018.--
Total: 2,555.
Question 3a. When CBP transfers an adult who has been separated
from his or her children into ICE custody, what does ICE do to ensure
that both the adult and child know of each other's location?
Question 3b. What does ICE do to ensure families can eventually be
unified?
Answer. On May 5, 2018, the U.S. Border Patrol began to increase
referrals for prosecution as a result of the administration's zero
tolerance policy. All adult aliens who were amenable to prosecution for
violating 8 U.S.C. 1325(a), Illegal Entry, which carries a potential
penalty of up to 2 years in prison, were referred to the U.S.
Attorney's Offices. Subsequently, on June 20, 2018, President Trump
issued E.O. 13841, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family
Separation, which directs the administration to continue to protect the
border, while simultaneously avoiding the separation of families. As
expressed in the E.O., it is the policy of this administration to
maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together
where appropriate and consistent with the law and available resources.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is continuing to examine
these issues in light of on-going litigation and recent court
decisions.
In the mean time, DHS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) have established a process to help ensure that family
members know the location of their children and have regular
communication after separation. The U.S. Government knows the location
of all children in its custody and DHS and HHS are working together to
ensure both that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited
with their children for the purposes of removal, and that those adults
who are entitled to reunification pursuant to court order are similarly
reunited.
Releases are occurring in close coordination with HHS to facilitate
reunification with minor children to ensure compliance with the Ms. L.
v. ICE ruling, which ordered the reunification of all parents separated
from their children at the border within 30 days. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)
Juvenile and Family Residential Management Unit staff are in regular
communication with the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement to verify
parent or legal guardian status and facilitate reunification of family
units who have been separated. Specifically, ICE ERO has reunified all
eligible parents with their children aged 0-4 years in HHS custody, and
is now in the process of reunifying eligible parents with their
children aged 5-17 years.
ICE also works with detained parents to provide regular
communication with their children through video teleconferencing,
phone, and tablets. ICE is currently augmenting mental health care
staffing, including trained clinical staff, to provide mental health
services to detained parents who have been separated from their
children.
Questions From Ranking Member Filemon Vela for Lee Francis Cissna
Question 1a. Operation Streamline has been in effect for some time
now. Though I understand that the current zero-tolerance policy is
different, what has been the effect of criminal prosecution through
Streamline on a person's ability to claim asylum?
Answer. CBP recognizes that undocumented aliens need to have the
appropriate avenue to make claims of fear. On November 26, 2014, the
Chief of the USBP sent a guidance memorandum and muster modules to the
field to emphasize and further address credible fear determinations in
expedited removal cases. CBP may refer an alien for criminal
prosecution while the alien makes a claim of fear through the
administrative process. The fact that an alien is being prosecuted does
not influence the outcome of the asylum officer's credible fear
determination. Conversely, an alien's claim of fear cannot be used as a
criterion to exclude an undocumented alien from a possible prosecution
for a criminal act.
Question 1b. Have asylum claims been denied because of a criminal
illegal entry or re-entry charge?
Question 1c. How will claims filed by asylum seekers who are
charged with illegal entry or re-entry be affected by these charges?
Answer. Pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section
235(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. Sec. 235.3(b)(4) and implementing
regulations, any individual who indicates an intention to apply for
asylum, a fear of return, or a fear of persecution or torture during
the course of the expedited removal process must be referred to a USCIS
asylum officer for an interview to determine if the individual has a
credible fear of persecution or torture.
An individual may express a fear at any point during the expedited
removal process. If an individual expresses a fear, he or she must be
screened by a USCIS asylum officer. USCIS conducts the screening
interview when the individual is in ICE custody. USCIS currently does
not have a process for screening individuals while they are in
Department of Justice (DOJ) custody. If an individual is referred to
DOJ for prosecution, he or she is processed on illegal entry or re-
entry charges, receives a sentence, and serves the sentence in DOJ
custody. Generally, after the individual has served his or her sentence
and is transferred to ICE custody, but before removal, he or she is
referred to USCIS for the credible fear interview.
Under current law, a criminal illegal entry or re-entry charge does
not impact the outcome of the credible fear determination. However, an
individual who illegally re-enters the United States after having been
removed is subject to reinStatement of his or her prior order of
removal under section 241(a)(5) of the INA, which renders the
individual ineligible to apply for asylum. An alien subject to a
reinstated removal order may still qualify for withholding of removal
pursuant to INA Sec. 241(b)(3) or protection pursuant to the Convention
Against Torture.
USCIS defers to DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR) on whether defensive asylum claims presented to immigration
judges by individuals found to have a credible fear during the course
of expedited removal proceedings are denied or otherwise affected
because of a criminal illegal entry or re-entry charge.
Question 2. How, if at all, does USCIS ensure that illegal entrants
apprehended by CBP or ICE are receiving credible fear interviews, as
required?
Question 3. When do foreign nationals who are apprehended by Border
Patrol and referred to DOJ for prosecution receive access to a credible
fear interview if they have made a fear claim?
Question 4a. Where and how are individuals detained while awaiting
credible fear interviews?
Question 4b. If USCIS determines that an individual has a credible
fear of persecution, what are the next steps for that individual?
Answer. Pursuant to INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4), ICE
or CBP must refer any individual, including single adults and adults
with children, who indicates an intention to apply for asylum, a fear
of return, or a fear of persecution or torture during the course of the
expedited removal process (under Section 235 of the INA) to a USCIS
asylum officer for an interview to determine if the individual has a
credible fear of persecution or torture.\2\ Once an individual is
referred to USCIS, the agency uses a case management system to track
all credible fear screening referrals and ensure that it completes
screening for each referred individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note that unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are not subject to
streamlined removal proceedings (including expedited removal and
reinstatement of prior orders of removal). Section 235(a)(5)(D) of the
TVPRA (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1232(a)(5)(D)) states: ``Any unaccompanied alien
child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security,
except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country
subject to exceptions under subsection (a)(2), shall be placed in
removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act . . . '' Hence, as of the effective date of March 23,
2009, all UACs from non-contiguous countries whom DHS seeks to remove
must be placed directly into section 240 proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals may express a fear at any point during the expedited
removal process. If they express a fear, they must be screened by
USCIS. USCIS conducts the screening interviews when the individuals are
in ICE custody.
Individuals awaiting credible fear interviews while in DHS custody
are held in ICE detention facilities pending the outcome of their
interview by a USCIS asylum officer.
If an adult is referred to DOJ for prosecution, he or she is
processed on illegal entry or re-entry charges, receives a sentence,
and serves the sentence in DOJ custody. Generally, after he or she has
served the sentence and is transferred to ICE custody, but before
removal, he or she is referred to USCIS for the credible fear
interview.
If the asylum officer finds that an individual has established a
credible fear of persecution or torture, the individual is placed into
removal proceedings (under section 240 of the INA) where he or she is
afforded the opportunity to apply for asylum and other relief or
protection before an immigration judge. If the asylum officer finds
that the individual has not established a credible fear of persecution
or torture, the individual may ask an immigration judge to review the
asylum officer's determination. If the individual declines a review of
the determination, or if the immigration judge concurs with the asylum
officer's negative credible fear determination,\3\ then the individual
is removed from the United States under the expedited removal order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ If an individual neither requests nor declines review of the
determination, the individual is still referred to the immigration
judge for review of the credible fear determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5a. The Central American Minors Refugee program was
canceled abruptly in 2017. There were 4,000 applicants who have legally
present adult family members in the United States whose applications
were canceled when the program was shut down. Can you please tell us
why the program was shuttered?
Question 5b. Is it the Trump administration's position that it is
in the best interest of these children to stay in violent countries or
risk a dangerous journey through Mexico?
Question 5c. If not, what was the purpose of closing down a legal
pathway to refugee status?
Answer. The decision to terminate the Central American Minors
programs was made as part of the overall U.S. Government review of the
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for fiscal year 2018. The Departments
of Homeland Security and State focus on targeted refugee processing in
Central America, such as the Protection Transfer Arrangement (PTA),
which is between the Government of Costa Rica, UNHCR, and the
International Organization for Migration (IOM). Through UNHCR and IOM,
vulnerable Salvadoran, Honduran, and Guatemalan applicants are
transferred Costa Rica, where they are interviewed by DHS/USCIS and
considered for resettlement to the United States. In some situations,
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program may decide to process UNHCR-
identified cases in one of the three countries.
As of July 6, 2018, 215 cases (478 individuals) have been accepted
for processing via the PTA since July 2016. Of those, 59 cases (129
individuals) have been approved and traveled. Eight cases (20
individuals) have been denied, and 18 cases (37 individuals) have been
interviewed and are pending a final decision. Approximately 130 cases
(292 individuals) are pending a USCIS interview.
Questions From Honorable Nanette Barragan for Lee Francis Cissna
Question 1a. How does USCIS define ``fraud'' for asylum claims?
Question 1b. How does USCIS determine a person's asylum claim is
fraudulent?
Question 1c. How many of the asylum claims denied by USCIS in the
past 5 fiscal years have led to perjury charges?
Answer. Consistent with Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA (8
United States Code [U.S.C.] 1182), USCIS defines fraud in relation to
the inadmissibility ground regarding ``[a]ny alien who, by fraud or
willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has
sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or
admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this
Act.''
A finding of inadmissibility for willful misrepresentation of a
material fact under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA requires that:
The applicant/beneficiary misrepresented or concealed some
fact;
The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;
The fact was material to the immigration benefit being
sought; and
The individual made the misrepresentation by some means to
an authorized official of the U.S. Government.
A finding of inadmissibility for fraud under section
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA requires the elements listed above plus the
following:
The misrepresentation was made with the intent to deceive a
U.S. Government official authorized to act upon the request
(generally an immigration or consular officer); and
The U.S. Government official believed and acted upon the
false representation by granting the benefit.
Since a specific set of elements must exist before USCIS can apply
a finding of fraud to requests for certain benefits, including
applications for asylum, USCIS quantifies fraud by the number of
affirmative asylum applications granted by USCIS that are subsequently
terminated for fraud. USCIS revoked previously approved asylum status
in 158 cases during fiscal year 2017. We do not have data on how many
people have been criminally charged or found guilty of perjury based on
filing of fraudulent asylum claims.