[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ADMINISTRATION'S APPARENT
REVOCATION OF MEDICAL DEFERRED
ACTION FOR CRITICALLY ILL CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-953 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland James Comer, Kentucky
Harley Rouda, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Katie Hill, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ralph Norman, South Carolina
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Frank Keller, Pennsylvania
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Candyce Phoenix, Subcommittee Staff Director
Amy Stratton, Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn Maloney, New York Chip Roy, Texas, Ranking Minority
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Member
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Robin Kelly, Illinois Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Jimmy Gomez, California Jody Hice, Georgia
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Michael Cloud, Texas
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Columbia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 11, 2019............................... 1
Witnesses
Panel 1
Ms. Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera, Patient with a Rare Disease
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Mr. Jonathan Sanchez, Cystic Fibrosis Patient and Medical
Deferred Action Applicant
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Ms. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Clinical Professor of Law, Director,
Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Penn State Law School
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Dr. Fiona S. Danaher, MD, MPH, Pediatrician, MGH Chelsea
Pediatrics and MGH Child Protection Program, Co-Chair, MGH
Immigrant Health Coalition, Massachusetts, General Hospital for
Children, Instructor in Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Mr. Anthony Marino, Director, Immigration Legal Services, Irish
International Immigrant Center
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Mr. Thomas Homan, Former Director, U.S. Immigration and Customers
Enforcement
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Panel 2
Mr. Timothy Robbins, Acting Executive Associate Director,
Enforcement and Removal Operation, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................... 48
Mr. Daniel Renaud, Associate Director, Field Operations
Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................... 49
Written opening statements and witnesses' written statements are
available at the U.S. House of Representatives Repository:
https://docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
------
The documents listed below are available at: https://
docs.house.gov.
* 9 National Non-Profits' Statement for the Record
* 16 National Non-Profits' Statement for the Record
* AILA Client Letters
* AILA Statement for the Record
* AAP Statement for the Record
* Amer Fed of Teachers (AFT) Statement
* ASPN Statement
* CLINIC Statement
* CWS Statement
* Epilepsy Foundation Statement
* IIC Statement
* Little Lobbyists Statement
* Mass Law Reform Institute (MLRI)
* Mount Sinai Statement for the Record
* NDY Statement
* NORD Statement
* NYLAG Statement
* TNAAP Statement
* Unity Health Care Statement
* Martin Lawler, Immigration Attorney, Statement
* Letter of Support from Ms. Maria Abreu for Ms. Bueso to stay
in the U.S; submitted by Rep Ocasio-Cortez
THE ADMINISTRATION'S APPARENT
REVOCATION OF MEDICAL DEFERRED
ACTION FOR CRITICALLY ILL CHILDREN
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:13 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamie Raskin
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Raskin, Maloney, Wasserman
Schultz, Gomez, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Norton, Cummings (ex
officio), Roy, Massie, Meadows, Hice, Cloud, Miller, Keller,
and Jordan (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives DeSaulnier, Hill, Tlaib, and
Grothman.
Mr. Raskin. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
Today's subcommittee hearing is about the administration's
decision to end consideration of request to defer deportation,
including for critically ill children.
We have a number of members who are waiving on today, and
we are delighted to have them. And without objection, I will
waive on Katie Hill from California, Mark DeSaulnier from
California, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan, and Glenn Grothman
from Wisconsin, all members of the broader Oversight Committee.
I now will recognize myself for five minutes to give an
opening statement.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses and their families
who've come from all over the country today. And I want to
thank them for testifying, particularly Ms. Bueso, who is from
Mr. DeSaulnier's district in California, and Mr. Sanchez, who
is from Ms. Pressley's district in Massachusetts. It's hard to
imagine what the past month has been like for you and for your
families, and I appreciate your coming forward bravely to share
your stories with us.
I also want to extend my gratitude to Ms. Pressley and Mr.
DeSaulnier for their characteristically excellent efforts to
address this current turn of events.
And I also want to thank our other witnesses, Dr. Danaher,
Mr. Marino, and Mr. Homan for coming today.
We are here to discuss the Trump administration's decision
to deport critically ill children and their families from our
country. This policy is completely at odds with American
values. People come to our country to receive lifesaving
treatment from our pioneering doctors and hospitals and
researchers, and we do not expect our government to implement
life-denying policies.
Last month, without notifying Congress or the public, the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, began denying
all nonmilitary deferred action requests. Most of these
requests are made by sick immigrants and their families who are
seeking to stay in the United States to receive critical
medical care that is simply not available to them in their home
countries. The administration decided to cast out some of the
most vulnerable and defenseless people on Earth, and there are
families across America whose children would essentially be
sentenced to death eventually by this stunningly harsh and
cruel policy.
Ms. Bueso, who is here today, was invited to the U.S. to
participate in a medical study on her disease that extended her
life expectancy by 10 years. To live, she relies on a weekly
infusion that's unavailable in her home country, and she'll
tell you about it.
Mr. Sanchez, Jonathan, whom I've met, suffers from cystic
fibrosis, a disease that my family knows well. And I am also
the proud representative of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in
Montgomery County, which has led a campaign that has absolutely
transformed the treatment of cystic fibrosis and made America
the leader in pioneering medical research and change in that
disease.
Jonathan's parents lost his older sister to the disease due
to dramatically inferior and substandard medical care in
Honduras, and he will tell you about that. And now they face
the prospect of being sent back there.
Joaquim Norville, a seven-year-old boy from Guyana, was in
the United States when he suffered a seizure and was diagnosed
with epilepsy. He was visiting his grandparents who are U.S.
citizens. Thanks to deferred action, his grandparents did not
have to send him back to Guyana where continuing treatment for
his collapsed lung, colon infection, and the removal of his
large intestine was essentially impossible. His mother fears
that returning to Guyana now would be, quote, "signing my son's
death warrant."
Serena Bodia, a 14-year-old with a congenital heart
condition, has already gone beyond the life expectancy given to
her by doctors in Spain. I think actually Serena is 16. I'm not
sure if I've got the right information there, but she'll
correct us.
An eight-year-old girl in Miami suffering from nerve cancer
relies on her dad to take her to monthly treatments in New
York. Her father needs deferred action to stay in the United
States with his daughter.
A man from Venezuela has been able to care for his wife who
suffers from a brain blood flow malformation, and his daughter
has metastatic stage IV neuroblastoma. The administration told
him to leave the country this month or to face deportation.
This new policy threatens sick immigrants who may be forced
to leave America and end their lifesaving treatment. It
threatens U.S. citizens and lawful residents who rely on
immigrant family members for financial and emotional support
while they're here. It threatens crucial medical research and
progress by undermining clinical trials that rely on the
participation of immigrants with rare diseases, and we'll hear
about that.
The officials responsible for this policy must be held
accountable for their recklessness and their failure to take
even the most basic steps to determine the incalculable harm
that would have resulted from this policy.
The administration's decision to expel these immigrants was
exacerbated by the limited time they were given to leave.
According to medical experts, 33 days is not nearly enough time
to even attempt to arrange for proper continuity of medical
care overseas.
For days, USCIS and ICE squabbled about who was responsible
for the decision and how to implement it and whether there was
indeed a new process for stay requests. As they bickered,
families were left in panic with all-consuming dread and
terror. USCIS claimed that ICE would consider stay requests,
but ICE denied those reports.
The only recourse ICE offers would require vulnerable
families to risk deportation before they can request a stay of
removal. This is the unnecessary collateral damage facing every
family caught between this bureaucratic tug of war between
USCIS and ICE. It appears that no one in either agency
contemplated or cared about the full implications of this
change for the families involved.
This administration's recent so-called reversal of the
policy does not resolve the life-and-death consequences faced
by many more families. After these heart-wrenching realities
became public, the administration backtracked and announced
that it would reopen all deferral requests that were pending on
August 7, but there are still critical questions left
unanswered.
Will anyone who applied after August 7 be eligible for
relief? Does the administration actually plan to grant relief
to those who have reopened applications? What will happen to
families that are currently receiving deferred action but will
need to reapply once their two-year stay expires?
Without answers to these key questions, the
administration's reversal appears primarily aimed at avoiding a
tidal wave of criticism from the public. It gives the
appearance of change without necessarily altering the essence
of the policy.
The administration must immediately and completely reverse
this policy and continue granting deferred action requests in
cases of people who are here today and those like them. There
are people who applied after August 7 who are still facing the
33-day deadline to leave America, a deadline that will arrive
within days or weeks for some people. That's unacceptable.
There is no justification for the incompetence of this
decision, and there's no excuse for the recklessness displayed
by our government in this whole affair. I look forward to
having a serious and rigorous analysis of these events and a
discussion of how we can all move forward together to repair
the damages.
It's now my honor to recognize our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Roy from Texas, for his opening statement.
Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the distinguished chairman. It's
nice to see you back and to be back here.
I appreciate the witnesses for taking the time out of your
schedules and your lives for being here. And I appreciate your
testimony today.
I think that as we gather here today, it is important to
remember and reflect that today is September 11, that we as a
Nation reflect on the tragedy of the terrorist attacks 18 years
ago today. A number of us on a bipartisan basis gathered on the
Capitol steps today in a moment of silence, and our hearts and
prayers and thoughts are all with, obviously, those affected by
it and the family members.
But importantly, also to remember those who in the law
enforcement community, first responders, people that ran toward
buildings, and really just want to thank all of our law
enforcement community, including you, Mr. Homan, and your life
of public service and law enforcement in supporting the United
States.
I would also, you know, note that I want to thank the
chairman for moving the hearing to today. There was some
discussion of it occurring during August. Last week, would have
been very difficult for people to make it, so I'm glad that
it's this week so we can have a better attendance.
I think as we discuss this topic, and it's an important
topic, that perspective is important. This past summer, we have
seen, obviously, an unprecedented surge in migrants crossing
into our country. We saw a growing humanitarian crisis at our
border. At the end of August, apprehensions for the Fiscal Year
are around 818,000, and we've already outpaced the total for
2018, which was 521,000.
We've seen agencies, such as Border Patrol and ICE,
struggling to fulfill their mission. You know, the committee
held three hearings in the month of July alone on immigration
and border security.
And during August, I personally made a visit to DHS
facilities in McAllen, Texas. I was pleased to be joined by my
friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, as well as my
friend from Texas, Mr. Cloud, to look and see what's occurring
down on our southern border.
And they're important conversations to have. As a Member of
Congress, as an American, as a Christian, we should be
compassionate and do the right thing. We should help those in
need.
The question, though, is that we are a Nation of laws,
we're a Nation of sovereignty, and we are willing--and, you
know, what question I think is important to ask is are we
willing to send a clear message of what those laws are and then
figure out how to navigate within a system of rule of law so
that we can understand how it impacts our Nation who pays for
healthcare and what the expectations are.
My understanding, for example, is the average number of
cases that we're just talking about today is about 1,000 a
year, give or take. That's an important number. These are real
people. And for each one of those, one of those thousand, this
is extremely important and we need to figure out the right
processes and make them work.
Let's keep in mind we're talking about 1,000 cases, and
right now, as we previously discussed, we've had almost 900,000
people who have crossed and been apprehended into our country
since last October 1. That's an enormous number. Of them,
almost 600,000 have been caught and released into our Nation.
These are matter of fact.
We've had a significant onslaught where CBP and ICE are
trying to figure out what to do. We've got an overwhelmed
system. USCIS is overwhelmed. The entire system is bulging at
the seams because we, this body, refuse to do our job, simply
put. We're not doing our job to send clear signals and to make
sure that the resources are there to adequately deal with the
situation at hand.
And, you know, let's think about, you know, the people who
deserve our compassion. I think those people, all the people
that we're talking about here deserve our compassion, including
those of those 900,000 I just talked about who are abused on a
journey because they're going through a tough journey with
illicit illegal organizations in Mexico, who are often in stash
houses, who are often being held for ransom, women, girls
abused on a journey, and we ignore that while we talk about how
great open borders are, for some reason the false name of
compassion, how good that is in our southern border.
Let's talk about the 600,000 that were caught and released
and are in a sort of perpetual cycle in the United States.
Let's talk about human trafficking in this country that is
getting worse because we're allowing illegal organizations to
extend into our communities.
And let's talk about the compassion owed to our law
enforcement personnel, CBP, ICE, and other agents who have been
overwhelmed and are being trashed on a daily basis by Members
of the U.S. Congress, trashed with deceitful and outright lies,
disparaging these law enforcement officers doing their job.
And today, though, as we discuss medical deferred action, I
think we should ask some serious questions. Does the process we
have work? Yes or no. Is anybody left outside looking in who
doesn't know what the rules of the road are? Let's establish
what the rules of the road are and then let's follow them and
let's send clear signals as to what those are, and then let's
operate in the right humane and compassionate way to handle
those questions.
What agency is best situated to handle status questions for
those seeking healthcare? Is it USCIS? Is it ICE? Is it anybody
else? Let's answer those questions honestly and not hide behind
rhetoric. Let's set a clear message, what are the rules, and
then follow them.
You know, I'm encouraged today that the agencies are here
to correct any information or misinformation about the current
status of pending deferred action requests. My understanding is
that USCIS has had 791 deferred action requests pending.
Between August 7 and September 5, denial letters went to 424 of
those requests. All of those 424 claims have been reopened and
will be evaluated and have received letters indicating that
truth.
I would certainly love to know the question as to what
happened in terms of the letters going out, how that occurred,
and then now the reversal of that. I think we should look into
that.
USCIS did not issue any issue to appear, NTAs, for those
424 requests. That's what I understand. Since August 7, USCIS
has rejected 40 deferred action requests. Since September 5,
there have been no additional requests. So, we can look in,
make sure that's true. That's what I understand.
Historically, USCIS has been the only agency to grant
deferred action to someone not in removal proceedings. Deferred
action can be revoked at any time. And when determining
deferred action, no specific criteria or application was used.
Field officers used their discretion in the totality of the
circumstances to make a decision. I want to know is that
accurate.
And when asked how the individuals who may have received
deferred action came to the country initially, USCIS noted it
does not track that data since there is no formal application
for the process, and it's a mixed bag. I'd like to know. I'd
like to track that, I'd like to understand it, and I'd like to
know about it. And so now I think we'll learn from some of
those things from the hearing today.
So, in wrapping up, I want to reiterate what I said in our
July hearing. If we want real reform, real change, then we need
to be discussing the root of the problem. The problem, in my
opinion, is that we refuse as a Congress to stand behind the
rule of law and make clear that our immigration and border laws
are enforced.
I think we need clear rules of the road, and I think we
need to follow them. I think that is better for our Nation. I
think that is better for our sovereignty. I think that is
better for the migrants who seek to come here. I think it is
better for those who are sick, looking for care. I think it is
better for a just and humane way of dealing with things.
And I think that we should stop sending mixed signals. I
think we should stop sending signals it's okay to come here
illegally, to stay over visas, to empower illicit criminal
organizations and cartels, and to--and basically have a system
where we have indentured servitude in our country because we're
allowing this broken system to continue.
We just had 50,000 apprehensions at the southwest border in
August. You see lots of news accounts saying how that's
dropping down and how we should celebrate that. Well, it's
still enormously high. It is still an enormously high number.
We are still overwhelmed at the border, even as those decline
in the heat of the summer.
At the peak of the crisis there were 132,000 apprehensions
at the border. And so as this proceeding continues today, we
need to remember the underlying factors driving the crisis. We
need to secure the border and do our job, and that all the
pointing of fingers at the agencies and spewing of rhetoric
here doesn't solve the problem but rather real reform will
start here in Congress.
I want to thank the agencies for appearing today. I'd like
to thank all the witnesses for appearing today, and look
forward to hearing from each one of you through the rest of the
hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Mr. Roy, thank you very much. And I
want to associate myself with your comments about 9/11, and I'm
glad indeed that we were able to have a ceremony of all of the
members of the House today observing this important
remembrance.
I now want to welcome our first panel of witnesses. It is
my pleasure to have you here, and I thank you all for the great
pains you've come to join us.
The witnesses are Maria Isabel Bueso [Barrera]; Jonathan
Sanchez; Shoba Wadhia, who is a clinical professor of law and
the director of the Center for Immigrant Rights Clinic at Penn
State Law School; Dr. Fiona Danaher, who is a pediatrician from
Mass General Hospital Chelsea Pediatrics and Mass General
Health Child Protection; Anthony Marino, the director of
Immigration Legal Services at the Irish International Immigrant
Center; and Mr. Thomas Homan, the former director of the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Okay. For all the witnesses who are able, please rise and
raise your right hands, and I will begin by swearing the whole
panel in. And if you are not, please just raise your hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you very much. Please be seated.
Please speak directly into the microphones. You have five
minutes. And without objection, your written statements will be
made part of the record so we will get a comprehensive look at
what you have to say even if you don't get it all in within
five minutes.
With that, Ms. Bueso, you are now recognized to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARIA ISABEL BUESO BARRERA, PATIENT WITH A RARE
DISEASE
Ms. Bueso Barrera. I would like to thank the members of the
House Committee on Oversight and Reform for the opportunity to
speak before you and share my story.
My name is Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera. I'm 24 years old. I
came to the U.S. from Guatemala when I was only seven to
participate in a clinical trial to save my life and the lives
of those like me.
I came here legally and have been a legal resident in this
country for over 16 years. But on August 13, the USCIS sent a
letter giving me and my family just 33 days to leave the
country. While we were grateful to learn that our case would be
reopened, our future is still in question.
This has been an overwhelming time for my family and me
because the medical treatment I need is not available in
Guatemala. I was born with MPS-VI, which affects less than
2,000 people in the world. MPS-VI is a rare life-threatening
disorder. My life expectancy was very short, and the doctor
said I might not live into my teens.
At the time of my diagnosis, there was no approved therapy
to treat MPS-VI. Then in 2001, I met Dr. Harmatz at UCSF
Benioff Children's Hospital in Oakland, who was conducting
clinical trials with an enzyme replacement therapy. He
desperately needed more patients willing to participate in this
research. I was selected for the trial, and my family was
invited to come to the USA on a B-2 visa so I could participate
in the study.
As a young child, it was not fun spending so much time in a
hospital, but I also understood it was an honor and a
privilege. As I matured, it was rewarding to know that what I
was doing was going to help a lot of people. I have continued
participating in clinical trials until this day to help the
next generation with the treatment of my disease.
The first study I participated in was successful and led to
the FDA approval of the first and only treatment. Thanks to
this study, other children with MPS-VI in the U.S. now have a
safe and effective treatment that will help them live longer
and have a higher quality of life.
Doctors told me that if I stopped the treatment, my
condition would decline quickly and I could die within months.
So, after the FDA approval, my family relocated to California
so I could continue receiving this lifesaving treatment.
In addition to MPS-VI, I also suffer from paraplegia and I
use a power wheelchair for mobility. I have a tracheotomy and I
have a VP shunt in my brain, making my healthcare even more
complicated. Still, the decision to relocate was hard. My
parents left a middle-class life, their careers, family, and
friends. My father is a computer systems engineer and found a
sponsor for an H-1 visa so that he could provide for us.
In 2009, we petitioned for a change in status, and we were
granted deferred action for humanitarian reasons. We renewed
this status every two years, but this year, due to change in
policy, our request was denied.
I want to live. I'm a human being with hopes and dreams in
my life. Despite my physical challenges, I have worked hard to
achieve my goals. I graduated Summa Cum Laude from Cal State
East Bay and was director of the associated students for the
Concord Campus. I established a scholarship to support students
with physical and mental disabilities at CSUEB, and I now work
as an advocate for people with rare diseases.
This summer, I was an intern at California Assemblymember
Rob Bonta's District in Oakland. With the incredible support of
my family, I have stayed positive and maintained hope through
many struggles. I'm grateful for the opportunity this country
has given me to receive medical treatment and to live much
longer than expected. And I'm grateful for the humane
immigration policies that have made my life here possible, and
with that life I want to make a difference for others.
I am asking Congress and the administration to come
together and to right the wrong of this change in policy. This
is not a partisan issue; this is a humanitarian issue and our
lives depend on it.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Bueso.
Mr. Sanchez.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SANCHEZ, CYSTIC FIBROSIS PATIENT AND
MEDICAL DEFERRED ACTION APPLICANT
Mr. Sanchez. My name is Jonathan Eduardo Sanchez, and I'm a
16-year-old boy that has cystic fibrosis, a disease that
affects primarily the lungs. Also, it affects the digestive
system and my pancreas.
I want to tell you about my life back in my native country,
that's Honduras, and how my life has changed since I came to
the USA in 2016. I was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras in 2003. I
lived there for my first 12 years of my life.
When I was three months old, my parents found that I had
CF. It was a pretty scary day for them. It was frightening
because three years before I was born, they had a daughter
named Samantha. She was born with a problem in her intestines.
Unfortunately, the doctors in Honduras didn't know how to treat
her or how to help her.
Six months and two days after she was born, my sister
passed away. This was a pretty heartbroken moment for my
parents. One month after, they noticed that she had cystic
fibrosis. And right now, they're worried that if I go back to
my country, it will happen the same thing to me.
On the year 2016, we came to the USA legally with our
tourist visas to search for a better cystic fibrosis treatment
for me. When I go for the first time to Boston Children's
Hospital in Massachusetts, they made me a pulmonary function
test, and the results told me that I had only 40 to 42 percent
on my pulmonary function test.
The doctors of Boston Children's Hospital told my parents
that I came to the USA literally dying. After the first visit,
they sent me home with some of the CF medication that I should
take and that I wasn't able to get in my country. The first
time I start to get on the treatment, I got pretty tired
because I wasn't used to it.
The doctors, after they made me another pulmonary function
test. This time it gave the answer of 60 to 69 percent on my
pulmonary function test. Right now, my baseline is 90 through
97. Sorry. Right now, I'm using a medication called Orkambi,
that helps like the cystic fibrosis mutation lifts for a bit of
time. But this medication is only in two countries: England and
the United States of America.
CF requires a daily home treatment that takes around half
an hour or two hours if it is longer. This treatment is
basically a percussion vest and nebulizers. I also take tons of
medicines for my pancreas, my stomach, my lungs, and the other
organs that are affected by cystic fibrosis.
However, since we got the letter denying the medical
deferred action application and telling us that we need to
leave the country in 33 days or we'd be deported, my parents
and I felt distressed, sad, scared, and mad. It is incredibly
unfair to kick out kids who are in hospitals or at home getting
treatment to save their lives.
The day our lawyers told us that the medical deferred
action program was canceled, I started crying and telling my
mom, I don't want to die. I don't want to die. If I go back to
Honduras, I will die. After this, I feel so tired, both
emotionally and mentally. I could not even sleep properly.
I feel disappointed with the USA Government that they
canceled this program. Sorry for that. In my point of view,
thinking that deporting sick kids like me, it will be a legal
homicide because in our countries, doesn't exist any type of
treatment.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.
Dr. Wadhia.
STATEMENT OF SHOBA SIVAPRASAD WADHIA, CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF
LAW, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS CLINIC, PENN STATE
LAW SCHOOL
Ms. Wadhia. Ranking Member Jordan, Chairman Raskin, Ranking
Member Roy, and distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am a law
professor at Penn State Law in University Park and testifying
in my individual capacity.
My scholarship, teaching, and practice focus on immigration
law, a field I have worked in for 20 years. I have published
two books with NYU Press. My first book, ``Beyond
Deportation,'' binds nearly a decade of research on the history
of prosecutorial discretion and deferred action in immigration
cases. My second book, ``Banned,'' examines immigration
enforcement and discretion during the first 18 months of the
Trump administration.
Deferred action enjoys a long history in both Democratic
and Republican administrations. First called nonpriority
status, deferred action operated informally for most of the
20th century. In the early 1970's, as part of his effort to
support his clients John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Attorney Leon
Wildes reviewed over 1,800 deferred action cases, many
involving medical infirmity and humanitarian factors.
In 1975, INS issued guidance on deferred action through
operations instructions. In 1996, the operations instructions
were moved into a new publication known as standard operating
procedures, or SOP. The 2012 SOP from USCIS describes how an
individual, legal representative, or USCIS can request deferred
action.
Deferred action does not provide a formal legal status, but
the legal foundation to use it is crystal clear. The
immigration statute, Federal court decisions, and legal
opinions by INS and DHS have recognized the legality of
deferred action.
Regulations published during the Reagan Administration
explicitly identify deferred action as one basis for work
authorization. USCIS has used deferred action in medical and
humanitarian cases for decades. The idea is longstanding and,
in fact, customary.
In one dataset I received in 2011, nearly half of the cases
I could identify involved serious medical conditions, and many
of the cases involved more than one factor. For example,
deferred action was granted to a 47-year-old schizophrenic who
overstayed his visa, was the son of a lawful permanent
resident, and had siblings who were U.S. citizens. Over 100 of
these cases involved people whose homes were destroyed by an
earthquake in Haiti.
In another dataset of 578 cases obtained from USCIS in
2013, 336 were based on medical issues. One case involved a
Mexican female who entered the United States without inspection
and had two U.S. citizen children. One of her children had Down
syndrome, and the other child had serious medical conditions.
I received a third dataset from USCIS in 2016, again
revealing that many deferred action requests were based on
serious medical conditions. The dataset included a child with
burns on over 65 percent of their body and parents of USC
children with cerebral palsy.
USCIS has a long history and the expertise of handling
cases for vulnerable populations and should continue to process
humanitarian deferred action cases. Preserving an affirmative
deferred action process at USCIS allows a person to request
what is often a lifesaving protection without having to undergo
removal proceedings and also saves the government resources.
Further, nearly every legal opinion from INS and DHS on
prosecutorial discretion instructs officers to exercise
prosecutorial discretion at the earliest stage of the
enforcement process. Stripping USCIS of jurisdiction over
deferred action forces a noncitizen to instead exhaust the
enforcement process. Who is served by placing a cancer patient
who might ordinarily request deferred action at USCIS into the
removal process? No one.
Finally, USCIS should improve transparency by publishing
statistics about deferred action and providing greater notice
and information to the public.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Dr. Wadhia. I'm afraid your time is
up. We'll have further time for questions.
Dr. Danaher.
STATEMENT OF FIONA S. DANAHER, MD, MPH, PEDIATRICIAN, MGH
CHELSEA PEDIATRICS AND MGH CHILD PROTECTION PROGRAM
Dr. Danaher. Ranking Member Jordan, Chairman Raskin,
Ranking Member Roy, and distinguished members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I am Dr. Fiona Danaher, a pediatrician at Massachusetts
General Hospital for Children, where much of my clinical work
focuses on the care of children in immigrant families. I have
come here today to express the profound concerns that I and my
colleagues share over USCIS's potential termination of the
medical deferred action program.
Our hospital cares for children who have benefited from the
program, including a young child with a rare genetic condition
that causes seizures and developmental challenges. In the
country of origin, this child's condition is stigmatizing and
deemed unworthy of care.
The family was told the child would suffer from intractable
seizures and die within a year. Refusing to accept that nothing
could be done, the family left everything behind to seek a
second opinion at Mass General Hospital's specialized clinic
devoted to this genetic condition, one of only a handful of
such clinics in the world.
Thanks to the family's determination and the care of a
dedicated clinical team, this child has lived a longer and much
richer life, attending school and achieving some mobility in
social skills. None of this would have been possible without
the medical deferred action program. Now the child's status is
due for renewal at a time when the program may arbitrarily end,
jeopardizing much hard-won progress.
When pediatricians care for medically complex children, we
often do so with bated breath. These children are by definition
vulnerable. Whether they suffer from cancer, cystic fibrosis,
muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, or one of number of other
diseases, they require care from a multidisciplinary team of
specialists.
Depending upon their underlying condition, an error as a
simple as a mis-dosed medication, a dislodged tracheostomy
breathing tube, or a poorly covered sneeze could spell
catastrophe. For many of these children, their health is so
tenuous as to make travel unsafe, and their clinicians would
hesitate to even transfer them to another hospital within the
United States, never mind overseas.
Should these children be forced to return to their home
countries, their care may be impeded not only by stigma and
misunderstanding, as in our patient's case, but by lack of
basic resources. Access to safe food and water is not a given
in many parts of the world and chronically ill children
routinely die from malnutrition or infection as a result.
Unreliable electrical grids threaten the health of children
who depend upon intervention such as pumps, ventilators, or
medications that spoil without consistent refrigeration.
Particularly frail children can die from heat-related
complications for want of access to air-conditioning.
Severe air pollution in developing countries poses a dire
hazard for children with underlying lung disease, and
immunocompromised children are poorly equipped to handle
exposure to endemic infectious diseases such as malaria,
diarrhea, measles, and pneumonia.
Healthcare systems in many low middle-income countries are
still in their nascence. Simply transporting an acutely ill
child to a hospital can pose an insurmountable challenge in
areas without ambulances or safe roads. Supply chains are
inconsistent, so should the child make it to the hospital, the
medications and equipment he or she needs may still prove
unobtainable, as may the skilled personnel needed to administer
them.
It is sadly not hyperbole to say that sending medically
fragile children to such environments amounts to issuing them a
death sentence. Adding insult to injury, such children could
find themselves unable to access even the most rudimentary
palliative care to ease the anxiety and physical pain of their
passing.
Perhaps no intervention is more crucial to minimize the
suffering of a severely ill child than maintaining the presence
of a loving family member at the bedside. Terminating the
medical deferred action program would leave some medically
complex U.S. citizen children struggling not only with the
physical burden of their disease, but with the emotional trauma
of forced separation from their immigrant parents. No child can
be expected to heal under such circumstances. This is not just
bad medicine; it is unconscionably inhumane.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services building
here in Washington, DC. bears an engraved quote from its
namesake, Hubert H. Humphrey. It reads: The moral test of
government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life,
the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged;
and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the
handicapped.
My colleagues at Mass General and I respectfully urge USCIS
to embrace the moral imperative of permitting our young
patients the opportunity to heal and to thrive.
Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Dr. Danaher.
Mr. Marino.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY MARINO, DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES, IRISH INTERNATIONAL IMMIGRANT CENTER
Mr. Marino. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Roy, Ranking
Member Jordan, distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me here today and for hearing these stories.
I'm here today in my capacity as the director of legal
services at the Irish International Immigrant Center where we
provide legal wellness and education services to immigrants
from Ireland and 120 countries around the world. In our legal
program, we have represented dozens of families facing the
horrific circumstances that always accompany an application for
deferred action.
In the majority of deferred action cases I've seen, an
individual entered temporarily and then fell ill, was gravely
injured, or received a terrifying diagnosis. Sometimes the
illness or injury makes travel impossible. Sometimes lifesaving
treatment is just not available in a home country. In the vast
majority of cases we handle, it's a child whose life is at
stake.
We represent children with cerebral palsy, muscular
dystrophy, a child blinded by the cancer in her eyes, a child
who is suffering multiple seizures every day. We represent
children confined to wheelchairs, connected to feeding tubes
and tracheostomy tubes. And in each of these cases, there is a
family with no desire to break any law but who simply cannot
leave without putting a life in danger.
And in these kinds of dire circumstances, the government
has always provided a relief valve, a process by which a family
could come forward rather than cowering in the shadows over a
sick child and lay out their circumstances, explain to USCIS
why travel had become impossible, even deadly, and that the
government would agree to allow them to continue their child's
care.
I know that lives have been saved by this program. I've
sadly also known children we've represented to die in this
program. But even in those cases, the brief reprieve by the
government bought those families precious time. This
longstanding legal program is what protects people from
government actions that would shock the conscience and betray
our fundamental values as a Nation.
I was shocked then three weeks ago when I received the
first denial notice, and over the course of the next two weeks,
about a dozen more. They all contained the same boilerplate
language: USCIS field offices no longer consider these
applications at all. Leave in 33 days or we may initiate your
removal.
The decision to terminate the program was done in secret.
There was no prior notice, no opportunity to advocate for the
program, and no opportunity to prepare my clients for those
denial letters. We immediately reached out to all the families
who were applying or were in the program already, and I've had
some of the most difficult conversations of my life over the
past few weeks.
Clients have asked me what the government expects them to
do, to disconnect a child from lifesaving support, to put them
on a flight that they may not survive. They've asked me what I
would do. And we file many applications for parents whose U.S.
citizen children suffer these life-threatening diseases, and in
these cases, the termination of the program threatens yet more
family separation. There are parents right now having
conversations about whether to orphan a child in order to
extend his or her life.
When the terrible reality of what they had done became
public, USCIS's initial response to the media was to deny that
they eliminated the program. They claimed they had simply
transferred it to ICE, and, of course, our clients wanted to
know what that meant and how much danger their families were
in. Media outlets were contacting our center trying to get us
to explain it to them, and I had to tell them that the only
information I had I was getting from them.
But the transfer to ICE appears to have just been false.
There's no new procedure. There's no new program. And ICE
officials have since confirmed, again through the media, that
they have no program in place and no plan to implement one.
After USCIS's latest press alert last week, we began
receiving notices that some cases would be reconsidered. We
still don't know what that might mean for those families. The
press alert references Department of State regulations, and
it's unclear if this means they're applying the same standard
they always have or if they've made up some new standard that
we don't know.
And the press alert and these reconsideration notices we've
received still indicate that the program has been terminated
moving forward. It leaves no option for families in these dire
circumstances now or in the future. Because the program was
terminated in secret, people didn't know. They kept filing. We
filed applications as recently as August 16, and we have no
idea what it means for that case.
Deferred action is a critical, literally lifesaving program
that impacts a small number of families but in an absolutely
immeasurable way. And ultimately, USCIS hasn't backtracked so
much as doubled down. They've delayed the consequences of their
decision for a handful of families, but that's it. And unless
Congress or the courts can either convince or compel USCIS to
reinstate the program, everyone in it and everyone that would
otherwise benefit from it is in a horribly worse position
today.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Marino, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Homan.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS HOMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Homan. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Roy, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here before you today on this very
important subject which is the appropriate exercise of
prosecutorial discretion.
My name is Tom Homan. I'm a veteran of the Nation's
immigration service. I retired in 2018 after having served more
than 34 years enforcing immigration law. As you know, I'm
passionate about this issue, and I'm glad to be back to testify
in a different aspect of it today.
But before I delve into the details pertaining to the
subject of today's hearing, I would also like to pause to
reflect on this being the 18th anniversary of the cowardly 9/11
terrorist attacks on our homeland. May God have mercy on those
innocent victims who lost their lives and their families, and
may we continue to protect this country against those that want
to destroy us and the freedom we enjoy in this country.
I also want to salute and honor the fallen soldiers that
took to fight to those who attacked us and made the ultimate
sacrifice. I, for one, will never forget.
Regarding today's hearing, I would like to start by
clearing up what appears to be a common misunderstanding: It is
not lawful to have a deferred action program at any Federal
agency. The word ``program'' conjures the idea that an entire
class of aliens, if they meet certain criteria, are entitled to
a benefit, in this case deferred action. That is simply not the
case.
When you break it down to the most basic underpinnings of
the law, deferred action is the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion. And prosecutorial discretion, whether it's a stay
of removal, deferred action, administrative closure, may only
be exercised, one, on a case-by-case basis and not for a class,
according to a set of criteria; and two, by law enforcement
agencies.
Again, prosecutorial discretion is rightfully only
exercisable on a case-by-case basis, and even then, only by the
relevant prosecuting agency, a law enforcement agency that has
a statutory authority over those laws.
And I'm here to answer those questions about that program
today. It's an important hearing, and these are important
questions that we'll be talking about today.
But I want to change the course here for one minute. I
understand this hearing is very important. That's why I
accepted the offer to come here today and discuss it with the
Members of Congress and the American people. Any policy that
affects lives is important. One death that could have been
prevented is too many.
But I must voice the concern that I have about these types
of hearings. I have noticed that the House is quick to schedule
hearings whenever there's a policy change or an operational
change that some think--and usually they're wrong--that this
change may negatively impact someone that knowingly violated
our laws and may be in the country illegally.
I don't see the same sense of urgency when existing
policies put our citizens in danger, puts this country's
security in danger, or result in an unsecure border, which
results in not just a humanitarian crisis, but a national
security crisis.
While we continue to have hearings which contain inaccurate
titles, misleading titles that only serve to push a false
narrative about the actions of this administration and vilify
the brave men and women that serve within this administration,
you are choosing to ignore a bigger problem that affects many,
many, many more lives, many more than this recent policy
change.
If you want to effect meaningful change that will save
countless lives, you need to refocus and add to this hearing
today. For instance, where are the hearings to discuss the
crisis on the border and the three loopholes that are causing
much of the crisis? Where are the hearings on existing
loopholes around the asylum laws that are being abused, the
TVPRA that is causing many children to be put in the hands of
criminal organizations and put in great danger? Where are the
hearings concerning the Flores settlement agreement that has
resulted in unprecedented flow of family units that resulted in
countless child trafficking victims, 32 percent of women being
sexually abused and children dying?
Criminal cartels are making millions of dollars a year
because of congressional inaction, but I see no hearings on
this. These same cartels that have murdered Border Patrol
agents, where are all those hearings?
This humanitarian crisis has caused a national security
crisis because half the Border Patrol is no longer on the
frontline. Where's that hearing?
You want to conjure up a false narrative about sending
dying children home, but you won't address sanctuary policies
that provide sanctuaries to criminals and put our communities
at risk. Many children and others have been raped and murdered
by criminal illegal aliens after being released from a
sanctuary jail, but I don't see a hearing on that.
Thousands of Angel Moms and Angel Dads have been born out
of sanctuary policies, but I don't see the urgency that we have
on things that we want to attack the administration on. I don't
see a hearing on that.
Our Nation's heroes in ICE and Border Patrol are under
attack. Their families are being attacked and bullied in
public, in churches, and at schools. Even companies that work
with us are under attack, and their lives are being threatened.
Where's the hearing on that? I am hearing nothing but dead
silence on this issue.
What I do hear are Members of Congress joining in on the
hate. It's truly unbelievable.
I ask that you step back and take a breath. Attack this
administration a little bit less and actually address the
underlying problems that cause all these problems. Do your job
and fix the loopholes. Make hearings meaningful and actually
take some legislative action after the hearing rather than
staging more political fear.
No Member of Congress should be against securing our
border. There's no downside of that. There's no downside on
less illegal immigration. There's no downside on less illegal
drugs. There's no downside on taking money out of cartels'
hands that are murdering our agents.
Today's hearing is important. I want to make that straight.
This is a very important hearing. We need to discuss it. I'm
glad to be here, but we need to talk about these other issues
down the road.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Homan, for your testimony.
We will now begin the period of questioning from the
members, and I will recognize myself for five minutes for
questions.
On September 2, after the subcommittee demanded USCIS and
ICE appear at this hearing, the administration announced a
partial reversal of the new policy. In particular, USCIS Stated
that it would, quote, "reopen requests for deferred action"
that were, quote, "pending on August 7, 2019."
Ms. Bueso, you and your family were told by USCIS in a
letter dated August 13, 2019, that you need to leave the
country by September 14, which is this coming Saturday.
I'd like to put the letter up on the screen, if we could.
And in the meantime, quickly, let me just ask you a
question, Ms. Bueso. You were recruited to participate in
several clinical trials. Is that right?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. That's correct.
Mr. Raskin. So, you were here both for your own treatment
but also to participate in these trials that could help
everyone suffering?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes. Help many, many, many, many
clinical trials that could help other people.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Very good.
Now, if we look up on the screen, USCIS says: If you fail
to depart the United States within 33 days of the date of this
letter, USCIS may issue you a notice to appear and commence
removal proceedings against you with the immigration court.
Was your request submitted before August 7, 2019?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. We sent our package in May.
Mr. Raskin. I'm sorry?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. In May.
Mr. Raskin. In May. In the month of May, okay.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. In May.
Mr. Raskin. Have you received anything from USCIS about
your case since this letter came on August 13?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. No. We received that letter on August
13, and then we got another letter from the USCIS that they
were going to reopen it, but it's still uncertain the
situation.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, you got a letter saying it's been
reopened.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. But it's uncertain. It's not clear.
Mr. Raskin. But we don't know what that means?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes. We don't know what that means. And
I have people here, my lawyer, Martin, he can answer your
question too.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. USCIS, as I understand it, has not
explained to anyone what the practical implications are of this
partial reversal in the wake of public protest about what had
happened, including whether any request submitted prior to
August 7 would eventually be approved.
Mr. Marino, in light of this putative reversal, what
concerns do you have for people who requested deferred action
before August 7?
Mr. Marino. Yes. I wouldn't call it a reversal, because the
press alert that USCIS issued still indicates that they've
terminated the program. They just said they're going to finish
the cases that were pending on August 7. So, I have clients
with sick children now who need access to this program and
aren't able to file.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Mr. Homan had advised against using the
idea of a program, saying this is just selective case-by-case
granting of the deferral. What's your response to that?
Mr. Marino. Yes, I don't see the distinction. There are
lots of programs that have individual discretionary decisions
made in them. There's a standard operating procedure for it. If
he doesn't like the word ``program,'' that's fine, but----
Mr. Raskin. Do you feel confident that requests like Ms.
Bueso's will get a full and fair review from USCIS?
Mr. Marino. I certainly hope so. I'm remaining confident.
I've told my clients I hope that those that they will consider
will get the same consideration that they've always gotten in
the past. But this language in the press alert about some State
Department regulation, we're not sure what that means, so----
Mr. Raskin. There's even more uncertainty about the future
of critically ill kids whose families submitted requests after
August 7.
Mr. Marino. Right.
Mr. Raskin. What's going to happen to immigrants and
families who fell on the wrong side of this August 7 deadline?
Mr. Marino. I have no idea. We filed at least one case
after that, and we've received nothing. So, we didn't receive a
denial. We haven't received anything about new procedures being
in place. We just don't know.
Mr. Raskin. And these are people who are in relatively
similar circumstances in terms of critical medical situations?
Mr. Marino. Yes. I have about 19 families that we
represent, and they're all critical medical conditions.
Mr. Raskin. How would you describe their mental condition
given the legal uncertainty?
Mr. Marino. It's been absolute chaos. People are terrified.
We've had more conversations in my office with crying clients
than ever in history, and that's a big thing to say in an
immigration legal services office. It's been devastating.
People are terrified. It's their children's lives.
Mr. Raskin. Dr. Danaher, let me come to you. What is the
attitude of doctors, nurses, medical personnel, given the
current context about what's happened?
Dr. Danaher. Frankly, we're rather appalled. These patients
are incredibly sick, and they need care, and we'd like to
provide it for them.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And my time has expired, and I am happy
to recognize Mr. Hice for his five minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are a compassionate country, and that goes for both
sides of the aisle and the vast majority of people in this
country. And it's an honor and a privilege to be able to help
those in need, and I welcome and thank everyone on the panel
for being here today.
But there are issues that are before us today that are
broader than what is on the surface. We have organizations, for
example, like USCIS and ICE, who are now being forced to make
decisions they should not be forced to make because this
Congress refuses to pass and deal with serious immigration
reform and implement it.
This committee continues the same type of political
posturing and attacks toward this administration regarding the
border crisis, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing
to address the problem and to offer authentic solutions.
If the Democrats genuinely cared about the plight of
migrants, of unaccompanied children, of sick immigrants and so
forth, then let's come to the table and let's try to get
solutions instead of the continued political posturing.
Let me just review a few things in the recent months that--
unproductive activity. In June, a member from this committee
from the other side of the aisle remarked that the United
States is running concentration camps on our southern border,
vilifying the men and women of ICE, our Border Patrol agents,
who are putting their lives on the line every day to defend us
and protect this country. Then a group of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle issued a press release criticizing the
emergency border supplemental bill that provided increased
funding that would have helped. Then a dozen of my Democratic
Members visited Clint, Texas, the CBP facility there, later
alleging the unsanitary conditions there and that individuals
were being forced to drink out of toilets.
Look, we can address problems if we're willing to get to
the root of the issues and address them. We have the authority
here to do so. But there are things staring us right at the
face that we're totally ignoring, like amending our broken
asylum process, reviewing the Flores settlement agreement,
increased funding for border security.
Listen, I've been at the border. I think I've been to six
out of the nine sectors. I've not seen any of the things that
have come from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I've seen great, hardworking members of our CBP and others
giving all they've got to do a job well.
And, look, we've got to address solutions, and the
solutions are not open border policy. The solutions are not to
decriminalize border crossings.
Mr. Homan, let me just ask you--and thank you and all again
for joining us--why would having an open border policy pose a
security risk?
Mr. Homan. Well, for example, right now, Border Patrol has
about 50 percent of their staff off the line. So, if you're
someone in this world that wants to do harm to this country,
you're not going to buy a plane ticket because there's too many
background checks done. You can't get a visa because of the
visa security program. You're going to enter this country the
way 12 million to 20 million others entered, especially now
when half the border is unsecure.
Mr. Hice. In essence, is decriminalizing border crossing,
is that kind of in itself really an open border policy?
Mr. Homan. Yes, it's another enticement, like sanctuary
cities, like giving free college education or free medical care
or rewarding illegal behavior by giving people citizenship.
It's another enticement that these people put themselves in
harm's way to come here to the country and put themselves in
the hands of criminal organizations.
Mr. Hice. What does it do to the morale of those who are on
the border, those who are agents trying to do their job, when,
be it members of the press or Members of Congress, push false
narratives as to what's going on down there? What does that do
to the morale?
Mr. Homan. Well, it hurts their morale, not only the morale
of the men and women that carry the badge and gun, it hurts the
morale of their families. The spouses say good-bye to their
spouse every day, leave the safety and security of their home
to defend this Nation. And their families, their kids are being
attacked.
When I was ICE director, my kid was attacked. He had death
threats against him. It's out of control. So, the men and women
of ICE and Border Patrol deserve our thanks, not the ridicule
by Members of Congress or the media.
And this open border policy doesn't solve anything. It's
going to create more people coming into this country illegally,
more women will be raped, more children will die, and I've said
that for two years----
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Hice. Your time is expired. I
want to thank the witness.
And I call on Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton next for
her five minutes for questioning.
Delegate Norton, you're up next. You're up now.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
This is a very important hearing, because without you, we
really would have no notion of what is at stake here. The
newspapers, the news reports didn't give us the fine detail,
the fabric that you have given us.
Ms. Bueso, you and your family were granted--you know, it's
amazing that anybody would want to take this away. I didn't
even know we had this. I'm so pleased that we had this kind of
deferred--we had something of this importance that we didn't
even know about, and I'm sorry we didn't know about it, and
then it being taken away is mind-boggling to me.
I'm interested in this matter called MPS-VI. I'd like to
know what the symptoms are, how rare it is. Ms. Bueso, could
you enlighten us on that?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes, sure. So, I'll give the short
version. So, MPS-VI is a rare genetic disorder. I was born
without an enzyme in my body. And, you know, I was born like a
regular baby. Until by the third week had developed problems
getting sick a lot, infection, ER.
But mostly, since my body didn't have the enzyme, the only
treatment that my parents, you know, found is in California.
And with that, you know, treatment, I take every single week,
so once a week for six hours. And I've been doing this for the
past 16 years.
And with that treatment, it had helped me to live longer,
because before, I was told that I'm not going to live, you
know, till my teens, as I mentioned before. And I'm really
grateful. But also, it caused a lot of problems with my heart,
my lungs, my bone, spine, eyes, teeth. It's a whole, whole
list. But I'm really grateful for the treatment that my parents
found because it helped me live longer and not become so
severe. But it's really rare, MPS-VI. Not many people know
about it.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. It's important for us to understand
this condition.
I do want to indicate there's a quid pro quo here.
Obviously, those on deferred action are getting treatment they
wouldn't otherwise get. And look what we're getting. Because of
the diversity of our country, we're getting what we couldn't
get otherwise, and that is, of course, the experience that can
help many more perhaps from the United States.
I want to know the importance of having family. We couldn't
possibly, could we, Ms. Bueso, ask such people to continue this
trial without family? How important is it to have somebody
beside you? Suppose somebody said, okay, let that patient--let
that person remain. What would it mean if there was nobody with
you but you were by yourself?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. No. I'm really grateful for my family,
you know, to come here for my treatment. And also, it's really
an honor to continue doing so many clinical trials, because now
the medicine that I'm getting for MPS are giving it to babies,
which does mean that they are gonna, you know, have less
problems, you know, because they started early, and more
energy. And I'm truly, truly blessed and important to continue
with clinical trials so the doctors can know more about MPS-VI
because it is a really rare condition. But I'm really blessed
with my family.
Ms. Norton. Yes, it seems to me that without the families
present, this wouldn't even be possible for these citizens to
remain and get help for themselves and help us with others.
Mr. Marino, does deferred action help citizens and legal
residents? If so or not, would you let us know how?
Mr. Marino. Absolutely. Half of the children in the
families that we represent who have these illnesses are U.S.
citizens. And the deferred action requests are filed by their
parents so that the parents are able to stay here and are able
to work, to care for the child, to contribute to the cost of
their medical care, to pay the rent. So, especially with
families and children, there are U.S. citizens that are heavily
impacted by this. And if they were to be forced to leave in 33
days, the result would be that they would have to choose
between orphaning the child, leaving the child behind to
continue to get the treatment, or taking the risk of putting
them on a flight or pulling them off of the treatment.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Keller for five minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the members of the panel for being here today. Truly an
important issue.
The healthcare in America is the greatest in the world, and
having been the--I'm parent of a son who received lifesaving
treatment when he was three, and you will do anything to help
your child. And, again, I just want to say that to the families
and the people that are being treated.
The question is for the panelists, Dr. Wadhia and Mr.
Marino, you've been dealing with deferred action. I guess,
Doctor, I'll talk to you first. You had mentioned in your
testimony about the 1970's and the 1980's and much guidance and
things with deferred action. I think it would be best if we as
Congress would lay this out in the law so that it could not
change. Have you ever contacted a Member of Congress with
solutions or ideas that we could put in legislation that would
help define this, since there hasn't been clarity, according to
some of the----
Dr. Danaher. So, I haven't had a specific conversation
about codifying deferred action into legislation, but what I
can say is that greater transparency and identification of the
factors that will be considered being available to the public
is something I greatly value.
I would also say that we could have legislation. We need
reform, as the representative said earlier. Even with a
comprehensive reform, we will always need discretion. And so to
the extent that the role that discretion and deferred action in
particular played--action in particular plays in protecting
people in humanitarian cases, we will always need that. So, I
see all of these cases as sort of Hail Mary cases, if you will,
and it enjoys a very long history.
Mr. Keller. It does, but in order to make sure that
everybody understands the clarity of it, you know, I think that
would be--you know, it will go a long way as part of the reform
that we look at when we look at immigration reform.
Mr. Marino, you had talked about people being in your
office and looking for clarity. Did you reach out to any of the
Federal agencies and ask them for clarity, and did they respond
to you on clarity?
Mr. Marino. So, USCIS doesn't really communicate with us
anymore. There's an 800 number that we can call. They have a
private contracted customer serviceperson will call you back.
But on issues like this, those lines of communications have
really been slow.
Mr. Keller. Did you call and ask them for guidance?
Mr. Marino. So, the 800 number, no.
Mr. Keller. Them at all, I mean any of the agencies?
Mr. Marino. So, through the professional association, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association that I'm a member of,
they have liaisons contacted within USCIS, and there were
contacts there to try and figure out what was going on. And my
understanding is the response we got was just that, yes, this
program's been eliminated. There wasn't any----
Mr. Keller. Again, as people--you know, Doctor, as readying
for it, and Mr. Marino, I would suggest that, you know--and
I'll make the offer, because I think, Dr. Wadhia, I think
you're a constituent of mine if you live in State College, to
work with you on solutions. But here again, we're talking about
people that have situations, but we're also talking about the
bigger issue of making sure it's clear on all points of our
immigration. So, I guess I would say that.
Mr. Homan, if I could just pivot to you. Can you talk
about, you know, why it might be best to let USCIS determine
whether or not to grant deferred action? You know, should it be
appropriate for USCIS for that or should it be ICE? I mean,
where should we have this program? Who should be determining
this?
Mr. Homan. I don't think CIS should have this authority,
because I think the authority lies with the agency that has
statutory authority over decisions. ICE makes the arrest, ICE
detains, and ICE removes. So, if someone's going to going to
ask for the deferred action on immigration action, it shouldn't
be a nonlaw enforcement agency exercising prosecutory
discretion. It should be ICE on a case-by-case basis making
that determination.
Mr. Keller. Okay. I appreciate that. I guess I'm just going
to--I only have a couple of seconds here, but, you know, just
saying, we as the United States have a lot of things that we
need to make sure people understand. And by the ambiguity of
our immigration laws we've created a lot of confusion. And, you
know, I guess I would say to the chairman and other people, you
know, if we didn't have clarity from these agencies and there's
people that are confused, I would hope that we did, that we as
the committee, the chair of the committee would have asked for
that guidance too so that we can put it out to the people. And
I don't know if any of you have asked the committee for
guidance to see how to be either.
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time has expired. But I want to
thank Mr. Keller, a new member of our committee, for a truly
excellent line of questions there. And I would be delighted to
work with you further on exploring whether there's a role for
legislative remedy and formalization of some of the criterion
standards that seem to be just kind of floating in the ether in
the various departments.
I will at this point call for five minutes on
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask my questions, since it has not yet been done,
I think it's important to really make sure that the jingoistic
bigoted testimony of Mr. Homan is called out as nearly
completely untrue, as being an outrage. And as a former
official directing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agency he should know better.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Chairman----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, making sure that I am--no, this
is my five minutes.
Mr. Homan. What did I say was inaccurate?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am asking the questions.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. The gentlelady is recognized for five
minutes. She's made her point, and I will try to resolve any of
the issues at the end of her questioning.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
So, I just think it's important that it's not accepted as
accurate testimony.
That having been said, Ms. Bueso and Mr. Sanchez, I want to
start by thanking you for your courage and for sharing your
stories today. Both of you have publicly stated that this
policy change constitutes a death sentence for you. Please know
that my Democratic colleagues and perhaps some of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do all we can to
reverse what is a disgusting decision by the Trump
administration.
Mr. Sanchez, in your testimony, you spoke of your parents.
I'm a mother. I have a cousin with cystic fibrosis. Many in
this room are parents, and there are a few anguishes greater
than your child being sick, much less being one who is unable
to access lifesaving care. Your parents did exactly what any
parent would do. They found a way against impossible odds to
make sure you were safe and to keep you alive. Our country
should be proud to have doctors and treatments that can help
kids like you. Every parent here should see themselves in your
parents' whose love and tenacity brought you here. We should
celebrate your story as a model of the goodness our country can
offer.
But instead, you're here unfortunately today to testify
about why you deserve to live. For that, our country should be
ashamed and I am so sorry.
Ms. Bueso, I understand you came to the U.S., I heard your
testimony, when you were seven years old to participate in a
clinical trial for the drug that you now take to survive. Can
you tell me a little bit about--tell us a little bit about your
treatment and what you think would happen if you were not able
to continue that treatment?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. So, I've been taking this weekly
treatment every Friday, once a week. And it's through an IV,
and I go to the hospital. It's six hours long. And it has
helped me live longer, because as I mentioned, I was broken
down in enzymes. So, if I stop taking the treatment, which I've
been doing for 16 years, but if I stop getting the treatment
that my body needs because it's missing, then I'm going to die.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Your doctor wrote a letter to U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services in April of this year
supporting your application for deferred action. And I would
like to ask that that letter be put up on the screen.
He wrote, and I quote, "It is imperative that Maria Isabel
continues to receive this treatment for her life threatening
disease." He continued, quote, "If she were to return to
Guatemala, she would no longer have access to the medication
and she would die."
This must be really difficult to--for you to think about.
Having survived a life-threatening illness myself, I know that
fear. What scares you the most about the idea of returning to
Guatemala?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Well, first of all, the treatment,
because I need the treatment. And then also my medical care
that I need that has been, you know, with being in California
for so long. So, it's really terrifying to think about it, you
know. But I've been praying a lot, so I'm hoping that the best
way can come true, because it's very overwhelming and
devastating just thinking about you're going to die when you
have still so many dreams and hopes for your life. It's really
devastating.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I really can't imagine, but I can
imagine as a parent the fear that I would have for my own
children if, God forbid, that was the case.
Mr. Sanchez, can you tell me about the--I'm somewhat
familiar with the procedures that cystic fibrosis kids have to
go through. Can you tell us a little bit about the treatments
that you currently receive for your CF, and would you be able
to get those same treatments in Honduras?
Mr. Sanchez. No, I won't be able to get them in Honduras,
because there's no machines, no supplementaries for the
treatments. There isn't anything in Honduras for CF. They don't
even know--the doctors don't know what CF is.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As my time's expiring, if Dr.
Danaher could elaborate on the risks that medically fragile
children face if they were forced to turn--if they were forced
to return to their home countries, and then I'll yield back.
Dr. Danaher. I mean, it's different for every child, but
their care is so complex that it's hard to imagine that any of
the children in this program could receive the full treatment
that they need should they leave the country. That's why they
were granted the status in the first place.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
And I recognize Mr. Jordan for questioning for five
minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marino, the letters that were sent to the 424 families,
none of them have been officially told that they would not be
allowed to stay in the United States. Is that accurate? They're
just--those individuals and those families are being--they're
in the reevaluation, reopening of the case, but there's been no
definitive decision made on those families. Is that accurate?
Mr. Marino. Since the September--you mean the new letter
since September 2?
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Mr. Marino. That's correct. They're just reconsidered. So,
they're back open and we're waiting for a decision. That's
right.
Mr. Jordan. And we assume--we hope and assume that those
individuals are going to be--they're here now. They're in some
kind of--as some of our witnesses are already, they're in some
kind of clinical trial, some kind of treatment program that
they're going to be allowed to stay.
Mr. Marino. I sure hope so.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, so do I. I think we all do. And I think
that's what the--I think that's the most logical and likely
outcome and probably what will happen.
So, how long have you been in your business working with
these families? I think you said you had 19 families you're
working with right now who have a pending application?
Mr. Marino. Yes. So, I've been----
Mr. Jordan. Nineteen families outside this 424 and any
families you may have are in that category. Is that right?
Mr. Marino. So, the 19 families I have, there are some
families that--about half the families that had a pending
application, another--and the other half are split between
people who are preparing to file initially.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Marino. And people who are in the deferred action
program now.
Mr. Jordan. So, you got some within the 424----
Mr. Marino. Right.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. And some without.
Mr. Marino. Right.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. And you've been doing this for a number
of years?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. How many years?
Mr. Marino. I have been at the IIC for five years. I've
been an immigration lawyer nine years. I don't know the first
time I filed one, but----
Mr. Jordan. You ever had anyone denied?
Mr. Marino. I have not, but I know that they have been. I
think that the reason that I've not is we in legal services
kind of have a well-earned reputation of cherry picking cases.
Mr. Jordan. But people in----
Mr. Marino. We file them in very serious----
Mr. Jordan. But some people get denied?
Mr. Marino. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. Not just in the Trump administration. Some
people got denied in the Obama Administration, probably some
people got denied in the Bush Administration. Right?
Mr. Marino. Yes. I've never had a categorical denial where
they're all denied because we're no longer considering these
cases anymore. I have seen----
Mr. Jordan. But we haven't had that either. We just got a
reopening/reexamination, and we all anticipate, based on the
information we've got from USCIS, that they're going to be able
to stay. All I'm asking is, in the past, people similarly
situation--similarly situated have been denied?
Mr. Marion. On a case-by-case basis, not categorically.
Mr. Jordan. Right. I understand. I understand. Okay. I just
want to make that clear. This is like, whoa, this is--you know,
we're hearing from the other side, this is unbelievable. But
there have been people similarly situated who have been denied
in the past?
Mr. Marino. I wouldn't say similarly situated. I don't
think that any of the clients that I have now and the situation
that they're in with the need for critical lifesaving medical
treatment would have been denied in the past.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. And I don't think they're going to be
denied now. I think they got a notice and that there's going to
be a reopening of the cases, I don't think they're going to be
denied. And I certainly hope they're not denied. I think all of
us are in that category. And based on the communication we've
seen, that seems to be where this is headed.
Mr. Marino. But that's just for those cases that were
pending on August 7. The program has still been eliminated
going forward, it seems. And they've apparently----
Mr. Jordan. They're going to be--they're going to be looked
at on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Marino. Just the ones that were pending on August 7.
Mr. Jordan. Right. I got that.
Mr. Marino. But the program's still been eliminated; that's
our concern.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Got it.
Mr. Homan, is there a crisis on the border?
Mr. Homan. Of course.
Mr. Jordan. And has there been a crisis there for a long
time?
Mr. Homan. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. I just want to get--because your testimony is
at the broader issue, and this is critically important, but we
also have a broader issue there. We got unbelievable numbers
we've seen on the border with apprehensions and everything
else. Right?
Mr. Homan. Absolutely.
And if I can respond to the earlier remark from Wasserman
Schultz, I've forgotten more about this issue than you'll ever
know. So if you say my testimony is inaccurate, it's wrong.
Everything I said here is accurate. Bottom line. If you want to
go toe to toe, I'm here. I'm here on my own time to speak to
the American people about what's false and what's fact.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm sure happy to go toe to toe with
you, Mr. Homan. Happy to do it any day.
Mr. Homan. Well, I'm here. But you've got to let me respond
to your question rather than dropping a bomb and running away.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It was my time----
Mr. Homan. So, there is a crisis on the border, and it is
not going to go away if we keep enticing more and more--if we
want to abolish ICE, we want to give away college education and
driver's licenses and free medical care, and reward illegal
behavior, you're never going to solve the immigration crisis on
the border. It's not going to happen.
Mr. Jordan. It probably doesn't help when certain Members
of Congress criticize the agents down there trying to do their
job. It probably doesn't help when you have pictures put on
websites that talk about cages when, in fact, the picture was
from the Obama Administration. Probably doesn't help when you
say the crisis is fake, contrived, and manufactured, and hold
off spending the $4.6 billion we needed to actually deal with a
crisis that got much worse. Probably doesn't help with all
those factors either, does it?
Mr. Homan. No, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Probably doesn't help that you've got cities
declaring themselves sanctuaries. That probably doesn't help
the situation either.
Mr. Homan. And it doesn't help to have a mixed message,
that all of a sudden deferred action is going away, that all of
a sudden prosecutorial discretion's going away for this policy
change. I myself have approved many requests for stays of
removal for medical issues. ICE doesn't put their heart on the
shelf when they wear the badge and gun and all of a sudden
don't care about humanity. It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous
false narrative. And I'm going to be here till the day I die
defending the men and women of the Border Patrol and ICE who
put it on the line everyday for this country.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Raskin. I recognize Representative Ocasio-Cortez for
five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would like
to thank my colleague Ayanna Pressley and Mr. DeSaulnier for
your work also in organizing this hearing and a critically
important issue at this time.
Ms. Bueso and Mr. Sanchez, I want to thank you both for
coming to testify. I would like to thank all of our witnesses
for coming to testify before this committee. It is enormously
taxing, physically, emotionally, mentally to come here and to
testify before this committee and to prepare for your
testimony, no less to testify for the length at which you all
are doing. So, I'd like to thank you. And I'd like to recognize
that you're doing it not just out of self-preservation, but to
make sure that thousands of children and other people in the
United States are protected.
I'd also like to apologize to you both for the behavior of
some of the members of this committee where they are speaking
in profoundly dehumanizing terms to you, and you don't deserve
that. I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the United
States of America for the dehumanizing policies that they are
pursuing to--that are, frankly, targeting you and targeting
many people in the United States. And we're fighting for a
better country that we can be proud of when it comes to how we
treat all people and understanding the circumstances that they
are coming from. And I'd also like to recognize the intrinsic
value that you have and offer to everybody that you encounter
in our country.
Speaking of which, Ms. Bueso, do you remember a long time
ago, and you may not, but in 2003, participating in a clinical
trial for MPS-VI in Oakland, California?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. I was really young, I was seven, but I
do remember coming here with my mom and being participating in
clinical trial.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You said you were seven years old?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes, seven or eight, yes. In 2003.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Do you remember--and again, I know you
were very young, but do you remember a girl named Maria Abreu?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Is she from New York?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. She's from New York.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. She's a constituent of mine, and she
wants to write and submit to the congressional Record a letter
of support for you to stay in the United States.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek unanimous consent to
offer this letter to the congressional Record.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection, the letter will be entered.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And clearly, you had a profound impact
on her.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I think it's a testimony to your
character and just who you are as a person.
That being said, Ms.--Professor Wadhia, direct and deferred
action, rather, ensures that children can stay in the United
States to receive treatment for life-threatening medical
conditions without fear of being deported. Correct?
Ms. Wadhia. Correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And deferred action is subject to very
strict internal controls. You have reviewed hundreds of these
actions, of these cases. And the reasons for granting deferred
action are generally limited to very serious life-and-death
issues. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Wadhia. Correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, folks and people like Mr. Sanchez
and Ms. Bueso are not collateral damage to this
administration's policy. They are the target, correct?
Ms. Wadhia. Correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is targeting and changing policy to
specifically target people with life-threatening diseases for
deportation essentially killing them through deportation? Would
you characterize that as cruel?
Ms. Wadhia. I would.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. This is a cruel policy change, and this
fits a pattern that we have been seeing over and over again
before this committee of a culture and an of policies
specifically almost animated by cruelty. We hear over and over
again, and we've heard it today from folks across this
committee, that they're underresourced, that we have to
continue dumping billions of dollars into enforcement, into
putting children in cages, into a system that is quite
literally killing people. But meanwhile, we are adding to the
resource strains by forcing people to go through the ordeal,
forcing this country through the ordeal of needlessly deporting
people, like Ms. Bueso and Mr. Sanchez.
Of course you are underresourced because--underresourced
for your goals because your goals are to deport people that
have no reason, human--on humanitarian grounds or otherwise to
be deported. Would you agree with that, Dr. Wadhia? Is that an
assessment? Is that how it strikes you?
Mr. Raskin. The witness may answer the question.
Ms. Wadhia. It does, and it goes to my testimony about how
we spend resources. This change in policy also throws a wrench
into the rule of law because of the fact that discretion is
such a necessary component and part of the rule of law. We have
to make choices about who we're going to target for removal and
who we're going to place----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And when we want to talk about morale--
--
Mr. Raskin. Okay. The gentlelady's time has expired now.
I want to recognize Mr. Meadows for five minutes for his
questions.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marino, I wasn't going to ask questions, but I'm trying
to get my hands around this. And you made a statement that--
what program is going away? You said a program is going away in
this deferred action in terms of case-by-case situation. From
what I understand, it's not going away; it's just the proposal
is to move it to ICE. So, why--what program is going away?
Mr. Marino. I haven't seen any proposal to move anything to
ICE and----
Mr. Meadows. So, what program is going away?
Mr. Marino. Deferred action before USCIS.
Mr. Meadows. But where are you getting your documents--I
guess what I'm saying is, is I'm not aware of any program that
has been recommended that goes away. I mean, these cases have
been opened back up, but my understanding was we were just
going to move it over so the adjudication is actually handled
by ICE. Is that not correct?
Mr. Marino. No. My understanding is that was what--part of
the problem here is that there have been no--there was no
public notice of any of this. So, what we know----
Mr. Meadows. Yes. But your statement to Mr. Jordan a few
minutes ago was that the program was going away.
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. So, what program is that?
Mr. Marino. Medical--deferred action at USCIS.
Mr. Meadows. And you're basing that deferred action is
going away based on what?
Mr. Marino. So, the denial notice we received----
Mr. Meadows. That's one notice for one individual.
Mr. Marino. No, no. Well, every one that I've seen has been
identical. They're all----
Mr. Meadows. No, no. I get that for the 400 and some odd,
but we're reopening that up. So, I guess--here's what I don't
want to do is create panic assuming that we're going to do away
with deferred action when I haven't seen anything from either
of the groups that would suggest that.
Mr. Marino. It says USCIS field offices no longer consider
deferred action requests.
Mr. Meadows. Right. To move it to a different process.
Mr. Marino. No, that part's not here.
Mr. Meadows. No, I understand it is not in that letter. But
didn't you get a followup letter on that which says they're
opening up for the adjudication?
Mr. Marino. No.
Mr. Meadows. Yes.
Mr. Marino. So, then they issued a press alert that they
were going to reopen these cases.
Mr. Meadows. Right. So, anybody that you have in the queue
right now----
Mr. Marino. Which they said USCIS stopped its consideration
of deferred action for nonmilitary requesters. So, they said
that the cases that were pending as of August 7, they were just
going to clear out those cases. But the program, deferred
action has still been ended.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So, Mr. Chairman, let me--what I
would like to--excuse me, Madam Chairman--I didn't see you pop
in the chair there. Madam Chairman, I would like to--let's work
together. I think what we've got is a situation where--you
don't have a compassionate bone in your body if you're not
looking at this and saying we've got to address this. We're
going to address this.
Here's what I also don't want to do, Mr. Marino, is assume
that we've got this panic out there that we're going to do away
with everything. I would like to work in a bipartisan way to
figure out how we look at the humanitarian needs that we have
and yet do it in a way that is systemically reasonable and yet
efficient. Does that sound fair?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
[Presiding.] I think it sounds fair. I think it'd be good
for us to come together and at least provide some certainty for
the lives of these folks.
Mr. Meadows. And I'll yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Roy.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
Just adding on that, the same question, just to extend, is
it my--and let me ask you this, Mr. Homan, you said earlier
that you think, Mr. Homan, that ICE is the proper place to deal
with these questions. Am I mistaken in my understanding that
what we've got here is simply, for better or worse, for this
hearing to decide and for the purposes of what Mr. Meadows and
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez were just talking about, how this process
should work. In other words, in this case, USCIS is saying,
we're not processing after August 7, right, or we're not going
to handle these, we're not going to make these deferred action
decisions after August 7. Essentially, then that goes to ICE,
and then ICE is going to have to make--I mean, although ICE
will deal with the decisions they're going to deal with respect
to expedited removal decisions or anything else. And then ICE
can choose to figure out how to handle these questions if ICE
puts policies in place that would allow that to occur.
I mean, is that--Mr. Homan, your recommendation or thought.
Mr. Homan. ICE, they make prosecutorial discretion
decisions every day. Do we arrest, do we not arrest? Do we
detain, do we not detain? Do we put in proceedings, not put in
proceedings? Do we remove or not remove? And I just said
earlier, I have personally approved deferred action requests
stays of removal for medical issues. So, it isn't like the
whole process is going to go away. It's a bureaucratic process
to move from one agency to the other agency. And it's currently
in an agency that I don't think should have the authority over
making decisions that the other agency has statutory authority
over. That's the basis of all prosecutorial discretion matters.
Mr. Roy. And let me just add one thing. It's just--we'll
ask this question of the next panel, right, about what their
intent is. And then I--when I get my time back, I want to
address with Mr. Marino, your head is shaking both directions,
so let me do that when I get back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Massachusetts,
Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do want to say that our colleagues across the aisle have
stated outright and implied that there are dramatics happening
on this side of the aisle. No drama, just hard facts. And that
is that, repeatedly, people have been asked to weaponize their
lived experiences and their pain which has been brought about
by neglect or by intentional attacks by this administration
time and time again. People have come before this committee to
talk about the trauma of gun violence, the trauma of what's
happening at our borders, the trauma of negotiating lifesaving
medication, like insulin. And now, the trauma and the fear of
children, people that are coming before this committee,
demanding that we see the humanity and the dignity in them,
appealing for their very lives. That's where we find ourselves.
So, just when I think that the occupant of this White House
and his xenophobic administration cannot reach any new lows,
they go even lower, deciding to give seriously ill children and
their families 33 days to leave the country or risk being
deported. No dramatics; the hard facts. And because of the
outrage by millions of Americans, because this does fly in the
face of the values that we espouse as a Nation and the public
outcry, and the partnership of my colleagues and the leadership
of this committee, we are having this hearing today to shine a
spotlight on this appalling policy, that lives are hanging in
the balance and to hold this administration accountable. No
dramatics, no posturing, just the hard facts.
And to add insult to injury, they try to do this under the
radar, no public announcement, no opportunity or effort to hear
from those most impacted. Appalling, shameful. These families'
stories have spurred righteous rage, public outcry, and
rightfully so.
And I want to thank Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Bueso for joining
us, for your bravery. You are true patriots by every
definition, in my estimation. I can only imagine how hard this
is, battling a chronic life-threatening illness, layered by the
threat of deportation. I would want to also thank your
caregivers and your caretakers and your families for being here
with you and what they do every day.
Mr. Marino, can you please just succinctly clarify, because
there's been a muddying of the waters here, truly a revisionist
history--we would not have Ms. Bueso and Mr. Sanchez here doing
what they are doing in the face of great physical and emotional
burden if this was a fake panic. So, can you please clarify the
revisionist history by my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle and tell us why do you think it is necessary for USCIS to
continue to grant deferred action, and just speak to what has
transpired here?
Mr. Marino. Sure. I'll give you a little bit of the history
as I understand it and what we've learned. I also think that
Dr. Wadhia is probably better prepared to answer some of this
of why it belongs at USCIS, where this program always has been.
There is no new program at ICE, and none of my clients are
eligible to apply for anything from ICE. They can't walk into
an ICE office and apply for deferred action the way that they
always have from USCIS. I believe that what Mr. Homan is
talking about, he's saying he's granted stays of removal in the
past, that's only available to people who have been ordered
removed and are on orders of supervision. So, they've been
ordered removed and ICE is actually carrying through with
deporting them. It's basically on your way to the airport, you
can ask us for permission to stay for a year and maybe then
we'll consider it.
So, I don't know. Is the suggestion--I don't understand it,
but it seems like maybe the suggestion is that you drag kids
from their hospital beds into courtrooms, make them go through
a removal proceeding, have a judge order them deported, then
turn them over to ICE, and then maybe they're going to exercise
discretion. I don't really understand.
Ms. Pressley. I'm going to reclaim my time. I'm running low
on time here.
Mr. Marino. Sure.
Ms. Pressley. Dr. Wadhia, is there something you want to
add on the record?
Ms. Wadhia. When it comes to affirmative deferred action
requests, this is a policy that has been in the jurisdiction of
USCIS since its inception. These are individuals who are not
yet in the removal system.
Ms. Pressley. And it has been terminated.
Ms. Wadhia. And it has been terminated.
Ms. Pressley. Okay.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from West
Virginia, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Roy and to all of you all for being here today.
Ms. Bueso and Mr. Sanchez, I want to thank you for sharing
with us your life stories and experiences that you've had. It
has helped shed light on the plight that many are facing and
the need for clarity in our immigration system. And I want to
reiterate what the gentlemen from North Carolina and from Texas
are expressing as well: we need clarity and we need to
understand how we can move forward in a positive way.
Mr. Homan, I would like to direct my questions to you
today. I know that in these past couple of months, we have had
multiple hearings in this committee on the topic of
immigration. Has all of this rhetoric helped move the ball
forward on solving our Nation's larger immigration issues?
Mr. Homan. I missed the last part of that question, ma'am.
Mrs. Miller. I said has all of this rhetoric helped move
our Nation into solving the immigration issues?
Mr. Homan. No.
Mrs. Miller. How would you characterize the Trump
administration's response to the southern border crisis?
Mr. Homan. I think he's doing the right thing. I think he's
the right guy at the right time doing the right thing. Numbers
are down 56 percent from the high only because of his actions,
not actions of anybody in this building.
Mrs. Miller. When we had the Acting Secretary here in July,
he discussed how over 5,000 migrants presenting themselves as
family units in the Fiscal Year 2019 turned out to be
fraudulent. How does our current immigration law incentivize
illegal entry into our country?
Mr. Homan. Because there're loopholes that exist that cause
families and children to come to this country. And that's one
thing--of course, I'm constantly attacked at being--I'm the
devil, but if anybody in this room has ever worn a green
uniform and seen what I've seen in my career--I've seen many
dead children and many women that were raped, 32 percent
numbers from Doctors Without Borders, and that is the issue.
It's not about securing a border, which no one on this panel
should argue a secure border is a better United States. But
it's not just about enforced laws securing borders; it's about
saving lives.
And I feel what's going on here today--and there are many
cases that deserve deferred action, significant medical issues.
So, don't say that this administration doesn't care about this,
because I personally have approved deferred action medical
care. But what I'm saying is there's a flip side to this coin.
Many, many more lives are lost every year. Border Patrol saved
4,000 lives last year, people that would have died if they
wouldn't have been rescued. People are drowning in the river,
children are dying, women are being raped.
Mrs. Miller. Repeat that number, please.
Mr. Homan. Four thousand rescues. And what I'm saying is we
have hearing after hearing after hearing, but I haven't been
involved with one hearing talking about fixing the problem
that's causing the surge. But you want to talk about family
separation, you want to talk about terrible detention
conditions, you want to talk about, you know, this deferred
action. And I get it, it is all important. But when are we
going to talk about fixing the problem of saving lives and
securing our Nation?
Like everybody here, I don't care if you're Republican or
Democrat, your No. 1 responsibility is to secure this Nation.
And there's no downside in protecting Americans and securing
our border. And if you don't like it, legislate. Don't ask
people to ignore the law or twist the law or bend the law or
find loopholes here or loopholes there. Legislate. Do your job
and fix it. It can be fixed, but it's going to take a backbone
to get it done.
Mrs. Miller. So, once again, given all the political
rhetoric in Congress within the last couple of months, there
hasn't been a lot of action on fixing this from my colleagues
on the other side. Can you elaborate on the importance of a
congressional action on immigration?
Mr. Homan. It's going to save lives. It's going to take the
money out of the cartels' hands that not only will smuggle
people and traffic children that are coming to this country
with relatives. They claim are relatives, aren't relatives. We
have numerous investigations. Children are being trafficked.
And I hear a lot of, you know, sympathy today and I share
that sympathy, but let's not forget about the other population.
Children are trafficked and used by criminal cartels, 32
percent of women are being raped. Border Patrol agents have
died defending our Nation. So, I don't understand why Congress
can't step up and take this seriously and fix the issue. This
is fixable, but it's--people are too busy resisting this
President, wanting to see the President of the United States
fail in the most important issue facing this Nation right now,
because it's more important about politics and power than doing
your job. It should be about love of country, love of securing
this Nation, protecting Americans, and saving lives of people
that are vulnerable trying to come to this country because of
the enticements and because we fail to address the loopholes
that are causing it.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Homan.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Chairman Cummings for five minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Marino, I just heard Mr. Homan say do your job and this
could be fixed. Today's hearing is about deferred action. And
if we had a House and if we had a Senate that would pass
legislation and we had a President that would sign it, this
problem which is the subject of this hearing today could be
fixed. Am I right?
Mr. Marino. Absolutely. I think that the program that's
been in place for deferred action at USCIS would be best
formalized by legislation. But back to Dr. Wadhia's point, that
doesn't mean that there doesn't always have to be some----
Mr. Cummings. Discretion.
Mr. Marino [continuing]. Discretion involved, right.
Mr. Cummings. And I want to thank our witnesses again for
being here today. And I especially would like to thank Ms.
Bueso and Mr. Sanchez. You are here to remind us that this
administration's decision to stop requesting for deferred
action has had real consequences on real people.
Ms. Bueso, let me start with you. What has been the hardest
part about living with your disease?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. The hardest part about my disease? Is
that the question?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. I think it is the problem that goes with
it in my body, that I need lots of surgeries. Recently, I had a
spine surgery due to my condition. I guess when I was younger,
just getting needled every week, because I was young so I
didn't like it. But as I got older, I got used to it at this
point. But I don't like to see my disease as a horrible thing,
because, yes, I have a disease, but I've been opening doors for
others, continue doing the clinical trial to help other people.
But I think the hardest of my disease has been, you know,
in the hospital all the time, doctors' appointments all the
time, which is not normal for all of my friends, but it's my
life. But, yes.
Mr. Cummings. I really do think that we are in a moral
situation. People are striving to live, trying to breathe the
air of our country, trying to be better, trying to be healthy.
Would you agree that this is a moral issue?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. What's the question?
Mr. Cummings. Would you agree that we're at a moral--it's a
moral issue? In other words, when you're dead you're dead.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. You agree?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Yes, because it's been really an
overwhelmed situation just knowing that you have to leave in 33
days. In my mind, I was just thinking, you know, when I
receive--when I saw the letter, the only thing that I could
think of is, oh, my goodness, my medicine that has helped me
keep my life for so long--because as I mentioned before, many
doctors thought I was not going to live till my teen years, and
I'm 24 years old now and graduated from college, summa cum
laude. So, I'm really blessed on that. But yes, so it's really
a death sentence for me.
Mr. Cummings. And you participated in student leadership?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. I'm sorry?
Mr. Cummings. You participated in student leadership?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. In what?
Mr. Cummings. In other words, your student government?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Oh, yes. Oh, yes, I was a director, a
director at my campus with the----
Mr. Cummings. Go on now.
Ms. Bueso Barrera [continuing]. Student government. Yes, I
represented the whole Concord campus on my own.
Mr. Cummings. Well, thank you for being here.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Grothman. First of all, Mr. Homan, I'd like to say I
respect--I've been at the border three times. I respect law
enforcement. I deal with a lot of law enforcement, Sheriff's
Department, police department, corrections officers. There is
nobody who I have a higher opinion of than Border Patrol and
ICE. The compassion these folks have had under the most trying
circumstances is something that should ever be commended. I
feel bad that some other members of this institution like to
slam you folks to make cheap political points, because if they
ever met you and were honest with you, they would have a high
opinion of the whole crew down there.
Now, I guess we haven't decided yet that ICE is going to be
the one making these determinations, but you've dealt with a
lot of ICE officials and you've been involved for a long time.
As a practical matter, could you ever under any circumstances
see, if they had that discretion, anybody from ICE kicking
someone like the two people on the other end of the panel out
of this country?
Mr. Homan. Absolutely. I've heard here today there's cases
here that deserve the attention of prosecutorial discretion.
And ICE does that every day. We--I personally have approved
when I was ICE director.
Mr. Grothman. This would never happen. In other words, what
I'm trying to get at, do you believe these folks are here to
create an unnecessary fear that's never going to happen anyway?
In other words, they are scaring people who shouldn't be
scared, because your former organization would never kick
somebody like this out of the country?
Mr. Homan. I understand their testimony and I applaud them
for being here and telling their story. They have a good story
to tell. And regardless if it's CIS or an ICE officer, I think
they'd make the right decision.
Mr. Grothman. Right. You could not see them kicked out of
this country, could you?
Mr. Homan. No.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I'll give you a couple of other
questions. We right now have an overall crisis at the border,
and I think everybody who is down there knows a variety of
things that can be done. Our underlying problem is we have way,
way, way too many people in this country who are not here
legally. Could you give us a general summary of a couple of
suggestions you have for Congress that we could do that would
reduce the number of people in this country illegally so we
wouldn't have to make so many judgment decisions?
Mr. Homan. There's three things that we've been talking
about for the last two years. One's the Flores settlement
agreement. Back in Fiscal Year 2014 and 2015, when the family
crisis first started, we detained families for 40, 50 days
until they saw a judge. It wasn't until Flores reinterpreted
the decision that we can only hold them 20 days, which isn't
long enough to see a judge. So, we would like to be able to
detain them long enough to see a judge. We did it under the
Obama Administration. I don't know why we can't do it now.
Mr. Grothman. We hold President Trump to a significantly
higher standard of care than Barack Obama.
Mr. Homan. But it worked, it worked. Once they saw the
judge, a majority lost their cases and were removed.
The second thing we need to do is look at the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, which is causing children to be
smuggled by criminal organizations into this country, and treat
children from Central America the same as you treat children
from Mexico. If you can ascertain and prove that they're not a
true victim of trafficking, then they shouldn't get a whole
different process than children from Mexico get. They can be
removed easier and reunited with families.
The third thing is the asylum levels. Most people pass the
first interview at the border at about 88, 90 percent rate, but
once they get in front of an immigration court, the current--
the last time I saw, 88 percent of all Central Americans who
claim fear at the border do not get relief from immigration
court. So, the delta is too high. We need to close that delta
and make it more meaningful, where people aren't released into
the United States to not only not appear in court, but to not
listen to the orders of a judge. Like I said, 90 percent lose
their case, there's over 100,000 removal orders from family
units, but less than two percent have left.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Now, something's been said about, in all of these hearings,
about separating families. We would be appalled if a minor
child from the United States went off to Honduras and the
Honduras Government wouldn't send them back to their parents.
Right now, if somebody who is an unaccompanied minor comes to
this country, do we send them back to their parents or do we
keep them here?
Mr. Homan. The unaccompanied alien children are given over
to ORR. They're in their custody. Most of them are--less than
two percent have been removed, most are here. And that's an
issue that no one wants to talk about, right. We talked about
the 2,500 separations, but at the same time, there are 14,000
children in custody in ORR that were smuggled to this country
by criminal cartels. That's inhumane.
Mr. Grothman. And nobody cares.
Mr. Homan. I think the government takes better care of them
than a criminal cartel would.
Mr. Grothman. Absolutely. Thank you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. DeSaulnier, you are recognized for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to thank the witnesses. I have a prejudice
toward one in particular. And I want to thank my colleague, Ms.
Pressley, in particular, as we represent the two of you, and
working with her on this issue. Being from San Francisco and
Boston, we're proud of our medical leading institutions of
which you have both benefited from. It's been terrific, as
always, working with my colleague from Boston. And we hope to
go further.
On the bigger conversation, Mr. Homan, I just want to
remind folks that most of us on this side want to have a secure
border, but we want to have a humane border, and we want the
police agencies to follow the Constitution and the legislation.
I'm not saying you're not, but I have been proud to have police
support every time I've run for office since 1991. I take a lot
of ride-alongs. I've seen good cultures. I'm not an expert, but
I've spent a lot of time, and I've seen bad cultures. I'm not
saying--judging that one way or the other. I believe we should
be working on this together.
And I would remind my colleagues that in 2013, Senate Bill
744 was a bipartisan effort, led by Senator Rubio and Senator
McCain, Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer on the Democratic
side, passed out almost unanimously, overwhelmingly bipartisan.
And its's my understanding that because of members and certain
fraction in the Republican caucus, the Speaker never brought it
for a hearing or a vote. More recently, Representative Hurd, a
Republican, and Representative Aguilar in the last Congress,
worked together on H.R. 4796, and likewise, that never received
a hearing.
So, if you wonder why there haven't been hearings, I think
there is certainly shared responsibility. I would argue there
is much more on the other side. And I'm open to working with
people. It's a problem that a functioning Congress would come
up with a bipartisan solution. And Members have tried that.
Unfortunately, there are people who don't, in my view, want to
have a solution because it works for them politically.
Isabel, I just want to walk through your experience. And I
want to say for the record, what I heard from some of my
colleagues on the other side, from Mr. Jordan and from Mr.
Meadows, a commitment to us that they would work with us to
make sure that you are in this country for a long time, both of
you and the people who are here. So, let's just walk through
what happened with us.
You did everything you were asked of. You were asked by a
Federal agency to come and be part of this trial to save lives,
Americans and others. You came here legally. You went under
excruciating treatment for all these years. You still go every
week. You paid for it with private pay insurance. Your family
came here. You've been here legally the entire time. You have
been approved four times, as I understand, one during the Obama
Administration, for deferred action, and one during this
administration.
What did it feel like on August 13 to get this form letter
that, to my anger, I've carried in my pocket ever since you
gave it to me. We get it. And it isn't even signed by the
regional director, who I'd like to talk to and find out why he
didn't have the courage to sign it. He had to have somebody
else sign it for him.
And before you start, my district director, who's worked on
these cases for years, was traumatized, because the people who
we work with in the regional office of San Francisco, the first
conversation with USCIS was, it's policy, we can't talk to you
about it anymore. When we went to ICE they said, we don't know
anything about it. I think they were embarrassed, and they've
got mortgages to pay, but we couldn't--my colleagues to just--
I'm encouraged by them wanting to fix this. But on the other
hand, somebody has to be held goddamn accountable for what
happened and continues to happen. And we still don't know what
will happen.
So, Isabel, just tell me, with the remainder of my time, as
much as you want to talk about, what it felt like and what it
continues to feel like for you and your family to live in
circumstances like this where you still have to seek treatment?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. So, just really quick, the way I found
out about this horrible letter was actually after my treatment.
I was coming down with my mom, normal day like every Friday,
and then our lawyer called saying that our letter for the
program was denied and you have 33 days to leave. I cried. I
was shaking. I was pale. I was just so scared. Like--because
this is like the first time that we received this kind of
letter, because as I mentioned, we've been here for 16 years
legally, and this is the first time that we got denied. So, my
heart just stopped, everything. I was shaking. I was scared. I
just went to my doctor's office and just told him about it, and
then we were just scared. And right now, I'm still overwhelmed
with different emotions. So, yes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, I'm really proud of you.
I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib for five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all so much for your incredible courage to come
before this committee. I can't underestimate the fact that
there are so many people that cannot be in this room and that
you're here on their behalf. And so I thank you from the bottom
of my heart. Even as a mother of two, as somebody that knows
people in my district depend on these humanitarian programs, I
want to thank you again, all of you, so much.
Also, Professor Wadhia and I have been trying to fight for
comprehensive immigration reform on the outside as a young law
student when she was working on trying to educate this chamber
over and over again about the broken immigration system and why
we needed to fix this. So, I'm really, really proud to see you
here before the committee. And you still have not backed down
in trying to tell the truth about what needs to happen with our
immigration system. So, I thank you for that.
Some have claimed here in this committee, and folks that
I've read, that there is no need for CIS to provide deferred
action because ICE is capable of serving this function. And you
see the person testifying for the other side here saying that,
and I simply think it's a lie. It's a lie. You know, one of the
things--I've only been here eight months, but gaslighting seems
to be kind of a thing here. And ICE certainly has the power to
defer deportation, but ICE generally does this by issuing so-
called administrative stay. And there are critical differences
between the release of USCIS grants under deferred action and
ICE's administrative stays.
So, Professor, I would like to ask you, please briefly
describe the differences between CIS grants through deferred
action and what ICE grants under administrative stays.
Ms. Wadhia. Sure. And great to reconnect with you as well,
Representative.
So, with USCIS, these requests are made affirmatively by
people who are not yet in removal proceedings, and often with
compelling humanitarian reasons to be here like two of our
witnesses. This is a practical form of relief too because it
saves the government resources by not having to force someone
to go into removal proceedings in order to request for
protection. It also protects the individual from accruing
unlawful presence during their time in deferred action.
Contrast that to a world where ICE is exercising
discretion. And I would agree with Mr. Homan, ICE does exercise
prosecutorial discretion in a variety of ways. But there's a
sharp contrast here. That discretion is often exercised after
the person is in the removal system and often after the removal
order has been issued. So, the government has spent enormous
resources, and it may be months or years before a decision is
made as to the individual's outcome.
An administrative stay or a stay of deportation is one type
of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law, and it is often
exercised after someone has a removal order. So, again, we have
the same practical, legal, and humanitarian impediment of
choosing or using administrative stays as an alternative to
affirmative deferred action at USCIS.
Ms. Tlaib. And, you know, even as a former immigration
lawyer, I remember, I mean, there's different consequences. And
I don't know if, Mr. Marino, if you know this or not as well,
there are different liabilities here, because--or what I would
call additional consequences if ICE runs this program, because
then it may impact whether or not in the future they can
reenter the United States or obtain a visa in the future. Can
you talk a little bit about that?
Mr. Marino. Sure. If what we're talking about are stays of
removal that ICE currently does----
Ms. Tlaib. That's right.
Mr. Marino [continuing]. Because it seems like they are not
actually taking over deferred action. They're eliminating
deferred action and then saying, but we may grant you a stay
once you've been ordered removed. People who are ordered
removed then face a 10-year bar on admissibility back into the
United States, if they were in the future to become eligible
for status here.
And I can think of one example of a client we had who was
here for lifesaving treatment for a child with medical deferred
action. Unfortunately, the child did pass away. The family
returned home, but then the father was able to come back as a
permanent resident. And had they not been in medical deferred
action, that would have never been an option. And his other
daughter now is in college in the United States because that
was available to them.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you.
Mr. Homan, as a fellow American, I just want you to know
your contribution as acting director of ICE under this
administration will always be remembered as one that was very
ruthless with inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, as the
author of the separation policy, and now of this sick--you
know, preventing people, sick children, before this committee,
seeking lifesaving medical treatment. I will continue always--
this is probably the third time I think you're before this
chamber--that I'm deeply troubled by your opening statement and
continued assault on innocent lives.
And I ask that this administration please stop playing
politics with the lives of the children, before this committee,
but also with the lives of many Americans that are directly
impacted by the continued broken immigration system in our
country.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. [Presiding.] The gentlelady's time has
expired.
Mr. Homan. Can I respond to that?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No. We're moving on to----
Mr. Roy. Alexandria?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
Mr. Roy. He was invoked. I would suggest he should be able
to--at least be able to respond.
Mr. Homan. How do I not respond to that? Is this about
transparency or not?
Ms. Tlaib. There wasn't a question. I said I was deeply
troubled.
Mr. Roy. I'll reclaim that time.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Would you like your time?
The chair now recognizes Mr. Roy for five minutes, and you
can feel free to use your time.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Homan, I'll give you some time here in just a
second on that.
A couple of things and observations. First, to Ms. Bueso,
and Mr. Sanchez in particular, thank you for being here. Wish
you both well and long lives, and glad that you're able to get
the care here.
Ms. Bueso, I'm glad you're getting, you know, the kind of
treatment you're getting. I too was in a program similar for a
different illness, and I'm glad to be able to get kind of
trial-type treatments, and glad that you're able to do that.
A quick question that I want to try to--or statement and
then some clarification. It is my observation that when DHS
rolled this policy change--for lack of a better term, until I
get to the second panel to ask USCIS--when they rolled it out,
it is my view that it was not rolled out the way it should be
rolled out, right. It should have been rolled out a different
way. And we'll see what that looks like in the next panel.
If one thought that ICE was the best place to deal with
deferred action, it would seem to me that the debate then is
whether--you know, the question here is where it should be.
Should it be USCIS or should it be at ICE? And if you were
going to accept that premise, then what should have been done
was much clearer notice given and a different kind of
transition.
Like, let's just assume for a minute ICE is the best place
for it. Then a letter should have gone out or a phone call or,
you know, reach out and say, hey, no issue. You're going to
keep getting health treatment. We're changing processes. This
is the way ICE is now going to handle it, and so forth and so
forth.
So, I'd like to just stipulate that that's my view, that
that's--that if you're transitioning the way you've previously
handled something, then you need to have something like that.
We'll ask the second panel about that.
Having said that, I am interested in continuing to learn
where it should exist. We'll hear from USCIS in a minute. But I
want to understand, Mr. Homan, on that question--we'll come to
this other stuff in a minute--with respect to ICE and why you
think it's the best place, can you speak to the question at
hand here about, I think, the fear of somebody's here, they're
in a tough situation, and they're saying, okay, we're getting
shoved into a pipeline for expedited removal and then hoping
there might be a question of discretion?
Mr. Homan. Well----
Mr. Roy. And can you kind of walk through how that might
work in ICE?
Mr. Homan. Let's be clear on my testimony. What I've said
is, as a law enforcement officer, prosecutorial discretion
needs to be in the hands of those who have statutory authority
over those laws. It is case-by-case determination. Once you
carve out a whole class of people you want prosecutorial
discretion, it's no longer prosecutorial discretion based on a
case by case.
Mr. Roy. Right.
Mr. Homan. Now, we have talked about stays. That's what ICE
currently do. They give stays of removal.
Mr. Marino, what he says--I'm not disagreeing with him--is
ICE prepared to make other decisions that CIS would make, and
that's a question for ICE and the next panel. What I've talked
about is ICE needs to have the authority of prosecutorial
discretion, and that's a legal issue. And I think those
decisions--no other agency is to say, well, ICE can't remove
that person. That needs to be ICE prosecutorial decision, or
you shouldn't put them in proceedings. That needs to be ICE's
decision.
Now, are they prepared to do that, because they normally
don't? You'd have to ask the next panel that. So, I'm not lying
in my testimony. I'm speaking to my 30 years of doing this and
what I think prosecutorial discretion means.
Mr. Roy. And the reason I think this matters, right, is the
purpose of--I hope there's general agreement about the process
and the communication and what should have occurred there, then
we can have a debate, as I think we had a good conversation,
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Mr. Meadows, about, okay, where do we go
forward on this on that question. We'll ask the next panel some
of these.
But it is important for us not to send some signal of, you
know, panic, to use Mr. Meadows' term, that anything is going
to be problematic going forward, that we'll address the issue
and try to reconcile whatever gaps there are here.
I do think it's also important to note on this question of
deferred action the question of when it is a discretion for a
prosecutor, right. This is at the core of DACA and DAPA, right.
We had this litigation in DAPA. We went to the court, and the
court agreed that that was something more than discretion. That
was something beyond discretion.
And I think what we see here in a sort of separation here
is that what we're talking about here is discretion. I think,
Ms. Wadhia, I was looking at your testimony, the data points
there. You said, one data I was able to identify included 118
deferred actions of which 107 were approved, pending, or
unknown, and a particular dataset that you had indicating that
each one is case by case and there were eight that didn't
qualify. I have no idea what those eight were, but, you know,
that's a case-by-case decision.
To that end, I'm going to ask one question--final--in my
last five minutes. Mr. Homan, would you like to address, and
would you please address any of the Statements made against
you?
Mr. Homan. Yes. I want to address the last comments made
about me being appalling and--first of all, I served my country
for 34 years. I saved many lives. And I ran an agency.
Let's be frank in what ICE does. ICE last year seized
enough opioids off the streets of this country that could've
killed every man, woman, and child in the United States twice.
They've arrested thousands of sexual predators that preyed on
children. They rescued thousands of children who are victims of
predators. They arrested hundreds of women who are victims of
sex trafficking. I am proud of the agency and ICE.
And what we don't want to talk about is nearly 90 percent
of everybody ICE arrests for immigration violations either have
a criminal history or are pending criminal charges when they
were found, meaning they were found in a county jail, which
most likely means they weren't a choir boy.
So, to mis-message the work the men and women of ICE do
is--I find appalling that a Member of Congress would throw that
out there like that.
Ms. Tlaib. Chair, now----
Mr. Homan. In my 34 years, I've never seen such hate toward
a law enforcement agency in my life that you want to abolish
them----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Homan, the time is expired.
Mr. Homan [continuing]. Rather than doing your job and
legislate.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Homan, your time is expired.
Mr. Homan. If they don't like it, legislate. You can't
let----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Homan, according to the rules of
this committee----
Mr. Homan. I think this Congress is in the habit of
enacting laws----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Homan, your time is expired.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was thinking about the 33-day notice issue and the fact
that I worked in housing rights for a long time, and a landlord
is required to give more notice in most states for somebody to
move out into an apartment, let alone somebody who is facing
life or death, children, trying to transfer medical care out of
the country within 33 days.
So, who I've heard from the most over the last week or so
since this was--since this issue has come up were medical
professionals. And days after the administration's policy
reversal was revealed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, an
organization of 67,000 pediatricians and pediatric specialists,
wrote a public letter urging the administration to reverse
course.
AAP wrote, and I quote, "We implore you to reverse this
decision so that countless children and their families can
continue to apply for deferred action. For some children this
is a matter of life and death."
AAP also asked, quote, "Did USCIS consult with any experts
in the medical care of children and families before making this
decision?"
Dr. Danaher, I understand you are a member of AAP, although
you're not testifying on behalf of the organization. But are
you aware of any members of AAP or other physician
organizations that were consulted prior to the administration's
reversal on deferred action?
Dr. Danaher. No.
Ms. Hill. And what would you have advised USCIS if you had
been consulted about this decision?
Dr. Danaher. I would have advised them that this is a
lifesaving program that is absolutely necessary for these
children's well-being, and that to inform families via a letter
that their status in this country is at risk is not only cruel,
but it is harmful to these children's health. They're already
under tremendous stress, and to add on top of that this fear
not only for their own healthcare, but for their safety, is
just mind-boggling.
I would also say that it's extremely difficult to transfer
care anywhere within a month inside or outside of the country
for kids like this.
Ms. Hill. Oh, yes. Trying to transfer your care across
state lines or even across community lines is incredibly
difficult.
So, since announcing this hearing two weeks ago, the
committee has received letters from more than a dozen state
chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, all expressing
deep concern over this administration's decision on deferred
action. The letters provide stories of critically ill children
and their families who could be at risk under the
administration's new policy, including two infants in a
neonatal intensive care unit whose parents received letters
from USCIS telling them to leave the country within 33 days
with a child, an infant in intensive care.
Mr. Marino, you noted in your written statement that the
vast majority of cases your organization represents involve
children whose lives are at stake. You said, quote, "we
represent children confined to wheelchairs, connected to
feeding tubes, and tracheostomy tubes."
What has the reaction been from the doctors who treat the
medically fragile children that your organization represents?
Mr. Marino. I think they've been as shocked as we have and
as our clients have been. It's astounding to think that this
would happen at all and that it would happen just with a
boilerplate form letter with 33 days' notice to get out. And a
lot of--we partner with multiple hospitals in the Boston area,
and so they're familiar with this program.
We work with social workers and doctors on these cases, and
they all know about it. And they send people to us when they
have an emergency situation, that like this person's visa is
going to expire and we can't discharge them. They send them to
us. So, you know, they were very aware of this program and
shocked to see that it had ended and especially the way that it
had ended.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
And, Ms. Bueso, thank you for your testimony, and thank
you, Mr. Sanchez, as well.
Ms. Bueso, you've devoted your life to advocating on behalf
of other people with rare diseases. What is your reaction just
from the people that you know and the 33 days and the kind of
care that they're having to worry about, that the parents are
having to worry about? Just anything you want to add to what
you've already said.
Ms. Bueso Barrera. I think, because I've been advocating
for the MPS and the rare disease community, everyone is just
shocked. Even my friends, they're like shocked. They didn't see
this coming. Obviously, I have friends who also have MPS, and
they're scared and they fear, and I try my best to calm them
down. But I think everyone that knows me are just in shock and
just terrified for me.
Ms. Hill. Well, thank you all. And I would just reiterate
that as this is coming from the medical provider community, we
need to be looking at this not only as a humanitarian issue,
but as a matter of life or death, and we cannot ever simplify
it to something that is about an immigration policy and a form
letter. It is not that simple. This is human life.
So, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin.
[Presiding.] The gentlelady yields. Thank you for your
questioning.
And finally, we'll go to Mr. Gomez for five minutes.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, one of the things I want to kind of really emphasize
is that this administration tends to make decisions in a very
rash way without a lot of thought. And we've seen this time and
time--especially when it comes to the immigration issue,
especially when it comes to Border Patrol, ICE, everything.
It's just with no real thought about the consequences.
And then they have one rationale when it starts and then
another rationale when they get called out. You know, we've
seen this when it came to the zero tolerance child separation
policy. Jeff Sessions said, we hope that this deters families
from coming to the United States because children will be taken
away from them. You know, the outrage happened across the
country. They reversed policy. Then all of a sudden, they're
saying, we never had a child separation policy, right.
And this is just a pattern that they have when it comes to
this. They say one thing and then you do another.
I know this is not the panel, but this is why they lack
credibility, not the women of the Border Patrol or ICE. I'm
saying the administration, when it comes to making decisions on
these important issues, they lack credibility, right, because
they say one thing and do another.
Mr. Marino, you've got--what did the letter say?
Mr. Marino. So, the letter said that--the initial letter
said that USCIS field offices no longer considered deferred
action cases, and then it said you are not authorized to remain
in the United States. If you don't depart within 33 days, we
may initiate removal proceedings against you.
Mr. Gomez. Anything else? Footnotes?
Mr. Marino. No.
Mr. Gomez. Pictures?
Mr. Marino. No.
Mr. Gomez. Nothing, right?
Mr. Marino. I think--actually, I have a copy of it, and I
think it even said--yes. Thank you for your request for
deferred action, so it said that.
Mr. Gomez. And then all of a sudden, now they got pushback
and now, oh, you know what, we're going to change it. Now it
becomes we're just considering moving it from one, you know,
agency to another.
This is what this administration does. Like, it is what I
think is a dumpster fire, right. How many acting directors and
secretaries does this administration have?
I joke around, even if you wanted to invoke the 25th
Amendment, I don't think they have a Cabinet large enough to
invoke the 25th Amendment. So, it is just ridiculous. And it's
just frustrating because they really just go after the most
vulnerable. 424 families, that's like--424 families. And it
moves me because it's like you're going after folks that really
need to be here to live.
Ms. Bueso, first, I love your story about going to college.
Congratulations. How did you and your family first find out
about the deferred action that it had ended?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. As I mentioned, the way we found the
letter that it was denied was after my treatment. My mom and I
were like, normal day, walking out of the elevator, and our
lawyer called my mom saying that he received the letter for
members. So, my mom, my dad, my oldest sister, myself, saying
that policy change and you have 33 days to leave, without no
notification, nothing.
Mr. Gomez. How did your mother react?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. She cried. She cried with me. They were
like on the floor. They were just shocked because, like I
mentioned before, I've been here legally for 16 years, and this
is the first time that this happened to me and my family. So,
we both cried tears. I was shaking to the point that my mom
thought that I was going to go to the ER because I just lose
it, honestly.
Mr. Gomez. And how does your family feel about the partial
reversal of policy?
Ms. Bueso Barrera. It's just uncertain. It's not clear.
We're just like--honestly, we just want something that is 100
percent guaranteed, because as me and my family, and I'm sure
other families, we definitely do not want to go through this
again----
Mr. Gomez. Yes.
Ms. Bueso Barrera [continuing]. The next two years. So, we
just want to make sure that there's something like guaranteed
100 percent, because this has not been an easy ride for any of
us at all, just being scared for our own life that we depend
for medical attention.
Mr. Gomez. Yes. Now, and you need and your family needs
predictability, especially since the condition that you have. I
just also want to just remind folks that this is about these
individuals for--they went after 424 individuals with medical
needs, right, without really any concern about what they
would--how they would react, their families, the stress it
would put out. Just a form letter, you know, that's it.
My staff calls constituents when they write them letters to
give them, you know, to say that they got the letter and to
have a little discussion. We make more than 424 calls in a
month with just my four staffers.
They could've called. They could have had a good
explanation, a caseworker, but they chose not to do that,
because I do believe this administration doesn't really give a
lot of thought on how a lot of these policy changes will be
implemented.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Mr. Gomez, thank you very much for
your questioning. The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank the entire first panel for really
extraordinary and important testimony. I'd echo what
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton said earlier, which is
that America really didn't understand about the existence of
the deferred action program, and you've given us a great
education. And I want to thank you.
I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier. I want to thank Ms.
Pressley for their initiative in bringing this idea forward,
bringing their constituents forward.
And now, as the witnesses are switching out, we're going to
call forward the second panel. All of you should be aware that
you can receive additional written questions for the hearing
record. And if you get them, please give us a prompt response.
And we're going to go right to the second panel. So, we
welcome them, and we thank all of you, Mr. Homan, Mr. Marino,
Dr. Danaher, Dr. Wadhia, Mr. Sanchez, and Ms. Bueso, for your
testimony.
And as we're switching over here, we're going to enter--
let's see, I want to enter into the record 43 letters that the
committee has received in recent days, including letters from
the American Academy of Pediatrics and many of its state
chapters, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association,
the National Organization for Rare Disorders, as well as a
number of other immigration and patient rights advocate groups.
These letters discuss the grave consequences of the
decision by USCIS for children who benefit from medical
deferred action. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be
entered into the official hearing record. It is so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. The committee will recess just for two
minutes for a break, and if we could switch over the panelists,
that would be terrific.
[Recess.]
Mr. Raskin. All right. If all the members could find their
seats, that'd be terrific.
We are now delighted to welcome our final witnesses. We
thank you for coming today. We thank you for your patience.
We are joined by Timothy S. Robbins, the acting executive
associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department
of Homeland Security; and Daniel Renaud, the associate director
for Field Operations Directorate at the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, USCIS, in the Department of Homeland
Security.
If the witnesses would please rise and raise their right
hands, I will begin the panel by swearing you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that both witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Thank you very much.
The microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly
into them. Without objection, your entire written statements
will be made part of the record. And with that, Director
Robbins, you are now recognized to give an oral presentation of
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS, ACTING EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Robbins. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Roy, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and to clarify any
public confusion over ICE's role in this matter.
As was stated in recent correspondence from USCIS, DHS may
issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings under
section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act before an
immigration judge against removable aliens.
It is critical to understand that ICE may only remove an
alien from the United States when that alien has been issued a
final removal order. Such orders are the result of a process
provided for by law during which an alien has the opportunity
to avail himself of a variety of procedural safeguards and to
seek certain forms of relief from a removal.
For example, an alien in INA section 240 removal
proceedings has the right to be represented by counsel, to seek
continuances, to contest removability, to apply for relief, to
view, examine, and object to government evidence and witnesses,
and to appeal IJ decisions to the Board of Immigration Appeals,
all while having the proceedings before the immigration judge
simultaneously translated at government expense into language
that the alien understands.
There are currently over 920,000 aliens in INA section 240
removal proceedings nationwide. ICE has broad discretion and
exercises that discretion as appropriate on a case-by-case
basis throughout the immigration enforcement process in a
variety of ways. For instance, discretion may be exercised in
the course of deciding which aliens to arrest, which aliens to
release from custody pending the removal proceedings, what the
position of ICE will be on a claim, motion, or appeal made by
an alien in immigration court, and which aliens will be
prioritized for removal. ICE does not exercise discretion on a
categorical basis to exempt entire groups of aliens from the
immigration laws enacted by Congress.
Deferred action is a discretionary act of administrative
convenience by which DHS may delay or decline to exercise
immigration enforcement authority in a given case. It is not a
legal benefit and provides no lawful immigration status in the
United States.
ICE does not accept applications for deferred action.
However, consistent with Federal regulations, an alien who
becomes subject to a final removal order, such as when his or
her INA section 240 removal proceedings conclude, may apply to
ICE for administrative stay of removal using Form I-246,
application for stay of deportation or removal.
A stay of removal may only be sought by aliens subject to
final orders of removal. ICE will consider all relevant factors
in deciding whether to issue a stay of removal, including any
claimed medical basis for this request. However, such stays are
considered solely in ICE's discretion on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you again for inviting me today, and I look forward
to answering any questions you may have on ICE's role in this
matter.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Renaud.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL RENAUD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FIELD
OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Renaud. Good afternoon. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Roy, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss deferred action.
My name is Daniel Renaud, and I'm the associate director of
the Field Operations Directorate of the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services. In addition to the
adjudication of applications and petition that require face-to-
face interviews, such as adjustment status and naturalization,
Field Operations is the directorate responsible for making
decisions on certain deferred action requests made to USCIS
field offices for both military deferred action and nonmilitary
deferred action, which is the subject of today's hearing.
My directorate does not decide applications or renewals of
deferred action for childhood arrivals, or DACA, or other
deferred action requests required by statute, such as those
related to the T or U nonimmigrant classifications.
At the outset, I want to restate what DHS relayed to the
committee last evening. Because a lawsuit has been filed
against USCIS regarding the issues being discussed at today's
hearing, I will be limited in what information I can provide in
response to questions today.
Deferred action is a discretionary act of administrative
convenience by which DHS may delay or decline to exercise
immigration enforcement authority in a given case. Deferred
action is a discretionary decision made on a case-by-case
basis. Deferred action is not an immigration benefit or
specific form of relief. It is a decision not to act.
Deferred action does not provide lawful immigration status,
and it does not excuse any periods of unlawful presence before
or after the deferred action begins. Importantly, deferred
action can be terminated at any time at the agency's
discretion.
To better align USCIS with its mission of administering our
Nation's lawful immigration system, on August 7, 2019, USCIS
determined that field offices would no longer accept requests
by nonmilitary persons for deferred action. To be clear, this
does not mean the end of all types of deferred action.
This redirection of agency resources does not affect DACA,
which remains in effect according to the nationwide injunction
while cases go through the court system. It also does not
affect other deferred action requests processed at USCIS
service centers under statute or other policies, regulations,
or court orders.
Keep in mind USCIS does not enforce orders of removal. As
deferred action is largely a law enforcement tool used to delay
removal from the United States, USCIS has not historically
received many nonmilitary, non-DACA deferred action requests.
For the past few years, USCIS has received very few deferred
action requests annually.
Many nonmilitary, non-DACA deferred action requests
received by USCIS are due to family support or medical reasons.
This has been incorrectly reported or mischaracterized by the
media as a medical deferred action program. To be clear, USCIS
does not and has never administered a medical deferred action
program.
Again, deferred action related to military servicemembers
and their families and DACA beneficiaries was not affected by
the August 7, 2019, redirection of agency resources, and
consideration of those cases is ongoing. In addition, all cases
that were denied on August 7, 2019, are being reopened and
reconsidered.
Again, I want to emphasize that because a lawsuit has been
filed against USCIS regarding deferred action, I will be
limited in what information I can provide in response to
questions today. I can tell you that I've had the privilege of
working for USCIS and its predecessor, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, for 31 years. I am extremely proud of
the work and professionalism I see every day by the employees
at USCIS in service to our Nation. I will answer your questions
as best I can given the current litigation.
Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Renaud, thank you very much for your
testimony.
I'm going to begin by recognizing Ms. Wasserman Schultz to
do her questions.
So, just one question before she starts, were both of you
able to watch the witnesses in the prior panel?
Mr. Robbins. Some of the witness testimony but not all.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And, Mr. Renaud, you watched the
testimony?
Mr. Renaud. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Very good.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome to the Oversight Committee. We heard the
argument today that ICE's ability to provide administrative
stays of final deportation orders is sufficient to take the
place of USCIS's deferred action process, but that is just not
true.
An individual can only request an administrative stay of
removal from ICE after that person has completed deportation
proceedings and received an order of removal from ICE. In
addition, individuals who are ordered removed can face
significant consequences, including ineligibility for a future
visa or other immigration benefits.
ICE also does not grant benefits to individuals, such as
work authorizations or eligibility for health benefits. And
finally, ICE administrative stays are only available in one-
year increments.
Mr. Robbins, do you agree that an administrative stay of
removal from ICE does not provide the same benefits to
immigrants as the deferred action process at USCIS?
Mr. Robbins. I can't speak as to the benefits that are
provided based on the stay, but I can tell you that
prosecutorial discretion, we use prosecutorial discretion from
the point of arrest throughout the enforcement----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Why can't you speak to the benefits?
Because what I've just laid out--is what I've just laid out
accurate, as far as your understanding, in the differences in
the two processes?
Mr. Robbins. My understanding is that--and I would have to
defer to my colleague from USCIS when it comes to employment
authorization--we do not adjudicate employment authorization.
We do adjudicate stay requests, and we adjudicate them on a
case-by-case basis.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And they're only available in one-
year increments?
Mr. Robbins. No more than one year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Robbins. It could be less than one year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And ICE does not grant benefits to
individuals like work authorizations?
Mr. Robbins. We do not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. Or eligibility for health
benefits?
Mr. Robbins. We do not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And, Mr. Renaud, through the
deferred action process, you do grant those things, correct?
Mr. Renaud. Thank you for your question. If someone were to
receive deferred action, they have the opportunity to apply for
employment authorization. That is a discretionary decision made
on a case-by-case basis as well.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. And they're also potentially
eligible for health benefits as well in that process,
obviously, or they wouldn't be applying for deferred action?
Mr. Renaud. I'm sorry. I can't speak to whether they're
eligible for health benefits. We do not provide health benefits
at USCIS.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, of course, you don't, but they
would not be available for health benefits under a deportation
order process, correct? Mr. Robbins?
Mr. Robbins. We do not adjudicate health benefits----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Robbins [continuing]. Either, so I would not be able to
answer that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, although you won't come right
out and say that the two processes are different, in detail you
have just described that they are quite different, and one
provides benefits and the other does not. One program is longer
than one year, potentially, and the other is not.
In fact, before USCIS ended the deferred action process,
individuals could apply for deferred action before being
ordered removed. When granting an application for deferred
action, USCIS can also provide a family with work authorization
allowing them to support themselves while their child receives
the treatment they need. And USCIS deferral lasts up to two
years, which allows for greater certainty to these families.
Finally, a person granted deferred action by USCIS is not
considered to be, quote, "unlawfully present in the United
States, which can be an important factor in future immigration
proceedings."
Mr. Renaud, do you agree that those are meaningful
differences between ICE administrative stays and deferred
action by USCIS?
Mr. Renaud. Not having expertise in administrative stays,
I'm not able to compare and contrast the two forms of
prosecutorial discretion.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, I've just compared and
contrasted them. Have I said anything inaccurate about the
differences between the two processes?
Mr. Renaud. Again, I can't confirm specifically how----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You're not familiar with your own
agency's procedures? I mean, is USCIS able to provide a family
with work authorization allowing them to support themselves
while their child receives the treatment they need? Is that
something that USCIS does allow?
Mr. Renaud. As I've testified, someone who is a recipient
of deferred action, someone who has deferred action is----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But also the parents can apply. A
family can be----
Mr. Renaud. Yes. Any individual for any reason who happens
to have deferred action----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And USCIS deferral does last up to
two years, correct? Is that correct?
Mr. Renaud. Deferred action is granted for periods not to
exceed two years.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
And finally, Mr. Renaud, do you agree that those are--
besides the fact that you've just outlined that there are
meaningful differences, because speaking to the difference in
the details that's very clear, are either of you aware of any
plans by ICE to provide these additional benefits to families
of critically ill children or others in the event that you
shift to a process that has ICE deal with this enforcement
mechanism?
Mr. Robbins. So, DHS is still considering a pathway
forward, and we're--those are internal discussions that we're
not prepared to discuss.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I appreciate making sure
that the information that arose during this entire hearing
makes it very clear that what Mr. Homan indicated was not
accurate and that these are very distinct and different
programs, one that provides a lengthier period of certainty
with benefits, the other that is simply an enforcement action.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
I'm going to recognize myself for five minutes now.
Both of you gentlemen have done a good job describing the
legal architecture of deferred action, at least from the
perspective of the agencies. It's a discretionary matter that's
conducted on a case-by-case basis, and you don't categorically
exempt entire groups, if I'm reading you correctly.
But what I don't get is what is the motivation behind the
new policy? What's the rationale for the new policy? And I know
some of my Republican colleagues were asking me to relay the
same question. Why did all of this happen? Can either of you
answer that? Mr. Renaud?
Mr. Renaud. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to
answer that. Because of the ongoing litigation, we're not able
to respond to that today.
Mr. Raskin. What is the new policy, as you understand it,
Mr. Renaud, because there's so much confusion around it?
Mr. Renaud. Again, because the litigation specifically
encumbers what the current policy is, as the committee was
informed last evening by letter, these are areas that we are
not going to be able to discuss--that I'm not going to be able
to discuss today.
Mr. Raskin. You can't tell me why there's a new policy, you
can't tell me what motivated the new policy, and you can't tell
me what the new policy is. I mean, is that a correct assessment
of the situation?
Mr. Renaud. That is my testimony, sir, yes.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Let's see. Well, Mr. Robbins, let me come
to you, because I can see that there's an effort to find some
shelter for the government in the idea of prosecutorial
discretion. What would the prosecutorial benefit be in removing
from the country, deporting from the country a young person who
has cystic fibrosis or cancer or another serious disease?
Mr. Robbins. So, I think it's safe that we can agree that
when it comes to very sympathetic cases, that is exactly what
discretion is for. ICE has, in enforcing immigration law, has
always used discretion and will always use discretion moving
forward.
Mr. Raskin. So, what changed? Like, but why--I mean, I
assume you saw the anxiety and the agony and the pain that
these families are going through. What changed?
Mr. Robbins. Well, currently ICE does not have a process,
an application process or an adjudicative process for
affirmative stays of deferred action. We use our prosecutorial
discretion from arrest through removal and then we have the
ability to adjudicate stay requests, and there's an application
process for that process.
Mr. Raskin. And therefore--but so what is the answer to my
question of what has changed?
Mr. Robbins. I can't speak to the rationale or what has
changed in regards to the adjudication of the deferred action
requests at CIS. I would have to defer that to my colleague.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Would you agree that there's been a
change in the mood somehow that produced the writing of these
letters?
Mr. Robbins. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. What would need to be done to get
Homeland Security just to reverse this whole disastrous road
that it went on when it sent out those letters?
Mr. Robbins. Well, one thing--I mean, we are currently
having ongoing discussions with DHS about our pathway forward
when it comes to deferred action, and we're just not prepared
to comment on that. Those discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Raskin. I got you. Well, I appreciate your candor and
your honesty about that. Can I just tell you, I know I speak
for a lot of colleagues, certainly on my side of the aisle, and
I suspect, but I don't want to say for sure, on the other side
of the aisle, that this really is a moral crisis in the
country.
I understand that--you know, you've described the numbers
of people affected as very few. And in terms of the overall
number of people you've got to deal with, I understand that,
but it's still 1,000 or more people. And, you know, as
representatives in Congress, we hear from them and their
families, and it's our job to take into account people's real-
life situations.
So, anything that we can do to work with the administration
to reverse this and to enter into discussions about new
regulation or new legislation to bring greater clarity and
transparency to the process, I think you'd find a lot of
support here.
But the United States of America is a big country. It's a
great country, and it has got a big heart. And when the people
of America see this kind of testimony--and we know that we're
in the very forefront of medical and scientific progress in the
world, and people come to America to get their lives saved and
not to get their lives messed up, and I think that's why it's
caused such crisis and anxiety not just in those families, but
across the country and in Congress when we see this being done
in the name of our people.
So, let me just ask you finally, when will you be ready to
conclude your deliberations with or without our assistance, and
when will you be ready to answer our committee about what is
the precise policy going forward, Mr. Robbins?
Mr. Robbins. I'd love to be able to give you an answer on
when that conversation would conclude. Those conversations are
ongoing, and I don't have an answer for you.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Can you assure us that none of the people
that we saw today or people in their situation will be removed
from the country until you get back to us with a policy answer
as to what the policy is?
Mr. Robbins. Well, I can assure you that when it comes to
ICE and our discretion, the people that--the population--and
Mr. Renaud can correct me if I'm wrong--these are affirmative
actions for deferred action. They are not in proceedings. They
are currently--that is not a population that we currently
target. But I do not have an exhaustive list of those people,
of actually who has previously applied for deferred action.
So,----
Mr. Raskin. And you can assure us--I understand you can
assure us that you're not targeting anyone in this situation
for removal at this point?
Mr. Robbins. I can assure you that enforcing immigration
law is a very, very difficult responsibility that ICE does very
professionally and with compassion. And this is a very
vulnerable population that has never been--I mean, we would use
prosecutorial discretion on cases very similar to these. I
can't speak to these specific cases because I do not have the
facts. But I can't assure you that every case that has applied
through CIS deferred action program or process would not be
removed. I just don't know all the cases.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, I appreciate the fact that you're
telling me you're not ready really to articulate what the
policy is, but I want you to know that we are going to be
zealous and diligent as the Oversight Committee in making sure
that people in this situation have their rights and their
interests considered consistent with the values of the American
people. So, thank you for your testimony.
And I recognize now Ms. Pressley for five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello, gentlemen. I'm thankful we were able to have you
before our committee today. I understand there was some
frustration with the expediency and the urgency with which we
were asking all of you to come, but I can assure you that
whatever inconvenience you may have experienced certainly pales
in comparison to the trauma and the fear and the inconvenience
your medical deferred action denial letters have imposed on
immigrant children and families.
I'm sure you both know last month that I, along with almost
130 of my House and Senate colleagues, sent a letter to your
agencies demanding the reversal to end USCIS's processing of
deferred action. Can you confirm whether your agencies will be
meeting the questions that we outlined in that letter
responding to our deadline by September 14? Mr. Renaud, Mr.
Robbins.
Mr. Renaud. I can't speak specifically of that----
Ms. Pressley. Can you confirm receipt of the letter?
Mr. Renaud. I cannot, but I know that when--I would not
receive that letter directly, but I know that we take those
letters very seriously and do everything we can to meet the
established guidelines and deadlines.
Ms. Pressley. And the deadlines, okay. All right.
Mr. Robbins, are you under the same impression?
Mr. Robbins. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, I have some
additional questions that I'll seek some clarity on.
Mr. Renaud, just a simple yes or no question, and, again,
you're on the record here. Was this a policy change that was a
result of a request from any high-ranking political appointee
at the White House?
Mr. Renaud. At the advice of counsel, I'm not able to
discuss the reasons for any change in our----
Ms. Pressley. Can you submit it in writing if you can't do
it here on the official record?
Mr. Renaud. I believe the issue is that we have pending
litigation. I can certainly go back and consult with the legal
team and determine whether we can provide that in writing.
Ms. Pressley. I'll keep going.
What office or internal department at USCIS did this
directive come from?
Mr. Renaud. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Ms. Pressley. What office or internal department at USCIS
did this policy change directive come from? Where did it come
from?
Mr. Renaud. Again, I'm not sure that I can answer that
question at the advice of counsel.
Ms. Pressley. You cannot answer the genesis of this policy
and what office offered the directive. Is that correct?
Mr. Renaud. Ma'am, I'm not an attorney, and I don't pretend
to understand or know all the aspects of law.
Ms. Pressley. Well, I'll make a request----
Mr. Renaud. I know that when attorneys ask me or instruct
me that there is some things when you are being--when you're in
the middle of litigation that you should not speak on, then
I'll abide by that.
Ms. Pressley. All right.
Mr. Renaud. I appreciate you understanding.
Ms. Pressley. Respectfully, reclaiming my time. And I'll
just make my request again that you respond to the letter by
the deadline that we've already submitted that outlines a
number of questions that gets to not only our request, but
better understanding the origins of this appalling policy. And
also, if you could respond to the questions that I'm asking you
now, if you can't do it here officially on the record. Okay?
Mr. Renaud. I understand what you're asking.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Very good.
Now that USCIS has been publicly shamed into processing the
deferred action request that you had originally denied, how
many requests has your agency processed since USCIS's September
2 announcement? Can you tell me how many you've processed?
Mr. Renaud. Since September 2, we have not issued any
approvals or denials of deferred action for nonmilitary
deferred action.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. And what is the criteria in which these
requests will be processed and how can your agency ensure that
there is no retaliation against applicants?
Mr. Renaud. Well, again, as my colleague testified, what is
the path forward is, frankly, a subject of litigation also and
it is deliberative at this point.
Ms. Pressley. Can you provide a timeline for which families
can expect to hear from USCIS on the status of their request?
Mr. Renaud. I know that this is important to--it's
obviously an important issue, but, no, I cannot give a
definitive timeline.
Ms. Pressley. And so these families are just hanging in the
balance? Can you provide a timeline in the letter that you'll
be responding to by September 14?
Mr. Renaud. I do not know the answer to that question.
Ms. Pressley. What is the geographic breakdown of where
these patients are currently residing in the U.S., and are
there particular areas that are more impacted? I'm trying to
see if there are any trends here.
Mr. Renaud. So, one of the challenges with how historically
we've been looking at deferred action requests is that we do
not have a form. There is no fee for the grant of deferred
action. And we do not have a system in which to put these in.
So, data related to the basis for the requests, which do vary
or the--certainly geographic, to get to your question, the
geographic distribution, we cannot be precise in that area, you
know, in response to that question at all.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. And just to reiterate again, to be
clear, the deadline to respond to the letter that was
submitted, signed by nearly 130 of my colleagues, a bicameral
letter, the deadline is this Friday. And, again, can you commit
to answering our questions by then for the record?
Mr. Raskin. The witness may answer that question, so answer
that question.
Mr. Renaud. Well, I think I've answered it. I said that we
will do our best. I have not seen the letter. I do not know,
frankly, if we've received it yet, but I know that we take
those letters seriously. Obviously, it's a serious issue, and
we will do what we can to provide you the information in a
timely manner.
Ms. Pressley. Well, I don't want us to set a new precedent,
because a moment ago, you said that it's been your experience
that you do respond by deadline. So, let's not create a new
precedent. So, I look forward to your responses.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time is expired. Thank you.
Mr. DeSaulnier, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses, and I just--your comment
about moral crisis, Mr. Chairman, I think, is important for all
of us to think about individually and collectively. I'm
reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Dante. He says, "The
hottest places in hell are reserved for individuals who remain
neutral at times of moral crisis."
I've tried to think about the people that we've interacted
with your agency in San Francisco and how difficult it must be
to carry out a policy that then turns out to cause the kind of
anguish that came across Ms. Bueso, my constituent, and her
mom, who testified from near where you are, Mr. Renaud, just
next to you, that when she got the letter from your department
of which you oversee, as I understand this department, her
mother vomited in a hospital and then cried because they knew
that was a death sentence. How do you respond to that as a
human being?
Mr. Renaud. These are not easy jobs for our officers in the
field.
Mr. DeSaulnier. No. I was asking for you personally. You
have the title. You oversee this.
Mr. Renaud. I am certainly----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Was it a mistake?
Mr. Renaud. I'm certainly empathetic to their situation.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Was it a mistake, sir?
Mr. Renaud. I don't----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Was that letter a mistake?
We heard from my colleagues on the Republican side, this
policy was enacted was a mistake. Do you think it was a
mistake?
Mr. Renaud. I am an operator. I am not a policymaker. So,
operationally, you know, my role is to comment on policy to the
extent that we can make it operationally feasible or to
indicate when it's not operationally feasible. I am not in the
position professionally to pass judgment on whether I like or
don't like a statute, a regulation, or a policy.
Those are some of the hardest times in my career and in
those of the people who work with me, where either we are
required to grant the benefit to someone who we believe is a
threat or we believe has secured a benefit through fraud
despite our best effort.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Excuse me, would you----
Mr. Renaud. And it's also hard when we have to say no to
someone with a very empathetic case.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I was asking specifically on behalf of the
person who lives in my district. Are you implying she's a
threat to national security?
Mr. Renaud. I am not implying that, no.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So, you have said that your attorney can't
answer questions because of litigation, but we've been told by
the Supreme Court over and over again that private litigation
shouldn't inhibit your testimony to Congress in our
investigation. Have you been told that by your attorney that
the Supreme Court actually contradicts the legal advice you're
getting?
Mr. Renaud. I was not told that by the attorney. I did read
the response from the committee, though.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Maybe you should get your own attorney.
Do you know who made the decision to stop accepting the
processing deferred action requests on August 7 that led to the
letter?
Mr. Renaud. Yes. That, as you just indicated, that is
something that is under litigation that I'm not able to respond
to at the advice of counsel.
Mr. DeSaulnier. What role did the acting director play in
the decision?
Mr. Renaud. I'm sorry?
Mr. DeSaulnier. What role did the acting----
Mr. Renaud. Again, that, sir, is essentially the same
question that I'm not able to answer.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Robbins, was anyone at ICE involved in
the decision?
Mr. Robbins. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Renaud, why didn't you make any public
announcement or communicate with Congress about the decision?
Mr. Renaud. I think that the nature of our announcement is
also under litigation, and so at the advice of counsel, I'm not
able to answer that. I appreciate you understanding.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Did you do any internal studies about how
many critically ill children or adults might die as a result of
being forced to leave the United States under this new policy?
Mr. Renaud. I think it's important to note that the denial
of deferred action does not force the removal of any
individual. No individuals, to the best of my knowledge, have
even been issued a notice to appear, which commences removal
proceedings, which could last months or longer.
So, I don't believe that--if you're asking if we had
analysis of how many people would be impacted by this, we had
an idea of the number of--the size of the population who
received deferred action. But, again, the reasons why the
process was changed I'm not at liberty to say at this time.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So, before that letter was sent out, was
there any discussion anywhere about the consequences of that
letter, and in the case of my constituent, that she existed and
this might lead to her removal from the country which meant a
death sentence, according to her doctor? Was anyone aware of
that?
Mr. Renaud. Again, the letter did not order their departure
from the United States. So, I think that your question is
missing a few steps in the process where there is----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, why would you send a letter?
Mr. Renaud [continuing]. Lots of room for prosecutorial
discretion. USCIS could choose not to issue an NTA, and that
person would never be in proceedings unless otherwise----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Had you ever issued this letter with the
content before?
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time is expired. You can answer
that question.
Mr. Renaud. We have issued denial notices on deferred
action requests. In fact, we historically have denied about
half of the deferred action requests that we receive. There was
a question earlier from one of the members that indicated that
we see about 1,000 a year, that's about 1,000 applicants per
year historically, and we have denied the majority of those, at
least in the data that I see.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time is
expired.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is recognized for five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Mr. Renaud, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that
ongoing litigation is not valid grounds for resisting an answer
to congressional questions. So, I was wondering, why are you
citing those illegitimate grounds?
Mr. Renaud. I'm not prepared or capable of arguing legal
precedent with you. I'm here representing the agency and----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, why did the agency change the
policy?
Mr. Renaud. I'm sorry?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Why did the agency change the policy
with respect to deferred action?
Mr. Renaud. Again, as I mentioned earlier, that is
something under litigation that at the advice of counsel----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And as I mentioned, the Supreme Court
has already--this has been sued. This very question has been
sued on. We don't have to debate it. The Supreme Court has
determined it, that ongoing litigation is not grounds to resist
an answer to a congressional inquiry.
So, I'll ask again, why did ICE change the policy?
Mr. Renaud. Why did ICE change the policy?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Or rather, why was the policy around
deferred action changed under USCIS?
Mr. Renaud. Yes. I'm going to answer again, at the advice
of counsel, I am not able to discuss that information.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Due to? What reason are you citing?
Mr. Renaud. At the advice of counsel, I am not answering
that question. I hope you'll understand and----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Actually----
Mr. Renaud [continuing]. I don't know what else to say.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.--because there's no reason being
offered, we cannot understand.
Mr. Renaud. I can only say that you're arguing with the
wrong person, you know. I'm not in a position to----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. All right, Mr. Renaud, I'll move on.
Because there has been a lot of chaos caused by this policy
change, and the administration, because they did not advise
Congress ahead of time on how this would be enforced or what
would happen, there are a lot of outstanding questions. So,
hopefully these questions are relatively straightforward.
Exactly how many cases will be reopened as a result of your
agency's partial reversal on deferred action?
Mr. Renaud. We have reopened every case that was denied on
or after August 7. That total is--I don't have an exact
number--it's approximately 424.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Will people who applied before August 7
be allowed to submit new evidence if necessary or will their
files be frozen as of August 7?
Mr. Renaud. Typically, when we consider a request or a
benefit application, we will provide the opportunity for the
alien to augment the record if there is additional evidence
needed.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Will the reopened cases be evaluated
using the same standards and the same process that your agency
previously applied to request for deferred action?
Mr. Renaud. That question I'm not able to answer.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You cannot answer if you'll be using the
same standards that you used before?
Mr. Renaud. I cannot answer--I cannot answer questions
regarding what standards we will be using going forward.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Will field officers still follow the
process outlined in USCIS's standard operating procedures or
will there be a new procedure?
Mr. Renaud. I don't know. I am able to answer that, I
think, I just don't know the answer. That depends on what the
process will be. I think it's important to note that the--I
know it came up in the last hearing the standard operating
procedure. That essentially described the mechanics of how to
process a case. It is not a guide to the use of discretion.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Will USCIS impose any limits or caps on
the number of deferred action cases that may be granted from
reopened cases?
Mr. Renaud. I don't know the answer to that question.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Your September 2 announcement also
stated, and I quote, "As USCIS' deferred action caseload is
reduced, the career employees who decide such cases will be
more available to address other types of legal immigration
applications on a more efficient basis."
The media reports indicate that USCIS receives only about
1,000 medical deferred action requests each year. USCIS has
about 19,000 employees and contractors that handle hundreds of
thousands requests each year. So, are these 1,000 requests
really such a large burden that they justify ending deferred
action for people with serious life-and-death medical
conditions entirely and risking their lives?
Mr. Renaud. Well, as you know, speaking to the language in
the letter, USCIS has a sizable workload and 1,000 deferred
action requests equals about 2,000 naturalization applications
in terms of workload. So, to the 2,000 people who we could have
naturalized, you know, I think that those cases are pretty
important to them as well.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chair, I think it's important that
we acknowledge here that we are getting open resistance that
are citing illegitimate legal grounds, no legal grounds for
resisting the answers to these congressional inquiries, no
insight into the past rationale of these decisions, little to
no insight into the future of these decisions. This is a threat
to even the rule of law when it comes to U.S. immigration
policy. How can people be in compliance or make an effort to be
in compliance of the law if they don't know what that
enforcement is or will be in the future?
With that, I rest. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time has expired. I thank you
for your comments. And it inspires me, actually, to close with
another five minutes of questioning, and I invite any of my
other colleagues who want to pursue it.
We learned a lot with the first panel about how this
program has traditionally worked, what people's expectations
are. And I think a lot of us felt great pride that America
could play this role for sick kids from around the world. We're
seeing a little bit of a different America on display right now
in this discussion of the chaotic and inscrutable rollout of
this policy.
And I don't mean to put all the blame on the two of you. I
know this must be an uncomfortable setting for you to be in.
You've been sent forward to defend policies that it doesn't
appear were your idea in the first place. But I do have a few
final questions I want to try to pursue with you.
Our colleague Mr. Hice cited some data about the number of
applicants and so on. That was not data I'd ever seen before,
and I just wonder, could you share whatever data he was working
from with us or did that come from another source? I don't
know. Mr. Robbins?
Mr. Robbins. I'm not familiar with the data that was
discussed.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Renaud, did you know?
Mr. Renaud. I would have to go back and look at the tape of
the hearing, but certainly, if there's data, we can share data.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Renaud, just to be clear,
can you tell us who made the decision USCIS would stop
accepting and processing the deferred action requests on August
the 7?
Mr. Renaud. No. Because of litigation and at the advice of
counsel, I'm not able to.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. For reasons that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said,
the litigation is irrelevant to the statement of a fact. So,
that's been established, but could you tell us whether Ken
Cuccinelli, the Acting Director of USCIS, played a role in this
decision?
Mr. Renaud. Sir, with all due respect, we sent a letter to
the committee yesterday outlining how this testimony would go.
Mr. Raskin. No. We determine how the testimony will go, not
you.
Mr. Renaud. I appreciate that you appreciate that this puts
me in a difficult situation. But it shouldn't be unknown to
you, you know, why or how I'm in this situation. So, no, I'm
not able to answer.
Mr. Raskin. No. Really, this is a great mystery to me.
Ordinarily, when we ask government witnesses to come in,
they're prepared to answer the questions of the committee.
They're prepared to tell where policies came from. I'm baffled.
I've never seen a situation like this before.
But let me just at least for the record, and if you can't
answer it, that's fine. Can you tell us what role Ken
Cuccinelli, the Acting Director of USCIS, played in this
decision?
Mr. Renaud. No, sir, I'm not able to.
Mr. Raskin. Can you tell us what role the Acting Secretary
of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, played?
Mr. Renaud. No, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Can you tell us the role that anyone at the
White House, including Stephen Miller, the architect of
immigration policy at the White House, played in this decision?
Mr. Renaud. No, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And Mr. Robbins forthrightly said he
could not tell me why the policy was developed, where it arose
from, or even what the policy is. And I just want to be clear
for the record, if this is basically where you are too on it. I
remember when I was in school learning that the five critical
ingredients of history are the five Ws: who, white--who, what,
why, where, and when. And I want to make sure it's the case
that you can't answer any of these.
Can you tell us why we have the new policy? Mr. Renaud, I
was coming to you. Can you tell us why we have the new policy
of rejecting the medical deferred action requests?
Mr. Renaud. No. Because of the pending lawsuit and the at
the advice of counsel, I'm not----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Can you tell me who ordered the policy?
Mr. Renaud. I cannot.
Mr. Raskin. Can you tell me where the policy came from?
Mr. Renaud. For the same reason, I cannot.
Mr. Raskin. Can you tell me when the policy was developed
or when it will be finalized?
Mr. Renaud. No, sir.
Mr. Raskin. And can you tell me what the policy is?
Mr. Renaud. Because of the pending litigation, I'm not able
to share that information.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I'm afraid to say this is the perfect
Trump administration public policy. We don't know where it
comes from. We don't know why we have it. We don't know who
came up with it. We don't know when it was adopted or even if
it was adopted. And we don't know what it is. And again, I
don't mean to make you the fall guy. Obviously, you've been
sent forth to give this testimony today, but it is the occasion
for great frustration in the Congress of the United States, the
representatives of the people.
Can you tell me how families received denial letters
because of the policy change? Mr. Renaud, do you know?
Mr. Renaud. That I can tell you, so that the cameras left
that I can tell you. 424, approximately 424 denial notices were
sent on or after August 7.
Mr. Raskin. And how many of the 424 have been reopened?
Mr. Renaud. All 424.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. If you were still trying to figure out
what the policy is, why not then reopen all of the requests,
including the ones that came in after August the 7th?
Mr. Renaud. So, essentially we did. There were
approximately 791 pending requests on August 7. We proceeded to
deny 424, and then the balance, 300 something, we did not take
any action on. Those--those remain pending, the 424 that we
denied, we reopened. So, all of the cases that were pending on
August 7 are now open active requests for deferred action.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And after August 7, are people still
facing this 33-day cutoff?
Mr. Renaud. At this point, no--there never was a 33-day
cutoff. May I explain what the 33 days----
Mr. Raskin. Please.
Mr. Renaud. That was talked about a lot. We--as someone in
the previous panel indicated, I think they used the word
``boilerplate.'' We use standard language in some of our denial
notices. We have a standard process whereby if we are issuing a
status denial or a denial of someone who is removable from the
United States or who appears to be removable from the United
States, such as being out of status, we include a statement
indicating that essentially in 33 days, we will review their
case, we will see if they have departed. If they have not
departed, then we will make a determination of whether to issue
a notice to appear commencing removal proceedings. That is an
opportunity where we can exercise prosecutorial discretion and
decide not to issue a notice to appear, in which case removal
proceedings would not begin. And so that is the context of the
33 days. No one was given 33 days to leave or else.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you for that answer.
My time has expired. I'm going to recognize the gentlelady
from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, for another five minutes, if
she seeks.
Ms. Pressley. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, I wish I could feign just incredible surprise at
the lack of responsiveness here, but it is par for the course
with this administration we often have witnesses who come
before us and I can't call it anything other than what it is,
it's stonewalling, it's obstructing. And I just want to make
something very clear: This is not about your answering just to
this committee. You're answering to the American people. And
this emergency hearing was called because of a rallying cry, a
public outcry, an outrage.
Now, our chairman rightfully says that it's unfair to make
you all the fall guys, but I think it's not right to make you
the fall guys to defend a policy that is--that you can't, not
because you don't have the answers, but because the policy is
indefensible. There's really not much that you could offer. But
nevertheless we persist.
And so let me just pick back up again on the 33 days. I
want to talk about Jonathan Sanchez from my district, 16 years
old, who endured a great--not knowing what his--what life holds
for him in the future or if he will be able to preserve and
maintain his life, sat here for a number of hours, enduring
demoralizing and a dehumanizing environment by many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And so if he could
deal with that, you can deal with this.
So, Jonathan Sanchez testified earlier today. Jonathan has
cystic fibrosis, and he testified that doctors in Honduras
where he was from did not even know what cystic fibrosis was.
I'm not sure if you heard his testimony earlier, but his
youngest sister died as a result of cystic fibrosis in Honduras
because they did not understand her disease or how to treat
her.
Thirty-three days is certainly not enough time to arrange
for travel, housing, medical equipment, translating medical
records or the many other steps that would be needed to
transport a critically ill child to another country. Simply
put, it's a death sentence for many of these patients.
Mr. Renaud, when the administration decided to end deferred
action, was any thought put into what would happen to the
critically ill children and their families?
Mr. Renaud. I think that the thought was that we would--we
would follow our notice to appear memo, which applies to all
cases, which I described earlier. We would provide people a
standard period of time by which--at which time we would review
their case and determine whether it was appropriate in the
government's best interest to issue them a notice to appear.
Ms. Pressley. And again just on the timeframe, was that
specific window considered sufficient given the extenuating
circumstances and the fragility of these individuals' medical
state?
Mr. Renaud. I think, again, there seems to be an assumption
in that question that there would be an NTA coming at the end
of those 33 days. And, you know, what I'm saying is that that
would be an opportunity for us to issue prosecutorial
discretion and decide not to issue a notice to appear.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Mr. Renaud, when USCIS ordered
Jonathan to leave the country in 33 days, did you consider the
fact the treatment for that disease is unavailable in Honduras?
Mr. Renaud. I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, ma'am,
but we did not order anyone to leave the country. That's not
our role. If you go back to my written testimony, I describe
what our role is and what it isn't. USCIS does not order people
to leave the country.
Ms. Pressley. It does seem we're missing each other here
and, you know, I'm----
Mr. Renaud. We are.
Ms. Pressley. Yes. Because it's inconsistent with what the
families testified to and the letters that they provided to
substantiate and corroborate their experiences.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield for a moment just to
elaborate this point?
Ms. Pressley. Absolutely. I yield.
Mr. Raskin. The letter that you sent to Ms. Barrera said,
if you fail to departing the United States within 33 days of
the date of this letter, USCIS may issue you a notice to appear
and commence removal proceedings against you with the
immigration court. That's coming from USCIS, that's not coming
from ICE.
Mr. Renaud. That's all true.
Mr. Raskin. So, in what sense are you not threatening to
remove people from the country?
Mr. Renaud. Well, again, I'm not an attorney, but, you
know, words have meanings. What we indicate is that if they do
not--what we indicate is that if they do not depart the country
within 33 days, in that paragraph, they do not depart the
country within 33 days, they may be issued a notice to appear.
That is accurate. At that time----
Mr. Raskin. Notice to appear and for the purpose of
commencing removal proceedings.
Mr. Renaud. It does not say they will. It does not say they
must leave the country.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. But with all due respect, Mr. Renaud,
we're talking about people who have cystic fibrosis, childhood
cancer and so on. You're sending this to them in a change of
policy which clearly indicates that they're going to be removed
or have a very heavy likelihood of being removed from the
country.
I'm going to yield another 30 seconds to my colleague.
Thank you for yielding.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the questions that you've not answered based on pending
litigation, do you actually know the answers to those
questions? Do you know the answers and you're not sharing them
or you don't know? Do you know the answers to the questions
that I've asked that you've declined to answer?
Mr. Renaud. I understand your question. I was trying to
decide if I knew--I do not know the answers to all of your
questions, no.
Ms. Pressley. To any of them?
Mr. Renaud. I'm sorry?
Ms. Pressley. To any of them? To any of the questions that
I asked. Regarding the genesis of this policy? Was it ordered
by a political appointee? What office did this come from? How
many cases have been processed? Do you know the answers to any
of those questions?
Mr. Renaud. I certainly think that without a pending
lawsuit, I would be able to provide additional information.
Ms. Pressley. I yield.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. The gentlelady yields, and we come to Mr.
Grothman for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. All right. As I mentioned earlier today to
the first panel, I think you folks do a tremendous job. I've
been at the border three times this year. I know you do a very
difficult job. Everybody who I have run into has been the
pinnacle of professionalism. Everybody has exhibited 100
percent concern about people in this country who are not
citizens, even people who came here illegally, goes out of
their way to provide medical care that would not even be
available to American citizens, and they do it without
complaining--they might complain a little, but they do it. So,
I would like to thank you for all your agencies do.
Looking at this letter that they're talking about, it
appears to me this letter is a form letter. Do you think that's
true?
Mr. Renaud. That is correct.
Mr. Grothman. Would anybody who made out this letter know
that Ms. Barrera had a medical condition?
Mr. Renaud. I think that the--when the letter was drafted,
we certainly understood that there was a wide range of cases
under consideration that would be denied, including some
medical issues, yes.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But did you know specifically when you
sent this letter to Ms. Barrera that she had a medical
condition?
Mr. Renaud. You know, I don't know the answer to that
question. I would like to say, yes, I think that we probably
pulled the case, looked at it, and decided to deny.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I think what you're trying to tell us
here is that there are opportunities to appeal. And when you
appeal, almost certainly--I shouldn't say almost certainly--
certainly the two people who were on the previous panel were
not going to be kicked out of this country. Right?
We have a process, many people have to be kicked out, some
people shouldn't. Okay. As you work your way through the
process, people like these two folks almost certainly will not
be kicked out of the country. Is that accurate?
Mr. Robbins. I think it's accurate to say that in my
career, in my experience, when you run into a situation similar
to the individuals that were here earlier, prosecutorial
discretion would be used.
Mr. Grothman. Right. And the point I'm trying to make
here--and it kind of bothers me a little bit what the other
party is doing here. I think they are trying to scare people in
to believe that they are going to be deported when they're not,
for political purposes. I mean, I don't know whether you guys
feel in your position, you can agree with me or not agree with
me on that, but if you have two people brought before this
committee today, brought all the way to Washington, DC, and
told that they should be scared to death that they're going to
be kicked out of this country when as a practical matter
they're not, I just think it's a little bit appalling.
Do either of you in your two agencies believe that as this
worked its way through the process, either of those two
individuals are going to be kicked out this country?
Mr. Robbins. I can't speak to the individuals that were
here because I don't know the facts of their care, but my
understanding--look, the reality is, is people with medical
issues----
Mr. Grothman. So, there are two young people with severe
medical----
Mr. Robbins. It draws at our heartstrings and I can't see
them being removed in the future, but I can't speak to their
specific cases. But cases similar to that, we would use
discretion absolutely. As far as ICE is concerned, we would use
discretion at the very point on whether we arrest, place----
Mr. Grothman. Do either of you believe that these two folks
are being kicked out--were going to be kicked out of the
country?
Mr. Robbins. I do not believe that someone----
Mr. Grothman. They both had severe medical----
Mr. Robbins [continuing]. In a similar situation would be--
we would use discretion to--use our limited resources to remove
that individual and to prioritize our resources.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Renaud, same question.
Mr. Renaud. I would agree with my colleague.
Mr. Grothman. All right. So, I believe what's going on here
today is for political reasons to embarrass President Trump. We
have brought two people in here who are not going to be kicked
out of this country but scare them to death to believe they
might be kicked out of the country, and it just wasn't going to
happen. There's no way it's going to happen.
And I'll give you another question, because a lot of the--
and I asked this of the prior person here. Sometimes in this
hearing it's more to this idea of minors without their parents
are being pulled apart. In this country, in both of your
positions, do you see minors in this country without their
parents, with both their parents probably in other countries,
unaccompanied minors?
Mr. Robbins. I don't really understand the question. We
have unaccompanied minors here in the country, yes.
Mr. Grothman. Correct. And their parents are in other
countries. In the U.S., does--do they immediately send them
back to be reunited with their parents or do we try to tolerate
putting them in this country?
Mr. Robbins. Unaccompanied minors have due process and that
due process is available to everyone illegal in this country.
Mr. Grothman. So, minors come here and they can run away
from parents, and right now, the United States doesn't do
anything about it?
Mr. Robbins. I think it's unfair to say the United States
doesn't do anything about it.
Mr. Grothman. They can wait up in this country for two or
three years till they get a hearing?
Mr. Robbins. So, you know, for unaccompanied minors that
cross the border that we are aware of that are apprehended at
the border, there is due process for those unaccompanied
minors.
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DeSaulnier is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
I just want to go back to a comment you had just a little
while ago, Mr. Renaud. So, am I correct in saying that someone
knew about Ms. Bueso Barrera's medical condition when that
letter was sent out on August 7? That's what you just
testified. And remind you that she's asked for it four times
and got accepted prior to this. So, what you just said is
somebody pulled her file.
Mr. Renaud. That is my best estimate of what happened. Yes,
I believe that's----
Mr. DeSaulnier. So, someone under your direction,
supervision----
Mr. Renaud. Yes, I think----
Mr. DeSaulnier [continuing]. Pulled the file and knew what
the circumstances were?
Mr. Renaud. So, I think that they understood that they--
that there were cases pending, in process, and that USCIS had
stopped issuing deferred action, and so they issued the letter.
I don't want to pretend or accuse that individual or make it
seem like that individual made a judgment call on her condition
and in a heartless way did what they did. This is--we certainly
are--we're USCIS. We're empathetic to people and their
circumstance, but we have--you know, we are bound by the laws
and the regulations and the policies that we have. And, you
know, that is how we operate.
As I said earlier, sometimes that means that we have to say
yes to someone we'd rather not because we think that there is--
that there's fraud or misrepresentation or there could be harm
to the country. It also means sometimes that we have to say no
to people that, frankly, we feel bad for and we empathize with.
That is--that's the hard work done by immigration officers
across the country every day.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So, she's been approved four times in the
past. You're going to look at the file again. Is there any
chance that she would be denied because the guidelines and the
discretion has changed, given that she's been approved four
times, including during this administration?
Mr. Renaud. Again, I have not looked at her case. I
understand what we heard today. I am not able to comment on----
Mr. Raskin. Forgive me, I thought you just did comment in
an answer to Mr. Grothman that you could not imagine that she
would not be allowed to stay in the country. Are you changing
that testimony?
Mr. Renaud. I think my testimony was that I agree with my
colleague. And I deferred to his expertise.
Mr. Raskin. And that was what he said. He said he could not
imagine a circumstance under which someone in her situation
would be denied. Obviously, Mr. DeSaulnier has an intense
interest in making sure that his constituent has the right to
continue to get her medical services.
Mr. Robbins. I was referring to removal. Now, what I'm
saying is I don't--when you're talking about stayed in this
country, would we remove someone in that situation? I cannot
speak to her specific case. I do not know all the facts.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, let's be clear then. Mr. Grothman was
trying to say that this was some kind of big political show
because there was no chance any of these people being removed.
And now what we're getting is answers saying there's a chance
that Mr. DeSaulnier's constituent would be removed. And she was
terrified long before she came into this committee. We didn't
know anything about this. There is terror among hundreds of
people in an extreme medical condition.
So, let's stop playing games. I liked it better when you
guys just said you couldn't testify. Don't tell Mr. Grothman
that there's no chance that people are going to be get kicked
out of the country and then turn around and tell Mr. DeSaulnier
that his constituent could get kicked out of the country.
I'm sorry, Mr. DeSaulnier, your time is restored to you.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Do you care to respond to that as a humane
institution, Mr. Renaud or Mr. Robbins?
I will tell you, Mr. Robbins, if you try to remove her,
knowing my constituents, you better bring a lot of buses,
because a lot of us are going to be arrested trying to protect
her.
Mr. Robbins. What I was trying to make clear, if you'll
allow me, was I cannot judge this case here for the people that
we're talking about. But what I said was, there are similar
cases that have compassion, compelling humanitarian reasons, we
use discretion every day. We have in the past enforced an
immigration law, we will in the future. We continuously use
discretion on who we arrest, who we place in proceedings, and
ultimately remove. What I was saying was if there was a case
similar to that, I cannot foresee a similar case being removed
from the country, placed into proceedings, and ultimately
removed.
Now, I can't speak to her specific case, because I think
it's unfair for me to try to adjudicate that here in this
hearing room. But what I can say is that our officers, on a
regular basis, use discretion on very sympathetic cases and
humanitarian compelling cases. And our officers do it very
well. They do it professionally with compassion.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And I appreciate that. I'm sorry that many
moral, ethical people who are in public service have to go
through this. And to me, this was not contrived. I mean, these
constituents came to me. We heard their testimony about
vomiting in a hospital after she had gotten hours of treatment.
But what's changed is this letter. And if either of you or
anyone out there is listening--and, Mr. Chairman, given your
expertise in law, I do feel sorry for these gentlemen being
placed here, because I know where the responsibility is, in my
view. But this is a heartless, cruel thing sent out.
And, Mr. Renaud, knowing that somebody in our organization,
I assumed you worked there a long time, knew what this would do
and how this deviated from the previous four times she applied,
we've got to get to the bottom of this and we've got to hold
people accountable. And if they're not going to testify and
use--use a contrived defense to give us the truth, so obvious
facts, then I don't know how we pursue it. Do we find them
individually in contempt of Congress? As my colleague said,
they're responding to the American public. This--somebody needs
to be held accountable for doing this and it needs to be
corrected.
So, I'm--to say that I'm disappointed as an American to sit
here is an understatement that I don't know where our level of
shame or decency will ever come to a point where all of us can
say a letter like this is not in the spirit of America, whether
you're a Republican or a Democrat, and somebody should be held
accountable.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms. Pressley, I thank you both
for your leadership in putting this on the agenda.
Mr. Renaud, Mr. Robbins, I thank you both for appearing
today. And--oh, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will get to close out
with five minutes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think one of the things that's difficult about this
moment is that all of us like to think--all of us, first of
all, want to do a good job. And I understand the difficult
position that it is when people are career servants and when
the politicization of this administration goes in so deep that
it politicizes otherwise career positions. I understand, I
respect that. But I also understand that at some point in our
lives, we reach a moral crossroads.
In the panel right before this one, we heard from a
teenager whose little sister died because she couldn't have
access to medication, and he has the same disease that she
does; and a young woman who has been in this country for 16
years, depending on medical treatment. And deporting her will
kill her. This policy will murder her. And we are trying to get
to the bottom of the origins of this policy change. And we have
to ask you. And you all are citing counsel, which has given you
illegitimate reasons to resist answering these questions. The
Supreme Court has ruled on it. It's not a debate.
So, let me see if I can summarize this testimony and see if
there's any last chance that you all may want to change your
answer. You will not tell us who decided this policy. You will
not tell us who at DHS thought it was a good idea. You will not
tell Congress if the White House ordered this policy. You will
not tell Congress whether you vetted the policy with anyone
before you put it in place. You will not tell Congress why the
policy was changed. You will not tell Congress what the future
policy will be. You will not tell Congress when that future
policy will be announced, and you will not tell Congress when
you plan to let these families with life-and-death diagnoses
know their fates. Is that all correct?
Mr. Renaud. I think on the balance it is correct, yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, the claims are based on this idea
that there's ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court has ruled
that ongoing litigation is not a reason to resist that answer.
That has never been the standard under a Democratic or
Republican Congress, and we have a job that we have to do too.
And our job is ordered by the Constitution of the United States
to conduct oversight on these conditions that will kill people.
So, I would say we should have a chance to answer these
questions by this Friday in response to a letter. One question
that I have is, who is your counsel? Who advised you to do
this?
Mr. Renaud. We--I take counsel from the DHS General
Counsel.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And which individuals at DHS General
Counsel advised you to resist answering these questions?
Mr. Renaud. I do not know who made that ultimate decision.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. But which individual told you to do it
specifically? Certainly someone told you; you're citing
counsel. Was it a letter? Was it a meeting?
Mr. Renaud. I will take that back and get back with you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Was it a letter or a meeting?
So, you won't even tell us who told you to defy the Supreme
Court?
Mr. Renaud. I was never told to defy the Supreme Court,
ma'am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. To cite reasons in defiance of the
Supreme Court.
Mr. Renaud. So, to answer your question, I will take those
questions back. And if I can provide those answers, I will be
happy to do so.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. All right. Thank you for agreeing to do
that. And I think that we need to have these questions by this
Friday. People, they're terrified. Their medications are on the
line, their entire lives are on the line.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think that we should
consider--and I believe that after this hearing we have no
recourse but to consider discussing a subpoena to get this
information if we don't get it as requested.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I want to thank the vice chair of the
committee for her insight and views on this.
Again, I want to thank both of you for coming and for
participating as much as you felt that you could, given the
institutional constraints you're open operating under.
Obviously, this committee is not done with this issue at all.
We will be in touch about next steps, but we do look forward to
working with you to quelling the chaos that was unleashed when
that letter was sent in August. And thank all of you for
coming.
Meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]