[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT OF CURRENT IMMIGRATION
POLICIES ON SERVICE MEMBERS AND VETERANS,
AND THEIR FAMILIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-752 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.
HENRY C. HANK JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia Wisconsin
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JIM JORDAN, Ohio
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York KEN BUCK, Colorado
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
ERIC SWALWELL, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
TED LIEU, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida TOM McCLINTOCK, California
J. LUIS CORREA, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
Vice-Chair BEN CLINE, Virginia
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, Vice-Chair
J. LUIS CORREA, California KEN BUCK, Colorado, Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
David Shahoulian, Chief Counsel
Andrea Loving, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 29, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Lou Correa, California, Subcommittee on Immigration
and Citizenship, Committee on the Judiciary.................... 3
The Honorable Ken Buck, Colorado, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship, Committee on the Judiciary........ 32
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, New York, Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 33
The Honorable Doug Collins, Georgia, Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 34
WITNESSES
Mr. Hector Barajas-Varela, Director and Founder, Deported
Veterans Support House
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
Ms. Jennie Pasquarella, Director of Immigrants' Rights, ACLU of
California and Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU of Southern
California
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Prepared Statement........................................... 47
Ms. Margaret D. Stock, Immigration Attorney and Lieutenant
Colonel (Retired), Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve
Oral Statement............................................... 62
Prepared Statement........................................... 65
The Honorable Mark Metcalf, Former Immigration Judge, Lieutenant
Colonel, Army National Guard
Oral Statement............................................... 100
Prepared Statement........................................... 102
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statements from Asian American Advancing Justice; the
Center for Law and Military Policy; the Military Officers
Association of America; the National Federation of Filipino
American Associations; a Statement from Mario Antonio Martinez,
U.S. Army Veteran facing deportation; a Statement from Pablo
Dilbert, a Deported U.S. Marine Corps Veteran; a Statement from
Salomon Loayzo, a Deported U.S. Navy Veteran, and; a Statement
from Beverly W. Cutler, Former Superior Court Judge for the
Third Judicial District in Alaska; Submitted by the Honorable
Lou Correa..................................................... 4
Letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Acting
Director Cuccinelli from Members of Congress; Submitted by the
Honorable Lou Correa........................................... 26
U.S. Department of Justice Press Release entitled, ``Chinese
National Arrested for Allegedly Acting Within the United States
as an Illegal Agent of the People's Republic of China''; U.S.
Department of Defense Memorandum on the Certification of
Honorable Service for Members of the Selected Reserve of the
Ready Reserve and Members of the Active Components of the
Military of Naval Forces for Purposes of Naturalization, and;
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services web pages on
Naturalization Through Military Service and ``Military Help
Line''; Submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs.................. 110
Texas Civil Rights Project Report entitled, ``Land of the Free,
No Home to the Brave: A Report on the Social, Economic, and
Moral Cost of Deporting Veterans''; Submitted by the Honorable
Sylvia Garcia.................................................. 129
APPENDIX
Ms. Margaret Stock Response to the Testimony of the Honorable
Mark Metcalf................................................... 143
Prepared Statement from the American GI Forum of the United
States; Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren................. 150
Letter from LULAC Council #5310: Green Card Veterans; Submitted
by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren................................... 151
Statements and Letters from Deported Veterans and their Families,
including those from: Alejandra Juarez, Augie Garcia, Carlos
Paniagua, Cuauhtemoc Juarez, David Bariu, Edwin Melendez,
Erasmo Apodaca M., the American GI Forum in support of Frank De
La Cruz, Howard Deann Bailey, Ivan Ocan, Elizabeth Perez, Luis
Andres Puentes Romero, Richard Avila, Ronald Mervyn Dale
Cruickshank; Submitted by Mr. Hector Barajas-Varela............ 154
The Hill article entitled, Filipino war veterans deserve better;
Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren on behalf of Asian
Americans Advancing Justice.................................... 188
Letter from Boundless Immigration; Submitted by the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren........................................................ 190
THE IMPACT OF CURRENT IMMIGRATION POLICIES ON SERVICE MEMBERS AND
VETERANS, AND THEIR FAMILIES
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:32 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Jayapal, Correa,
Garcia, Neguse, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon,
Buck, Collins, Biggs, and Steube.
Staff Present: Betsy Lawrence, Counsel; Joshua Breisblatt,
Counsel; Rachel Calanni, Professional Staff Member; Andrea
Loving, Minority Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Ms. Lofgren. We will now ask the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship to come----
Staff. We need to bring out the witnesses.
Ms. Lofgren. Oh. We're going to bring out the witnesses
before I start this. We moved too fast.
Mr. Buck. We like fast.
Ms. Lofgren. The subcommittee will come to order and with
the indulgence of our witnesses before we proceed to the
hearing, I think many of us would like to say a comment or two
about the late John Conyers, who was a member of this committee
for many decades, who gave his life to public service, and who
loved this committee very greatly.
He passed away just a few days ago, having served his
country, both in the Armed Forces and in the Congress, and so
we do mourn his passing, and it would be not in keeping with
our traditions to proceed without at least giving our
condolences to his family and to those who sent him to Congress
for so many decades to represent them.
At this point, I would like to recognize Mr. Nadler, the
chairman of the full committee, for remarks on Mr. Conyers.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Americans
across the country are mourning the loss of John Conyers today,
but nowhere is his loss felt more deeply than here in the
Judiciary Committee, which he served for more than 50 years as
a member of this committee, including more than 20 years as
either as chairman or ranking member.
John Conyers was a true champion for civil rights and
justice for the oppressed and the disenfranchised. Prior to his
service in Congress, he was on the forefront of the civil
rights movement, and was in Selma, Alabama, for the Freedom Day
voter drive in 1963. He also holds the distinction of being the
only Member of Congress to be endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.
Once in office, he hired Rosa Parks to work on his staff
when her civil rights activism caused other employers to shun
her. Throughout his career, John was a leader of progressive
causes, even when doing so was a lonely pursuit. He authored
universal healthcare legislation long before it became a
mainstream idea, and he first introduced H.R. 40, legislation
to study reparations for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow
back in 1989.
At the same time, he had a long track record of working
across the aisle to enact important bipartisan legislation,
such as the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Sentencing
Act, the USA Freedom Act, and the Voting Rights Act.
As a leader in the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Conyers
spearheaded and passed such important legislation as the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Holiday Act, hate crimes legislation, and the
Innocence Protection Act. But his impact in the House cannot
just be measured in terms of how many bills he sponsored or
considered in committee. He was a founding member of the
Congressional Black Caucus, and he was a mentor to many
members, including me, who benefited from his wisdom and grace.
John was my colleague, my friend, and my chairman. I'm
honored and humbled to serve in his footsteps leading this
committee, and I'm comforted by the portrait that hangs above
me knowing that he is watching us and hopefully approving as we
attempt to carry on his legacy. My thoughts are with his
family, and all those whose hearts are heavy today because of
his loss. My hearts are with the country, which has lost the
benefit of his leadership. May his memory be a blessing.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Collins, for his
statement.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I echo the chairman's
statements about the accomplishments and the long list of
accomplishments that have been listed out. Mr. Conyers was
amazing in the length and breadth and statements of what he
made, but I choose to emphasize also the--what he accomplished
from his time as chair, and also as ranking member when I
worked with him on many occasions before his leaving the House.
But the thing that I remember the most is just his
kindness, his sense of humor, his dress. He's the sharpest
dresser always in the room, and especially on codels, and
especially when we got together at one of the highlights of my
time in Congress was a few years ago working on the police
working group. We went to Detroit, and he was host for that,
and it was just a really neat time to let him show his city and
where he came from, and I was pleased at that. But the last
memory that I will hold dearest for me was is when you get to
Washington, you're amazed, and still I am by everything. But I
can remember one day leaving this committee, and we were going
to the floor for a vote, and we went down to the trains that
take us to the Capitol for this vote, and we're coming back to
the hearing room and it just happened to be me and him, and I
had only been here about a month or two.
So I was introducing myself and I introduced and he said,
now, you're from Georgia, right? And I said, yes, sir. And we
talked back and forth. I said, just curious, I said, you've
been here a long time, I said, what brought you--I said, I'm
going to ask this question a lot, what brought you to Congress?
And he starts chuckling a little bit and he looks at me and
says, Well, I really wanted to come be a part of the Judiciary
Committee to work on the Voting Rights Act of 1964. And I
stopped for a second and I looked at him and said, you do
realize that was 2-1/2 years before I was born? And he laughed
and he said, Yep, I've been here a while. He said, if you stick
around, you'll see a lot of things. That was the gentleman that
I got to know and it's--the Nation mourns that and this
committee mourns that, and it would be, as the chairwoman said,
it would be remiss if we did not recognize that today.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back and all other
members will be invited to submit whatever comments they might
wish on Mr. Conyers at this time.
It's now my pleasure to welcome everyone to this
afternoon's hearing on the Impact of Current Immigration
Policies on Servicemembers and Veterans and Their Families.
Over the last 2-1/2 years, the administration has implemented
numerous policy changes that have made life more difficult for
noncitizen members, of the United States Armed Forces veterans
and their families. In addition, the administration's heavy
emphasis on immigration enforcement, as well as the elimination
of prosecutorial discretion when it comes to immigration
enforcement, has resulted in the removal, or attempted removal,
of far too many lawful permanent resident veterans who
honorably served our country, but struggled with the transition
back into civilian life, some who were disabled by PTSD.
This hearing will allow the subcommittee to explore how
these policy changes and the unforgiving nature of our
immigration laws have impacted Active Duty servicemembers,
veterans, and their families. At this point I would like to,
without objection, recognize my colleague, Representative
Correa as a champion of this very important issue who will
preside over this hearing, and to whom I yield the remainder of
my time for his opening statement.
Mr. Correa [presiding]. Good afternoon and welcome. Without
objection, first, I'd like to request permission to submit
these letters as part of the record. These are letters on the
impact of current immigration policies on servicemembers,
veterans, and their families.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Correa. First of all, let me thank my colleague,
Representative Lofgren, chairwoman of the Immigration
Citizenship Subcommittee for her leadership, and I appreciate
the opportunity to preside over this most important hearing
today. And as we approach Veterans Day, we have to recognize
and honor all our veterans, including immigrant veterans who
have served our country honorably in the Armed Forces from the
Revolutionary War to the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and
Iraq. And today, there are over half a million foreign-born
veterans in the United States.
As recently as 2012, there were 24,000 immigrants as part
of our Active Duty force. The Philippines, Mexico, Jamaica, and
South Korea, account for the greatest number of these foreign-
born veterans, and regardless of where they were born,
immigrant servicemembers are Americans in every sense of the
word. More than once, I've shared the story of Marine Corporal
Jose Garibay, who was born in Mexico. Corporal Garibay was
killed in action in 2003, after Iraqi forces pretending to
surrender ambushed him and his fellow Marines. He was one of
Orange County's first combat casualties in the Iraq War, and
Corporal Garibay was posthumously given American citizenship.
He chose to defend his country as a Marine and made the
ultimate sacrifice, and he was a dreamer.
When foreign-born servicemembers and veterans are willing
to defend the United States, a country they love, we have an
obligation to uphold their promise to provide for these
patriots American citizenship.
Sadly, since 1996, thousands of noncitizen veterans who
took the oath of allegiance and were honorably discharged have
been deported. No one puts the uniform on and who is honorably
discharged should be subject to deportation. And as every
soldier knows, you never leave a soldier behind.
Sadly, the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, or ICE,
does not follow policies for solving cases of potentially
removable veterans, and does not always identify and track such
veterans. As a result, ICE does not know how many veterans it
has deported. And recently, the administration has adopted
policies that affect the naturalization process for military
servicemembers and veterans.
As a result, military naturalizations have decreased by 44
percent, from 7,300 in fiscal year 2017, to about 4,000 in
fiscal year 2018. And in August of 2019, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service announced a change to the definition of the
term ``residents.'' And, in fact, children born to certain U.S.
servicemembers stationed abroad will now be required to
naturalize under a lengthier and more complicated application
process.
Together with my colleague, Representative Veronica Escobar
of Texas, we wrote a letter to the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service, Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli, asking for
reconsideration of this policy. And without objection, I'd like
to submit that letter as part of this record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Correa. In total, these policy changes negatively
affect military recruitment and effectiveness, and turn our
back on immigrant servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
This is unacceptable, and we need to correct the situation. And
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today.
And it's now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentle member from Colorado, Mr. Buck, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Immigrants have served
in our Armed Forces throughout our country's history.
Recognizing their sacrifice, Congress has provided, in law, for
the expedited naturalization of foreign nationals who serve
honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces. In periods of hostility,
which includes September 11, 2001, to present, a noncitizen
member of the Armed Forces may apply to become a U.S. citizen
if the individual has served honorably in an Active Duty
status.
Naturalization is voluntary, not automatic, and noncitizen
members of the military who qualify for naturalization must
apply for it, receive a favorable adjudication, then take the
oath of allegiance to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
As part of this process, the Department of Defense must
certify honorable service, which they often do after background
checks have been completed, and the alien has met the time and
service requirements, in most cases, 180 days. This policy is a
reasonable requirement to ensure an informed determination that
the servicemember has served honorably as required by statute.
Since October 1, 2001, the United States Citizen and
Immigration Services Agency has naturalized approximately
130,000 members of the military, many of those members
naturalizing while deployed abroad. Today, we will discuss the
difficult issue of noncitizen veterans of the U.S. military who
have been removed from the United States. It's important to
note that no one is above the legal consequences, criminal or
otherwise, of their behavior. The cases of veterans in removal
proceedings should be handled according to guidance that has
been in place through several administrations, and with
sensitivity to those who may have suffered from mental health
problems due to their service. I am also honored to be an
original cosponsor with Ranking Member Collins, Chairman
Nadler, Chairman Lofgren of H.R. 4803, the Citizenship For
Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act.
This bipartisan bill makes a technical change to the
residency requirements of Section 320 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. This will ensure that children of the U.S.
Armed Forces, members stationed abroad, can automatically
acquire citizenship where all other requirements are met. It
will make sure they are not disadvantaged simply because their
U.S. citizen parent is stationed abroad. We introduced H.R.
4803 earlier this month. I am proud of our work on this bill,
since it shows that when a change in the law is necessary, it
is possible for us to work together to get it done.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Buck. I will now recognize the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and gentle member from New
York, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Immigrants have
served in the U.S. Armed Forces in every major conflict since
the Revolutionary War. According to the bipartisan policy
center in 2016, there are approximately 511,000 foreign-born
veterans of the Armed Forces residing in the United States. The
children of immigrants also make up a substantial portion of
today's veteran population. Every day, these great men and
women risk their lives in service to our country. We rely on
them to keep our Nation safe, to provide stability in
politically fragile regions, and to protect U.S. global
interests. In return, we must honor their sacrifices, ensure
that they and their families are supported, and give them every
opportunity to become U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately, as a result of the unforgiving nature of our
immigration laws and numerous policy changes implemented by the
Trump administration, it appears that the opposite is
happening.
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Defense
and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, have
implemented numerous policy changes that have undermined
Congress's clear intent to provide an expedited naturalization
process for military servicemembers and veterans. For example,
in October 2017, the Pentagon made it more difficult for
military servicemembers to receive a certification of honorable
service, a document which is essential to expedite the
naturalization process. Previously, certifications could be
issued as soon as individual began Active Duty. Now, however,
one must first complete at least 180 consecutive days of such
service, or one year in the selected reserve of the ready
reserve. In addition, where certifications could previously be
issued by any supervising officer, they must now be certified
by the secretary of the applicable military branch, or a
commissioned officer serving in a specific pay grade.
These changes are unnecessary and cruel. They serve no
purpose but to make it harder for individuals serving our
country to become citizens, and they've had a measurable
impact. The total number of military authorizations declined 44
percent from 7,360 in fiscal year 2017 to just 4,135 in fiscal
year 2018. In addition, because USCIS has dramatically cut the
number of its international offices, naturalization services
for those who are stationed overseas have become much more
limited.
USCIS used to provide such services at 23 international
offices in 20 countries. The change that took effect last
month, this was cut from 23 international offices to just four
offices.
With USCIS personnel on site to conduct naturalization
interviews, only 1 week per calendar quarter. Why would we make
it more difficult for the men and women who are risking their
lives in service of this country to become permanent members of
our society? This is both short-sighted and cold-hearted.
During this hearing, we will also discuss the plight of U.S.
veterans who struggle with the transition back to civilian
life, and who are eventually deported to the country they so
nobly served.
Many of these veterans have been removed from the United
States as a result of convictions or other transgressions tied
to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, brain injury, and
other physical traumas suffered while on Active Duty that make
the transition back to civilian life extremely difficult. In
other words, they served this country; they had a medical
condition as a result of it, which impaired their judgment;
they committed some crime as a result of that medical
condition; and, therefore, they're deported.
We can all agree that individuals who are rightfully
convicted of a crime should serve any reasonable sentence
imposed, but once that sentence has been served, we should not
simply turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much in
service to our country, especially if that may have been
service-related.
There must be a better way to address these cases. Our
veterans deserve better, and we owe it to them to find a way to
bring compassion and discretion back into our immigration laws.
I want to end on a positive note. Last week, I introduced
the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil
Servants Act, along with Ranking Member Collins, who has served
honorably in the Armed Forces himself, as well as several of my
esteemed colleagues, including Subcommittee Chair Lofgren and
Ranking Member Buck. This bill will fix the problem that
resulted from a policy change announced in August that takes
effect today, which makes it more difficult for children of
U.S. citizens serving our country abroad to be recognized as
U.S. citizens.
Our bill would reverse this misguided policy, and would
make it easier for such children to be granted automatic
citizenship. I'm glad we were able to work together across the
aisle to introduce this important legislation. I look forward
to advancing our efforts in the coming weeks.
I want to thank Chair Lofgren and Representative Correa for
holding this important hearing. I thank all of today's
witnesses for testifying. I look forward to their testimony.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. I would now like to
recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the
gentle member from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to discuss military issues today because of the
lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force reserve command. I
understand the issues surrounding military service. It is
Congress's place to determine if changes should be made to U.S.
law governing the treatment of men and women who have served
us.
Last week, as the chairman just mentioned, he and I, along
with Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck, and other
colleagues from across the political spectrum, introduced H.R.
4803, the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and
Civil Servants Act. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services recently aligned a technical interpretation of the law
with the Department of State's correct interpretation. This
exposed a loophole. Some children of the U.S. Armed Forces
members would not automatically acquire citizenship merely
because their parents' deployment abroad prevents them from
meeting the residency requirement imposed in the statute. H.R.
4803 would fix this unfortunate loophole.
It's important to remember that immigrants also wear the
uniform, and have since the founding of our Nation. In fact,
historically, the average number of foreign national enlistees
has been around 5,000 a year. That number jumped to 7,000 in
2019. Many of these patriots will go on to be naturalized for
their service, and from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2018,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalized 129,587
members of the military, including more than 11,000, who, at
the time, were deployed abroad protecting our country.
Our immigration laws recognize the sacrifice made by the
immigrant members of our military, and lay out provisions for
the expedited naturalization of foreign nationals. Any foreign
national who serves in the military during hostilities,
including the time period after September 11 attacks is
eligible to apply to naturalize upon honorable service.
The Department of Defense issued a policy memo in 2017 to
require servicemembers to have served at least 180 days for the
Department to certify honorable service, which is required to
apply--which is required to apply to naturalize. This aligns
with long-standing Department of Defense policy that the
Department does not issue a characterization of service for any
one citizen, or noncitizen alike, who has not served for 180
days. Not all foreign nationals who serve in the military will
choose to naturalize, and those who do not remain subject to
our immigration laws. Although, we should not shield
servicemembers or veterans from the necessary and lawful
consequences of their actions, agencies handling rule cases
should be particularly sensitive to a veteran's honorable
service.
To that end, I expect Immigration and Customs Enforcement
to consistently apply policies that impose special handling
procedures on removal cases for veterans and take into account
the nature of that veteran's services in the Armed Forces.
We must be vigilant about any enlistee, citizen or foreign
national alike, to ensure that they do not intend harm. To that
end, the Department of Defense, under the Obama administration,
became aware of risk presented by some individuals recruited
through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interests
program, and halted enlistment, but Military Accessions Vital
to a Natural Interest program permitted foreign nationals with
language or health skills vital to the national interest to
enlist in the Armed Services, even though they were only here
on temporary visas.
While well-intentioned, the security screening processes
were simply not up to the challenge of vetting a population who
had spent very little time in the U.S., in addition to lacking
verifiable records, investigators discovered security issues
with many applicants, including questionable allegiance to the
U.S., a preference for a foreign country. Susceptibility of
foreign influence and unexplained affluence.
There's an even one publicly known case in which a Chinese
spy enlisted through the Military Accessions Vital to the
National Interests program. I know the Department of Defense is
improving its security screening procedures, but I remain
concerned about vulnerabilities that could be presented by
enlisting individuals here on temporary status, and I have
supported the Obama administration's decision to halt the
Military Accessions Vital to National Interest program.
I believe it would be extremely helpful to have the
Department of Defense representative testify here today in
order to hear the Department's reasoning behind the halting of
Military Accessions Vital to the National Interests program
enlistments, this time in service requirement and the other
policies we will discuss today. I look forward to the
witnesses' testimony and thank them very much for being here.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back my time.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Collins.
It's now my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses. Mr. Hector
Barajas-Varela, good to see you again, sir, is a U.S. army
veteran and the Director and founder of the Deported Veteran
Support House in Tijuana, Baja, California. Mr. Barajas was
born in Mexico, grew up in California, and enlisted in the Army
in 1995. He served for 6 years, during which time he received
multiple awards, such as the Army Commendation Medal,
Humanitarian Service Medal, and despite his service to his
country, he has been deported twice since honorable discharge
from the Army in 2001. Last year, Mr. Barajas-Varela became a
U.S. citizen and remains committed to his organization in
providing support to other deported veterans. We thank him for
his service and for being here today to share your story, sir.
Second witness, Jennie Pasquarella is the Director of
Immigrant Rights of the ACLU of California, and serves as a
senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, where
she has worked since 2008. She specializes in immigrant rights
and litigation in policy advocacy related to immigration
enforcement and policy. She received her B.A. from Bernard
College, and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.
Margaret Stock is a retired lieutenant colonel in the
military police, U.S. Army Reserve, and principal immigration
attorney with the Cascadia Cross Border Law Group in Anchorage,
Alaska. In 2013, she received the distinguished MacArthur
Foundation Fellowship for her outstanding work in immigration
and national security. She has testified before both Chambers
of Congress, including this very subcommittee, to discuss the
issues ranging from DREAM Act to the effects of immigration law
on the military. She holds three degrees from Harvard,
including her J.D., M.P.A., and holds a master's in strategic
studies from the U.S. Army War College. We welcome her as well.
Welcome back, ma'am, to this committee.
The Honorable Mark Metcalf is a former immigration judge on
immigration court in Miami, Florida, and a former Federal and
State prosecutor in his home State of Kentucky. Mr. Metcalf
also held various positions with the U.S. Department of Justice
and the Department of Defense from 2002 to 2008. He's worked as
a private practitioner. He is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army
National Guard, and served as command judge advocate for the
149th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade in Kentucky.
Like Ms. Stock, Mr. Metcalf has previously testified before
Congress, and is an expert on immigration law. Including his
testimony before this subcommittee and the 111th Congress, he
received his B.A. and J.D. from the university of Kentucky. We
welcome him back to the subcommittee and look forward to your
testimony, sir.
Mr. Metcalf. It's a pleasure, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Correa. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses
and thank you for your participation. Now, if you could please
rise, I'm going to swear you in. Please raise your hand. Do you
swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony
you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your
knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? Thank you.
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative, and thank you and please be seated.
Please note that each of your written statements will be
entered into the record and I will ask each one of you to
summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. And to help you stay
within that time limit, please look at those clocks in front of
you. And we'll begin with Mr. Barajas, welcome.
TESTIMONIES OF HECTOR BARAJAS-VARELA, DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER,
DEPORTED VETERANS SUPPORT HOUSE, JENNIE PASQUARELLA, DIRECTOR
OF IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS, ACLU OF CALIFORNIA AND SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; MARGARET D. STOCK,
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RETIRED), MILITARY
POLICE CORPS, U.S. ARMY RESERVE; AND HON. MARK METCALF, FORMER
IMMIGRATION JUDGE AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
TESTIMONY OF HECTOR BARAJAS-VARELA
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Hello? Okay. Chairman Lofgren,
Congressman Correa, Ranking Member Buck, and other
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to testify about
these important issues. My name is Hector Barajas. I am a U.S.
veteran who was deported to Mexico in 2004. I'm honored to join
you today to speak on behalf of my fellow deported veterans
about my personal experience. I would like to acknowledge that
some formerly deported veterans and supporters have joined us
in the room today, including Miguel Perez, Jorge Salcerro, AGC
(ph), and the Green Card veterans that are supporters.
I am not proud of what led to my deportation, but I am
proud of my military service and the positive accomplishments
in my life, including starting the Deported Veterans Support
House in Tijuana.
I grew up in Compton, California. My family and I moved to
the U.S. when I was 7 years old. As a child, I remember
pledging allegiance to our American flag every school morning.
I enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1995 when I was 17 years old. I
was a lawful permanent resident at the time. I wanted to serve
my adopted country, and I saw service as a way to leave the
environment in Compton and possibly to afford to go to college.
I arrived in Ft. Bragg and soon volunteered for airborne
school, serving in the 82nd airborne from 1996 to 1999. I re-
enlisted for another 3 years and left the service with an
honorable discharge in October of 2001. After I left the
service, I had some troubles adjusting and made mistakes. I
eventually found myself in prison for an incident where a
firearm was discharged at a vehicle. I was sentenced to 3-1/2
years in the State of California, and served my prison
sentence. I was deported in 2004 due to my criminal record, and
because I was not a U.S. citizen.
I came back to the U.S. illegally that same year, started a
family, and worked as a roofer. Eventually, I was deported in
2010 for a traffic incident that I had, and they reinstated my
deportation. I made the toughest decision in my life in 2010. I
decided to stay in Tijuana and fight to return to the U.S.
legally.
I wanted to reunite with my daughter and live in America
without the fear of deportation. In 2013, through a combination
of hard work and determination, I opened up the Deported
Veterans Support House. I wanted a place that could help
deported veterans in situations like mine navigate the hardship
of deportation, the separation from our families, and the
country we loved and served.
The Support House is a lifeline for many deported veterans
living in Tijuana and around the world. We provide housing,
help them find jobs, file for their V.A. benefits, and connect
with pro bono attorneys. We also help with burial details so
that our veterans who died can return to their families in
America.
Under today's laws, most deported veterans will only come
home to America with an American flag draped around their
casket, like Enrique Salas and Jose Lopez. There's no honor in
bringing deported veterans home to be recognized or thanked for
their service only when they die.
I proudly became an American citizen on April 13 of 2018. I
qualified for citizenship due to my military service and a
pardon from Governor Jerry Brown of California. I am blessed to
be back home in America, and to be a father to my daughter.
Once again, I want to emphasize that I am a firm believer
in people being held accountable. Being a veteran does not mean
that you get a free pass and never have to pay the consequences
for your actions. At the same time, it does not make sense to
me to deport our veterans after they have completed their
sentence and paid for their actions. For veterans, deportation
is a double punishment. As an example, my friend, Roberto
Salazar, is a former U.S. Marine who was deported. Today he
runs a men's drug rehab center in Tijuana. Roberto's daughter
and his son also joined the U.S. Marine Corps. Roberto's
daughter was a lively and inspiring young woman, but she passed
away in an accident in 2017. We held a funeral service and
burial in Tijuana, because Roberto was unable to go to San
Diego to bury his daughter.
I have a few recommendations on how to ensure we protect
our veterans from deportation and encourage all servicemembers
and veterans to naturalize. I am blessed to be a U.S. citizen
today, but I believe U.S. citizenship only acknowledges what
many deported veterans already believe in their hearts. We
believe ourselves to be Americans. I know current law requires
us to deport our veterans. I do not think it makes it morally
right. We must find a solution to protect our veterans. Thank
you again for the opportunity to testify, and may God bless you
and may God bless America.
[The statement of Mr. Barajas-Varela follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Barajas. I'd like to call on Ms.
Pasquarella for her statement.
TESTIMONY OF JENNIE PASQUARELLA
Ms. Pasquarella. Congressman Correa, Chairwoman Lofgren,
Ranking Member Buck, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. For more than 200 years, Congress has promised
immigrant recruits expedited citizenship in exchange for their
military service. But since 1996, the United States has
betrayed that promise. We've, instead, deported thousands of
our veterans, and every day we deport more.
Just last week, ICE deported Jose Segovia Benitez, a two-
time Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, combat veteran, who
suffered a traumatic brain injury, and who, like many,
struggled with severe PTSD and substance abuse. Jose came to
the U.S. as a 3-year-old child. He knows no other home than the
United States. Now he fears for his life in El Salvador.
These deportations are unconscionable and immoral. They are
the result of three forces working together: first, the
punishing and unforgiving 1996 laws that created lifetime bars
to naturalization and mandatory deportation; second, the
failure of the U.S. Government to naturalize noncitizen
servicemembers while they are serving; and third,
hyperaggressive immigration enforcement, particularly over the
past decade.
Deported veterans are nearly all former lawful permanent
residents. Of those we interviewed for our 2016 policy report,
half of them served during periods of war, and most came to the
U.S. under the age of 10, meaning the United States is the only
country they know as home. Changes made to our immigration laws
in 1996 were so excessively punitive that certain criminal
convictions, even convictions, such as writing a bad check or
possession for the sale of marijuana, even convictions for
which a person may serve no time in jail at all, required
deportation and bar naturalization for life.
The 1996 laws dramatically expanded the definition of the
category of deportable offenses known as aggravated felonies.
Today, that term encompasses a whole host of nonviolent
misdemeanors that are neither aggravated, nor are they
felonies. The law made deportation mandatory for any LPO with
an aggravated felony by eliminating all forms of judicial
discretion, meaning a single criminal conviction, one mistake,
can equal a lifetime of banishment with no exceptions.
It means that when Mario Martinez, who wrote a statement
for the record of this hearing, when he goes before an
immigration judge in March, the judge will not be permitted to
consider whether deportation for his domestic violence
conviction that occurred more than 10 years ago, is a fair
outcome. The judge will not be able to consider whether it's a
fair outcome for a man who served honorably in the U.S. Army,
earning the rank of Sergeant, for 6 years he served, who has
lived in the United States for 52 years since he was 4 years
old, who has a successful engineering career, two grown sons, a
granddaughter, and an extended family who are all U.S.
citizens.
The judge will not be able to consider that deportation
means forcing him to live the remainder of his life estranged
from everything he knows and loves, because the law says one
mistake and you're out.
Citizen and noncitizen veterans equally struggle with
reentry into civilian life following discharge. Substance
abuse, mental health issues, and anger can lead to contact with
the criminal justice system. And as a society, we look to
rehabilitative solutions to address the scars of war, to
address the trauma that inflicts our veterans, but our
immigration policy looks the other way.
Jorge Salcedo, who is here today and sitting beside--behind
me with his daughter, was deported for the crime of spitting on
a police officer, which the law at the time defined as an
aggravated felony. He paid for that crime. He served 1 year in
Connecticut prison. But at the conclusion of his sentence, ICE
was at the prison door. ICE arrested him and detained him for
3\1/2\ years, 3\1/2\ years without the right to be released on
bail while he fought his deportation case, and then it deported
him. It didn't matter that he served 8 honorable years in the
Army; it didn't matter that deportation denied his two young
daughters their father. One mistake. Jorge sits here today
because a change in law allowed him to get his green card back.
He's one of the lucky few. Most deported veterans have no such
option for return.
The U.S. would not be deporting its veterans had the
government kept its promise to them in the first place, and
made them citizens while they were in the military. But over
the years, numerous obstacles have stood in the way of
servicemembers naturalizing. None of those obstacles, none are
greater than the obstacle servicemembers are facing today, due
to Department of Defense and U.S. citizenship and immigration
service policies.
The repatriated and naturalized veterans in this Chamber
today, Hector, Jorge, Miguel Perez, who sits behind me, the AGC
who sits behind me, embody the hope of deported veterans around
the world, that one day too they will get the chance to come
home. Their hopes lay at the feet of Congress. They did not
turn their backs on our country in its time of need. We must
not turn our backs on them. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Pasquarella follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
Ms. Stock, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET D. STOCK
Ms. Stock. Thank you. Congressman Correa, Chairwoman
Lofgren----
Mr. Correa. Can you hit your microphone?
Ms. Stock. Sorry about that.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Stock. Congressman Correa, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking
Member Buck, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My
name is Margaret Stock, and I'm honored to testify today. The
last 3 years have witnessed the administration using internal
memos to undermine long-standing laws, in an effort to stop
immigrants from joining the military, stalling their
naturalization when they do join, and preventing them from
continuing to serve. The new policies do not make our country
safer. They harm military recruiting, they hurt military
readiness, and they prevent the United States Armed Forces from
utilizing talented immigrants. The new policies hide behind
false national security rationales to conceal xenophobic
motives. They also represent broken promises made to those who
would put their lives on the line for the United States.
The previous efforts of Congress to help noncitizen
military members become citizens, and the improvements to the
process for expediting military naturalization cases, have been
practically eradicated. In 2018, the media reported that there
had been a 65 percent drop in the numbers of servicemembers
applying for naturalization after DOD issued a new policy memo
preventing them from applying. A follow-on story explained that
immigrants serving in the military were more likely to be
denied citizenship than civilians.
Military members cannot file for citizenship unless they
receive a certified Form N-426, stating that they are serving
honorably. Three years ago, getting the formed signed merely
required a trip to the nearest military personnel office and
spending a few minutes with any official who could verify one's
service.
Recently, however, the Department of Defense has changed
the rules whereby this form can be certified. DOD now requires
an officer in the grade of O-6 to certify the form. Enlisted
soldiers report they have grave difficulty finding an officer
of this grade who is willing to sign their forms.
Under the 2008 Military Personnel Citizenship Processing
Act, USCIS was required to process military naturalization
applications within 6 months. However, the law contained a
sunset date. When the law was in effect, USCIS processed
military naturalization applications very quickly. Today,
however, USCIS takes the position that there is no deadline for
processing these cases, and they are now often taking years to
process.
In mid-2009, USCIS had started a highly successful program
whereby noncitizen military recruits filed for naturalization
when they reported to training, and in accordance with
previous, long-standing wartime practice, these applications
were processed so that the soldiers graduated from training,
and became U.S. citizens at the same time. The current
administration terminated this program in early 2018.
Last Thursday, I was at the USCIS office at 26 Federal
Plaza in New York City, only a few short blocks from the World
Trade Center in one direction, and in the other, Chatham Square
with its eye-catching monument to Chinese Americans who have
fought in the U.S. military. While I was waiting, a TV monitor
on the wall played a continuous loop of a USCIS film promising
expedited citizenship to immigrants who enlist. The promises
made in that film are false. There is no more expedited
military naturalization.
Today, it takes much longer for a military member to
naturalize than his or her civilian counterpart, and a military
member's application is much more likely to be denied.
Military members have had to resort increasingly to the
courts just to get the agencies to follow the law. Last week,
Alina Kaliuzhna, an Active Duty soldier with no criminal
record, had to sue DHS because the agency refused to make a
decision on her naturalization. The law mandates that decisions
must be made within 120 days of an interview. Alina was
interviewed more than 3 years ago. USCIS officials told her
that they had decided not to naturalize her until she was
discharged, citing new DOD policies. She was discharged
honorably last month without her citizenship.
As I said earlier, it's now much easier for a civilian
green card holder to naturalize than for similarly situated
green card holders to naturalize through their military
service. As a result, immigration lawyers are now advising
green card holders not to join the military because it will
make their naturalization process more difficult.
DOD has also made it much more difficult for noncitizens to
join the military in the first place. While immigrants make up
about 13.5 percent of the U.S. population, they are now less
than 4 percent of the military. Military recruiters report to
me that they are meeting recruiting quotas by enlisting less
qualified, native born Americans. In some cases, the Armed
Forces just simply can't find enough qualified candidates among
the native-born population, so the billets go unfilled.
USCIS has also recently changed certain policies, or has
plans to change certain policies in ways that harm the family
members of military personnel and veterans. Policy changes are
being made without transparency or accountability, and without
asking key stakeholders first.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the broken promises
made to certain foreign nationals who worked with the U.S.
Government in Iraq or Afghanistan. Many of these workers have
tried to get the special immigrant visas promised to them by
Congress, but they remain in danger while they await background
checks that drag on for years.
When the United States Government breaks the promises that
it made to these individuals who put their lives on the line
for the United States, and previously passed rigorous
background checks, American foreign policy and the lives of
American military members are put at risk.
Our national security depends on keeping the promises that
America makes to the immigrants who come here and keeping the
promises we make when someone stands before an American flag,
raises her right hand, and takes an oath of allegiance to the
United States. Our security depends on keeping the promise that
America is a Nation of immigrants.
Given that DOD and DHS together show no interest in
reversing their misguided policy changes, Congress must act.
In my written testimony, I make 10 suggestions for things
that Congress can do to force the bureaucrats to keep the
promises that the U.S. Government has made to America's
fighting men and women. I thank you for the opportunity to
testify, and I'm ready to take your questions.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Ms. Stock, for your
comments.
[The statement of Ms. Stock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Metcalf, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MARK H. METCALF
Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Correa, thank you. It's an honor to be
here. Members of the committee, it's an honor to be here. I
thank all of you, and I thank the panelists for their
statements.
I'm a Lieutenant Colonel, a soldier in my 28th year of
service, and a combat veteran of Iraq. I served a victory-based
complex as garrison Command Judge Advocate. My unit, the 149th
Maneuvering Enhancement Brigade, better known as the MEB,
closed American operations in Iraq and did the handover of all
military installations to the Government of Iraq. With us were
soldiers born in Jamaica, Cameroon, and Ukraine. In at least
one case, a naturalized citizen served as a combat arms company
commander. All had earned their citizenship. Thorough
background checks were the rule, and this brings me to the
points I believe critical to good policy.
First of all, we may have differences of opinions today,
but all of us are Americans. The policies conceived to advance
the experience of immigrants is wide, large, and it is
generous. I favor a 180-day Active Duty service requirement for
noncitizens. This allows basic, yet thorough background checks
to be completed that can better identify individuals whose
histories require further investigation before they continue to
more rigorous and sensitive training. This requirement is not
onerous in light of the great responsibilities and
opportunities service in the American military offers. Time in
service requirement permits suitability assessments as
financial, criminal, and loyalty issues are raised. I agree
with policies that make this service possible that military
service by the foreign-born, and the consequent American
citizenship received are conferred upon those for whom no
credible doubts about their suitability exists.
I'll turn now, if I may, please, Mr. Chairman, to the MAVNI
program. It was created to enhance force readiness. Medical and
language skills were augmented through its application, and
through it, some 10,400 foreign nationals were enlisted. Still,
MAVNI was halted by the Obama administration in the fall of
2016. Generally, U.S.-born recruits have verifiable public and
private records; recruits from outside the U.S. do not, making
the need to scrutinize their histories all the more important,
so that no worthy candidate is denied membership in our Armed
Services and moves on to citizenship.
I favor approaches to scrutiny already put in place by DOD.
Recent Army experiences with the MAVNI program justifies this
rigor and this flexibility. And I want to point out in my more
illustrated statement to you, the incidents involving
fraudulent applications. In one case, a Chinese national posing
as a MAVNI recruit, only to be found as a Chinese espionage
asset.
I want to move on to the removal of veterans. First of all,
if I had been an immigration judge sitting on Mr. Barajas'
case, I would have canceled his removal from the United States.
As a judge in Miami, I awarded 75 -- granted 75 to 80 percent
of all cancellation applications. His was a perfect case, in my
opinion, for the grant of cancellation. And, by the way, my
grant of 75 to 80 percent cancellations was not unusual.
The numbers from the immigration courts, if you start
parsing them, Mr. Chairman, will show our immigration judges
are very generous with the grant of cancellation, both the LPRs
as well as NPRs. And that's something that we can talk about at
further hearings, but I want to point out that Mr. Barajas is a
perfect example of what cancellation was intended to relieve.
I also want to point out that the cancellation process
takes into consideration the kind of deep dive into the facts
that the elements now being used by ICE should have been using
all along. I note veteran's overall criminal history, his
rehabilitation, or her rehabilitation, family and financial
ties to the U.S., employment history, health and community
service, in addition to the duty status, whether active or
reserve, war zone duty, years in service, and decorations
awarded.
All of these are proper considerations. To remove one
veteran who should not be removed is one too many. To consider
each case on a case-by-case basis, looking at all the facts
applicable, is the right approach and will always be the right
approach. I thank you for your time today, Mr. Chairman. I'm
happy to answer any questions you and members of the panel will
have.
[The statement of Mr. Metcalf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf, for your testimony.
And now I'd like to proceed under the 5-minute rule for
questions, and I'll begin by recognizing myself.
First of all, Mr. Metcalf, you're absolutely right; this is
not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue about
justice for all our veterans who have served their country,
have put, essentially, their life on the line for our country.
And if I may respectfully ask the deported veterans, could
you just please raise your hand, please, that are here today? I
just want to thank you very much for your service to our
country.
And my question is the basic one, Senor Barajas, which is:
Why, when these soldiers are in the service, why do you not
become citizens? Are those resources not given to you? Is that
not an issue? Or were you promised automatic citizenship when
you enlisted?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Thank you, Congressman, for that
important question.
There's two things that happen. I think the government
needs to be held accountable when they promise citizenship, and
there needs to be some kind of program in place----
Mr. Correa. When you say the government promise
citizenship, what does that mean?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. The recruiters.
Mr. Correa. The recruiters promise----
Mr. Barajas-Varela. They promise you citizenship. And,
basically, one of the things that doesn't happen is nobody sits
down with you and actually makes sure that you know what kind
of forms needs to be filled out.
And, also, it's an individual responsibility, but
definitely the U.S. Government needs to make sure that there is
some kind of program in place, that they set aside either time
or have somebody that can show you what path needs to be done.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Stock, you mentioned the program they terminated, that
when you graduate, you know, from training, in terms of putting
you on a fast track to become a citizen, you said that problem
has been canceled or suspended?
Ms. Stock. The problem has been canceled. It's a problem
that existed during World War I, World War II, the Korean War,
the Vietnam War. It makes sense legally for the United States
not to deploy people overseas when those people are not
American citizens and they're fighting in our Armed Forces.
The background checks, by the way, that are done on
military members are done before they enter the service, or
they----
Mr. Correa. Right.
Ms. Stock [continuing]. Should be done before they enter
the service.
Mr. Correa. So let me ask you, is there a difference right
now, quantifiable difference, if you're a Marine, Air Force,
Army, in terms of level of citizenships that may--folks that
may become citizens after they are discharged?
Ms. Stock. Well, all of the services had basic training
naturalization until January 2018, when it was canceled. So now
we have chaos. And we have service----
Mr. Correa. Can you be more specific, when you say
``chaos''?
Ms. Stock. Yes. Every day, I get a call from a green-card
holder in the military who says, ``Nobody will help me file for
citizenship. I don't know how to file. I can't get anybody to
sign my N-426. They're telling me I'm not eligible for
citizenship. Nobody's willing to assist me.''
Mr. Correa. So when you mention it's harder for a green-
card holder in the military than a green-card holder outside
the military to become a citizen, how is that?
Ms. Stock. Well, civilians don't need to go through
convoluted, multiyear background checks by the Department of
Defense before they become citizens. They don't need to get an
N-426 certified. They don't need to find an officer in the rank
of 06----
Mr. Correa. And I asked you that because--I bet in my
district--I bet I have the most Latino district in the country.
These kids I know from my high schools that are residents don't
ask, how hard is it going to be for me to become a citizen?
They just enlist.
Ms. Stock. That's true.
Mr. Correa. Marine recruiters are in their high school, and
these kids with honors say, ``I'm going to sign up,'' and I
don't think the thought of becoming a citizen is there. They're
there to serve their country.
And this concerns me because we need to move ahead and
revert back to that program that was just canceled to make sure
that these soldiers that are serving with honor have the right
to become a citizen and that right is a meaningful one.
Ms. Stock. The program was highly successful----
Mr. Correa. So where do we go here? Do we present some
legislation, something that maybe my colleagues can also
support us, to move in that direction?
Ms. Stock. Well, the law allows programs like this to
exist, and they were common, as I said. World War I, World War
II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, this was the standard
practice of the United States Government.
It was only reversed by the Department of Defense through
internal memos that undermined the express intent of Congress
in a statute passed by Congress more than 100 years ago. We
have here lawlessness by the Department of Defense. They're
simply undermining a statute with internal executive memos.
Mr. Correa. Judicial discretion, did you mention that?
Or was that you, Ms. Pasquarella? Did you mention that? Did
the 1996 act take away some judicial discretion? I know Mr.
Metcalf had a different perspective on that. Tell me.
Ms. Pasquarella. Yes. And that is one of the most troubling
aspects of the 1996 changes that were made to the immigration
law, that it removed all forms of judicial discretion for any
person who has an aggravated felony and, again, expanded the
definition of aggravated felony. So you have more people who
are subject to deportation, even for misdemeanors, for things
we don't classify as actual--as aggravated----
Mr. Correa. I'm out of time, but I just want to say, in
Orange County, we were the first--one of the first pioneers on
creating veterans courts. I know these issues are very complex,
so I look forward to working with you on this issue.
And now I'd like to recognize Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I think we all understand that many of our veterans have
struggled with reintegration due to TBI or PTSD issues. And
that's why I've introduced a bill and a piece of legislation to
advocate for--I advocate today for my colleagues across the
aisle to join me to make access to HBOT therapy more
available--that is--and more easily. It is coldhearted to
withhold support for this important therapy for our veterans.
So when I see Mr. Barajas-Varela indicate that he was
struggling to reintegrate, I don't think that's unusual for
many of our servicemen and -women who come back. HBOT therapy
is going to be helpful for that.
But you also said that there's no free pass and that
deportation is a double punishment. Let me explain why that's
not so. There's no free pass because you did serve the time for
shooting at a vehicle. I mean, that was the charge, you were
convicted, you served your time. It became a specific as well
as a general deterrent.
You were later deported because of that because you were
not a citizen. There's nobody else that would get an exception
to that who is here because of any other rationale. They would
still be deportable, as you were. And you left, were deported,
and then you reentered illegally and were deported again. And
I'm happy for you that you received a pardon and now you've
received your citizenship.
But to say it's a double punishment is illogical. The first
punishment for violating the crime--or committing the crime is
the actual criminal sentence itself. The deportation is
applicable to any person who's in the country that is not a
citizen who is engaged in criminal conduct. That is not a
second penalty. That is just--that's the penalty that comes for
failing to obtain citizenship.
And I read your statement and listened to you testify. You
might have had a misunderstanding of what you needed to do to
obtain citizenship. That's fair. That's a fair comment.
But I also want to point out some data that I think is
absolutely mind-boggling that it--this wasn't brought out. Ms.
Pasquarella pointed out a person named Jose Segovia Benitez.
And yet this individual--who was deported after being a combat
veteran. This person was convicted of, among other things,
corporal injury to a spouse, for which he received an 8-year
sentence, assault with a deadly weapon, and false imprisonment.
Well, you know what? He didn't naturalize when he was in
the military; thus, he is subject to deportability. That's the
way the law works. That type of criminal conduct do constitute
aggravated felonies. They aren't the misdemeanors that you said
are a result of this expansion of the term ``aggravated
felonies.''
We've also heard about the higher denial rate for U.S.
military applications for citizenship. That rate is 17 percent.
Overall it's 11 percent, but for military it's 17 percent.
But you need to understand you're talking apples and
oranges here. Because from April 1 to June 30, 2019, there were
only 2,353 pending military naturalization applications,
compared to 683,000 civilian applications. USCIS had received
875 military applications, compared to 209,000 civilian
applications.
So there are some interesting things when you manipulate
statistics in the way that I heard here today.
GAO reviewed the cases involving 87 of the 92 veterans who
were ultimately deported from 2013 through 2018. Eighteen of
those veterans, 21 percent of the total, were convicted for
sexually abusing a minor. Two others were convicted of sexual
abuse. Twenty-one were convicted of a violent felony such as
homicide, assault, or attempted homicide or assault. That's 24
percent of the total. Nine were deported for having been
convicted of firearms- or explosives-related crimes.
And those cases that I'm talking about, over half of them
were removals during the Obama administration and not under the
Trump administration, as so many of you want to focus on.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following documents: the Department of Justice press
release from September 25, 2018, entitled, quote, ``Chinese
National Arrested for Allegedly Acting Within the United States
as an Illegal Agent of the People's Republic of China,'' close
quote, which summarizes the alleged facts surrounding the case
of Ji Chaoqun, who enlisted in the U.S. Army through the MAVNI
program and who was subsequently believed to be working at the
direction of a high-level intelligence officer at the Chinese
Ministry of State.
Also, the October 2017 Department of Defense memo
specifying that the certification of honorable service may not
take place until security checks are complete and at least 180
days of Active Duty service has been completed, demonstrating
that DOD takes seriously its role in the naturalization of
those who serve our country honorably.
And, three, USCIS publicly available web pages outlining,
one, the process for naturalization through military service
and, two, the military helpline number.
And I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. Without objection, we'll receive that letter.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Correa. I'd now like to call on our chairman, Mr.
Nadler, for 5 minutes of questions.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barajas, thank you for coming here and sharing your
story. It appears stories like yours are all too common.
A June 2019 GAO report identified 250 veterans placed in
removal proceedings from fiscal years 2013 through 2018 and at
least 92 veterans who were deported. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, many of these veterans have been removed
from the United States as a result of transgressions tied to
PTSD, brain injury, and other physical trauma suffered while on
Active Duty.
How could the government, especially the Department of
Defense, better inform military servicemembers and our Nation's
veterans about their eligibility for naturalization?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Could you say that question again?
Chairman Nadler. How could the government, especially DOD,
the Department of Defense, better inform military
servicemembers and veterans about their eligibility for
naturalization?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. We need to have some kind of program in
place, again, where they can explain the forms that need to be
done or--that's my suggestion for that.
Chairman Nadler. Okay.
Now, Ms. Stock, let me turn to you. In your testimony
today, you laid out how the Trump administration has made life
more difficult for green-card holders who join the military and
then apply for naturalization.
Were military servicemembers and/or immigration attorneys
working on military naturalizations informed about these
changes ahead of time or able to provide any input before the
changes were implemented?
Ms. Stock. No, they were not.
Chairman Nadler. Was there any outreach?
Ms. Stock. No. And there was no cost-benefit analysis.
Chairman Nadler. That was my next question. There's no
cost-benefit analysis to support this with the----
Ms. Stock. None. In fact, the services have pushed back at
the requirements because they say they're unreasonable and
they're making it hard to recruit people.
Chairman Nadler. They've pushed back on the requirements
that DOD has imposed.
Ms. Stock. Against DOD. The services have sent emails to
DOD saying they don't agree with these new requirements.
Chairman Nadler. So this didn't come from the services; it
came from DOD upper levels.
Ms. Stock. It came from DOD, which did not do any cost-
benefit analysis. There was no congressional hearing, no
discussion about it externally with stakeholders, no cost-
benefit analysis on the impact it was going to have on the
force or on military recruiting.
Chairman Nadler. Was there a process in place for LPRs
serving in the military to have their Form N-426, the Request
for Certification of Military or Naval Service, which is
essential to the naturalization process, signed by the proper
authorities, as required by the October 13, 2017, DOD policy
changes?
Ms. Stock. They put out the memo, but they didn't do
anything to educate people generally about what should be done.
There was kind of haphazard memos put out that didn't reach to
the lowest levels. In fact, if you talk to recruiters today,
they'll still tell you that, oh, soldiers can be naturalized at
basic training. They don't even realize things have changed.
People are told that it's easy to get your N-426 certified
but you have to wait till you get to your first unit. And then
when you get there, you can't find anybody who will certify it,
because there's no public education effort to tell people how
to get it certified.
Chairman Nadler. From your experience, what's the average
time it takes for a servicemember to receive a response to a
request for certification of honorable service once they
complete the N-426?
Ms. Stock. It's taking months, the exception being that if
they email it to me, I have a special email and I can send it
to somebody who will get one signed in a couple of weeks if
you're in the Army.
Chairman Nadler. A couple of weeks.
Ms. Stock. But it's only if you know enough to email me
your N-246 that that happens.
Chairman Nadler. And if you don't, it takes months.
Ms. Stock. It can take months. The forms are getting lost.
People just never hear back after they submit them.
Chairman Nadler. Now, what signal do you think that these
DOD policy changes send to LPRs who are thinking about joining
the military, and what signal do they send to LPRs currently
serving in the military or who are veterans?
Ms. Stock. Unfortunately, they send a signal that their
service is not valued, that they are not welcome in the
military. And they also send a signal that they should not join
the military until after they get their citizenship, because
they're going to face a very long haul to get their citizenship
if they try to do it after joining the military.
Chairman Nadler. And what DOD or USCIS support services are
available to servicemembers seeking citizenship while in the
military?
Ms. Stock. There used to be very strong services because
the basic training naturalization sites had teams that were
dedicated to handling military cases on each of the basic
training sites throughout the country. Those have been
dismantled, so now it's rather ad hoc. There is a military
helpline you can call, but you often get wrong information when
you call the military helpline.
Chairman Nadler. So, in other words, the bureaucratic
requirements are increased, and the resources were decreased at
the same time.
Ms. Stock. That's correct.
Chairman Nadler. Now, from your experience, what's the
average length of time it takes to process a military
naturalization application?
Ms. Stock. It used to only take a few months when they had
basic training naturalization in place. Now, in many cases,
it's taking upwards of a year or 2 or sometimes 3 or 4 years.
Chairman Nadler. And USCIS plans on closing most of its
international field offices and consolidated overseas military
naturalization--consolidating them into four hubs. I think they
had 26 field offices; they're now going down to 4 hubs. How
will these changes impact servicemembers and their families who
are seeking citizenship while stationed abroad?
Ms. Stock. Those closures will make it much harder for
individuals to get United States citizenship.
Chairman Nadler. And one more question. How can we stop the
deportations of military veterans?
Ms. Stock. Restore basic training naturalization. We will
not have any deported vets if everyone gets naturalized before
they leave the military.
And I should point out that Congress put an important
safeguard in the law allowing expedited naturalization. The law
says that if you don't serve honorably for a period or periods
aggregating 5 years, you can lose your citizenship that you
gained through military service.
So there is no reason for these misguided policies, because
the legal means already is in the law to take care of anybody
who's a bad actor and misbehaves after they get their
citizenship.
Chairman Nadler. No reason other than ill will. I thank
you.
I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll recognize Mr. Buck, the ranking member, for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Buck. Thank you.
Ms. Stock, do you have a security clearance currently?
Ms. Stock. Currently? No. I'm retired.
Mr. Buck. Do you have any access to classified information
that was involved in making the decisions about who would
receive--which veterans would receive citizenship?
Ms. Stock. I only reviewed unclassified summaries.
Mr. Buck. And would you be surprised to know that there
were thousands of folks who for classified reasons were not
allowed to receive citizenship because they had ties to foreign
countries?
Ms. Stock. That's not correct.
Mr. Buck. You don't believe that?
Ms. Stock. No. The citizenship applications are actually
not classified, so----
Mr. Buck. No, it's classified information as to why they
did not receive citizenship.
Ms. Stock. It's not classified. They give you a written
decision telling you why you're being denied citizenship.
Mr. Buck. And so you believe that if someone has ties to
China, to Chinese intelligence services, that there will be a
public statement identifying that person as having ties to
Chinese intelligence services. Is that what you're saying?
Ms. Stock. No. What I'm saying is, when you go through the
naturalization process, you have to complete a form, you have
an interview, and if you're denied naturalization, you are
given a written statement in writing explaining why you're
denied naturalization.
Mr. Buck. And that written statement in writing may not
include the reasons for--the classified reasons for you not to
be given that privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen.
Ms. Stock. No, they will tell you directly why you're being
denied.
Mr. Buck. So, seriously, you're saying here today that a
top-secret relationship--a top-secret information that has been
developed during the Obama administration, by the way, that
identifies an individual as having a relationship with a
Chinese intelligence service, that that is going to be
identified in a public document. That's what you're saying?
Ms. Stock. No, that's not what I'm saying, Congressman.
What I'm saying is, when you apply for citizenship, there is a
form that asks you questions, including things like, you know,
whether you've done this, that, or the other thing, and you
have to answer those questions under oath. And if you lie under
oath, they will deny you naturalization, and they will say,
``We're denying you naturalization because you lied to us and
said X, and X wasn't true.''
It's given to the individual. They don't need to rely on
classified information, and they don't.
Mr. Buck. Well, they certainly have access to classified
information when they make a decision about whether to grant
someone citizenship or not.
Ms. Stock. They don't normally, no.
Mr. Buck. The Department of Defense doesn't have access to
classified information?
Ms. Stock. The Department of Defense doesn't naturalize
people. It's DHS.
Mr. Buck. I understand, but----
Ms. Stock. It's the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
Mr. Buck [continuing]. One agency of the government will
work with another agency of the government to determine whether
someone has a relationship that would be threatening to this
government.
Ms. Stock. Interestingly, DOD doesn't pass that information
along to USCIS. This came out in a court proceeding recently,
that DOD, if they have that information, they don't give it to
USCIS anyway.
Mr. Buck. Okay. So----
Ms. Stock. But the naturalization proceeding is not
classified.
Mr. Buck. So it's your understanding that no one has been
denied a--no veteran has been denied citizenship based on a
relationship with a foreign intelligence service.
Ms. Stock. Well, I think the case that was raised earlier,
Chaoqun Ji, he was never naturalized.
Mr. Buck. But that's not my question. My question is, your
understanding is that there has never been an individual denied
citizenship--a veteran denied citizenship as a result of
relationship with a foreign intelligence service.
Ms. Stock. I can't answer that because the country's been
fighting wars since 1775 and I don't know every single case of
somebody being denied citizenship for more than 200 years.
But I do know that the concerns about national security
that have been raised regarding the MAVNI program are
overblown. And that was proven in a court case in Seattle where
the Department of Defense came into court and presented the
facts to the judge and the judge dismissed these concerns and
said they were not valid.
Mr. Buck. Well, let's get to a real simple question. Would
you be in favor of naturalizing an individual--or for an
individual to become a naturalized citizen if that individual
had a relationship with a foreign intelligence service?
Ms. Stock. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by a
relationship with a foreign intelligence service, but----
Mr. Buck. How about they worked for and received money from
a foreign intelligence service to provide information about the
United States of America?
Ms. Stock. If the individual was a spy and they failed to
reveal that information in their naturalization application and
they got naturalized by accident, they could be denaturalized
as soon as the government found out that information. They
could be prosecuted and deported. And I'm certainly in favor of
that.
Mr. Buck. Again, that isn't my question. My question is,
would you be in favor of naturalizing that person?
Ms. Stock. I'm not in favor of naturalizing anybody who
doesn't meet the requirements to become an American citizen,
and certainly a foreign spy does not meet the requirements to
become an American citizen.
Mr. Buck. I appreciate the answer. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Jayapal, you're recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses for being here.
The U.S. military has long relied on immigrants to protect
our country. Within the United States, we have 2.4 million
veterans with immigrant ties. But we also rely on assistance
from foreign nationals abroad, including in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
In January of 2006, Congress created a Special Immigrant
Visa, or an SIV, to provide a path to safety in the United
States for Iraqi and Afghani translators who worked for the
U.S. military and are subsequently facing danger. This is
simple common sense, in my view. When people put their lives on
the lines to defend our country, the only right thing to do is
make sure that they and their families are protected.
For over a year now, I have worked with Congressman Raskin
and a number of Republican offices to advocate for a gentleman
that I will call Muhammad Kamran, a translator who worked with
the U.S. military and several national and international
agencies for nearly a decade in Afghanistan.
Ms. Stock, in your experience as a lieutenant colonel in
the Military Police Corps and U.S. Army Reserve, would you
agree that the assistance of native translators in countries
like Afghanistan and Iraq have been critical to U.S. military
operations in those countries?
Ms. Stock. Yes, they're absolutely critical.
Ms. Jayapal. And what it is that makes them so critical?
Ms. Stock. We can't operate in those countries effectively
if we don't have people by our side who speak the local
language and understand the local culture.
Ms. Jayapal. And what level of danger are those translators
putting themselves in when they agree to do that job?
Ms. Stock. They're putting themselves in extreme danger.
Many of them have been killed, their family members have been
murdered because they've sided with the United States in a
conflict overseas.
Ms. Jayapal. Unsurprisingly, people like Mr. Kamran face
persecution and retaliation, as you mentioned, due to their
service. In fact, Mr. Kamran and his family have faced
persistent persecution, including assassination threats from
the Taliban. Just 1 week ago, Mr. Kamran was arrested by
military police, and there's a possibility that he will be
disappeared. And yet State has denied Mr. Kamran's application
on a, quote, ``discretionary basis.''
His case is part of a larger trend. State Department data
shows a 60-percent drop in SIVs issued to Afghanis. The drop
among Iraqis is even worse, from 2,500 in 2017 to 181 in 2019,
a drop of over 90 percent.
Ms. Stock, in your opinion, what is causing these delays
and drops in admission?
Ms. Stock. A lot of it is fear on the part of the
bureaucrats who are supposed to be conducting background checks
on these individuals. They're afraid to approve anyone.
And it's also a lack of resources and a lack of attention
by the leadership, who doesn't seem to want to focus on the
essential process of saving folks who put their lives on the
line for America.
Ms. Jayapal. How do we improve those programs to ensure
access to safety for our Iraqi and Afghani allies under the SIV
program?
Ms. Stock. Well, Congress did pass a statute that set a
deadline, but unfortunately the bureaucracy is ignoring the
deadline. So I think Congress needs to provide strong oversight
to ensure that those statutes are followed.
Ms. Jayapal. And what does the vetting process currently
look like for SIV applicants? They've already been vetted to
serve alongside our troops. Isn't that quite a bit of heavy
vetting that has already been done for these individuals?
Ms. Stock. They're already heavily vetted. And they have
huge files filled with testimonials about their loyal service
to the United States, sometimes over a period of many, many
years. It's unclear what exactly is going on in the subsequent
vetting that seems to take years and years. From what I can
tell, most of it is simply a file being put on a shelf and
nothing happening.
Ms. Jayapal. And beyond the immediate humanitarian concerns
to protect those who have risked their lives for us, another
thing that concerns me is the message that we're sending to
potential future allies.
So how does this failure to protect these people impact our
national security interests and the ability of our troops to
safely do their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan today?
Ms. Stock. It's quite bad. The people who are potentially
out there that might be willing to help us in the future are
going to turn and look at how Muhammad was treated and say, ``I
don't want to take a chance. I'm not going to help you next
time.''
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chairman, the treatment of people who have
put their lives on the line defending our country is just
unacceptable. Whether it's immigrants living here who have
signed up to protect our country or people abroad who have done
so despite significant threats to their and their families'
lives, it is our duty to stand alongside these communities and
demand justice.
I thank you for holding this hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. I fully agree with you.
And now I'd like to call on Ms. Garcia from the good State
of Texas.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
convening this hearing on this very important topic. I know
that this is something that many of us in Texas are very
concerned about.
Over 20 percent of people who have been awarded the Medal
of Honor were not born in the United States. My State of Texas
is home to both the second-highest number of noncitizens and
the second-highest number of veterans in the Nation. Therefore,
Texas is home to a high number of noncitizen veterans, making
this topic especially important to many of us, particularly
many of my constituents.
According to a 2017 report from the National Immigration
Forum, about 40,000 immigrants currently serve in the Armed
Forces and about 5,000 noncitizens enlist each year.
We must not forget the people behind these numbers, like
Mr. Frank de la Cruz, who came to the United States as a young
boy with his family in 1978 and settled in Texas. De la Cruz
graduated from high school and joined the Navy, as he says, out
of pride for his country. Following an honorable discharge, de
la Cruz went on to serve in the Army National Guard. He also
worked at his local Department of Veterans Affairs office.
While serving in the Navy during the Persian Gulf War, de
la Cruz and the ship crew would do what many do when they would
dock: They would go out drinking, perhaps using it as a way to
cope with their anxiety about the war.
Later in life, unfortunately, he was convicted of a DWI. He
was unable to afford an attorney. He was deported back to
Mexico. When his wife asked him why he can't adjust to life in
Mexico, de la Cruz responds simply with, ``This isn't my
life.''
It is true that immigrants are often the most patriotic
Americans, as they have experienced different places and are
able to truly appreciate the contrast of how wonderful it is to
live in the United States.
As has been noted, noncitizens have in fact joined the
Armed Services since the Revolutionary War and, since then,
have likewise joined ranks and fought alongside their citizen
counterparts during every major conflict, from World War--not
``World War,'' but War of 1812 to the current conflicts in the
Middle East.
So I thank our witness here today who speaks for the
veterans that have been deported and all those that join him
today. Muchisimas gracias.
And I begin my question with you, sir, Mr. Barajas. You
said that you don't really get the details about the process.
Do you get any legal assistance?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Unfortunately, when I was in the
military, there was--actually, there was. There was, I believe,
JAG that you could go through. But, again, there was nobody
that really directed me towards the path. And then a failure on
my part. But I really think that we need to make sure either
our squad leaders or somebody at some point, you know, makes
sure that that happens.
Ms. Garcia. But do you know if they get legal assistance
now?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. I'm not sure what the--what it is right
now, if there's JAG or some kind of department that the
military has. I've been out for almost 20 years.
Ms. Garcia. All right.
Well, my colleague, Congressman Vicente Gonzalez, also a
Texan, introduced the Repatriate Our Patriots Act, a simple
bill that would allow special veterans a path to citizenship.
These special veterans include those individuals who are
honorably discharged from the Armed Forces, have not been
convicted of a voluntary manslaughter, murder, rape, sexual
abuse of a minor, or any offense related to terrorism.
Do you support passage of this bill?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Yes.
Ms. Garcia. That's good.
Do you, Ms.--is it ``Baquelera''?
Ms. Pasquarella. Thank you. ``Pasquarella.''
Ms. Garcia. ``Pasquarella.'' Okay. I didn't need Spanish
for that.
Ms. Pasquarella. I have not reviewed the bill, so I can't
give you an affirmative ``yes'' or ``no,'' but it sounds like
something I'd support.
Ms. Garcia. Right.
And there was something said by one of my colleagues about
how this wasn't really double punishment, but I'm going to read
straight out of ``The Land of the Free, No Home to the Brave.''
It's a report from the Texas Civil Rights Project, which I'd
like to be entered into the record. I ask for unanimous
consent.
Mr. Correa. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Garcia. And it says noncitizens have, in fact, joined
the Armed Forces, and it says that it really is a double
punishment, because you do go through the criminal justice
system and you are convicted; then that conviction then is used
to deport you, and then you're deported. So it's double
punishment.
And he said--I forget what my colleague said, but he said
that there was no logic to that. And do you agree or disagree
that that is double punishment? You, ma'am.
Ms. Pasquarella. Thank you. Absolutely agree. It is 100
percent double punishment. People serve their time in criminal
custody, they pay the price for that crime, and they should go
home, the same way that citizen veterans go home. Instead, they
face lifetime banishment. It's as if they're serving a life
sentence, because they can't be with their families, they can't
be with everything they know in life, which is here in the
United States.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. I thank you very much.
And now I'd like to call on Mr. Neguse from the State of
Colorado.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for hosting
this important hearing.
Also, I want to start by thanking our veterans in the room
for your bravery and service to our country. It is thanks to
you and others fighting for our country's security that we can
be here today.
As has been said by many of my colleagues, under this
administration, in my view, immigrants have been under constant
attack, including those fighting for our freedom.
Immigrants have served in the U.S. military since the
Revolutionary War and continue to serve today. Most are lawful
permanent residents. About 511,000 foreign-born veterans are
residing in the U.S. and represent 3 percent of the total
veteran population of 18.8 million.
They fill vital roles in the military when there are not
enough U.S. citizen recruits. For example, certain nationals of
Iraq and Afghanistan, as has been mentioned, serve as
translators or interpreters. They would be allowed to apply for
LPR status through a Special Immigrant Visa, but their
applications are being delayed, which can make them at risk of
being targeted for assisting the U.S.
The changes in numerous policies are atrocious and hurting
veterans and their families. They have made it harder for
military servicemembers to naturalize, for their families to
adjust status, and to receive protection for deportation.
Instead, in my view, we should be focusing on ensuring that
veterans receive the medical care they earned, as well as help
them with their immigration cases.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have policies
that require them to take additional steps when handling cases
of potentially removable noncitizen veterans. However, a report
by the U.S. GAO found that agencies were unaware of the
policies in place for veterans in removal proceedings.
It is beyond disheartening to hear that our veterans are
not being given the appropriate level of review on their
immigration cases. And let us be clear: It is un-American to
deport immigrants fighting for our safety and our freedom. We
should not leave them to feel abandoned and to feel hopeless.
Mr. Hector Barajas-Varela, I want to first thank you for
your service to our country.
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Thank you.
Mr. Neguse. You chose to enlist in the Army at age 17. You
served for 5 years, and you earned an honorable discharge in
2001. As a veteran and as a green-card holder, you lacked the
protection of citizenship, and you were deported after serving
time for a criminal charge after discharge.
Could you please walk us through how this may have been
different if you would have received guidance from the U.S.
military on how to apply for citizenship, either during or
after your service to this country?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. I firmly believe that if, you know, my
squad leader would have sat me down and--you know, some people
say that we shouldn't hold your hands to, you know--that we're
not there to hold your hands. But, literally, we're there to
show you how to march; we make sure that your power of attorney
is done. So why not make sure we sit down with our soldiers and
make sure that that's taken care of so before they go off to
Afghanistan or Vietnam that they're already U.S. citizens?
So it's very important to take care of our soldiers.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
Lieutenant Colonel Stock, thank you for your service as
well, and thank you for being here today.
In your testimony, I believe--certainly in your written
testimony, which I reviewed, but I suspect in your oral
testimony as well, you mentioned that the Department of Defense
issued two significant policy changes on October 13, 2017, that
made it harder for military servicemembers to naturalize.
From your experience, what is the average time that it
takes for a servicemember to receive a response to a request
for certification of honorable service once they complete their
USCIS Form N-426?
Ms. Stock. As I mentioned earlier, it varies dramatically,
but right now--sometimes they don't get a response at all, but
it's taking many, many months since the policy change.
It used to happen in a matter of minutes. You could walk
into your local military personnel office, hand them the one-
page form and say, could you please certify that I'm serving
honorably? A clerk would look up your record on the system, and
you would get an officer signing your form almost immediately.
But now it's taking months and months.
Mr. Neguse. A matter of minutes----
Ms. Stock. Previously.
Mr. Neguse [continuing]. To, now, a matter of months, to
potentially never receiving an answer.
Ms. Stock. A lot of people tell me they never get an
answer. They send the form in, and they never hear anything.
Mr. Neguse. What message does that send to LPRs who are
thinking about joining the military?
Ms. Stock. It sends a terrible message. And it's one of the
reasons why a lot of LPRs are now contacting me and telling me
they've decided not to join the military. They're going to wait
until they get their citizenship as a civilian, which takes
less than 6 months right now in many parts of the country.
They can file electronically if they're civilians. They
can't do that if they're in the military. They have to send a
paper packet in to Chicago through the mail, which gets lost.
Military people are often told their packet's been lost.
I was in Sacramento a few weeks ago with a green-card
holder who had finished all his training, was supposedly
eligible for citizenship. He walked into the building for his
naturalization interview, and the officer said, ``I'm sorry
your lawyer flew here several thousand miles to be with you
today, but we can't find your packet in the building. It was
barcoded into the building, and we've lost it. And we'll let
you know when we find it.'' We have not heard from them ever
since.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Lieutenant Colonel. And the stories
you share today are stories we certainly need to hear, and I
hope that the administration is listening.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
Now I'd like to call on Ms. Mucarsel-Powell from Florida.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, for all the witnesses, for being here this
afternoon and sharing your stories.
Florida is home to one of the largest veteran populations
in the country. We actually have the third-largest population
of veterans in Florida in the country, around 1.5 million who
live there. My district is also home to some veterans that have
been waiting for the naturalization process.
And one of the things that I just want to make very clear
is that, for those members that have served our country,
several of you here today, we owe you our deepest respect and
our gratitude. But I also hear from servicemembers and veterans
about the stress that serving our country puts on their
families and their children. Servicemembers sacrifice a great
deal, and so do their loved ones. We should not be making the
lives of servicemembers, veterans, and their families any
harder.
Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line
and have earned the privilege to live and work in our country.
And I am a naturalized citizen myself, and I know how arduous
the process is to become a legal U.S. citizen. But if we're
asking our servicemembers to put their lives on the line to
fight for our freedom, we need to make sure that the
naturalization process is much easier for them.
But, under this administration, we've seen that the number
of military naturalizations has declined by 44 percent, almost
half. And it's just unacceptable. We should not be making it
more difficult for honorable members of our military service to
naturalize.
And my first question: Ms. Stock, can you explain to us why
those numbers have dropped significantly in these past 2 years?
Ms. Stock. Well, they've dropped for a couple of reasons.
One is DOD has made it harder for green-card holders to join
the military. Second--and if you don't join, you can't apply
for naturalization.
Second, they've made it harder for them to get the form
signed that they need in order to apply. And you can't apply
without this form, and if you can't get it signed, then you're
not eligible to apply.
And then they've made it more difficult to get citizenship.
They're applying different standards to military people that
are inappropriate.
An example is a woman who's sitting in the audience today,
Yea Ji Sea. She was wrongly denied naturalization by U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. They denied her
application while she was serving on Active Duty in the
military. She then reapplied for naturalization. She was
discharged from the military and approved for naturalization
after the ACLU took her case and filed a lawsuit against the
government.
So we have a case of somebody serving honorably on Active
Duty who gets wrongly denied citizenship; she leaves Active
Duty and is approved for citizenship. This makes no sense.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And I'm assuming she wasn't a Chinese
spy.
Ms. Stock. Well, I think she's from South Korea.
Ms. MuCarsel-Powell. Oh. Okay.
But was there a reason given to her when she was serving
that her citizenship was denied?
Ms. Stock. Yes. They said she lacked good moral character.
She was serving honorably on Active Duty, and she was told that
she lacked good moral character.
This is a catchall term they use when they have come up
with some excuse for you're in the military and we don't think
you should be a citizen, so we're going to accuse you of
lacking good moral character.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Okay. Well, it seems like a lot of
these changes in these procedures are just cruel, without an
explanation to that. So what's the purpose of changing this
policy, do you think?
Ms. Stock. As I said earlier, it's driven by xenophobia.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And how--can you prove that to us
right now?
Ms. Stock. I can prove it.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Can you give us----
Ms. Stock. In fact, I'm hoping----
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [continuing]. Some clear evidence of
that?
Ms. Stock. I can prove it.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Because I don't think my colleagues
sometimes understand that that exists in this country.
Ms. Stock. It does exist. And I can prove it by directing
the distinguished members of the subcommittee to start taking a
look at some of the so-called background checks that DOD is
doing on immigrants who join the military. They are laughable
and bizarre.
And they say things like, you have a relative who served in
the South Korean military; therefore, this is derogatory
information and requires your discharge from the military,
making you ineligible for American citizenship. They say things
like, your parents are from a foreign country; that's
derogatory information.
Now, of course, DOD, when these individuals got recruited,
knew they were immigrants. By definition, all of their parents
are foreign.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yeah.
Ms. Stock. If their parents were citizens, they wouldn't be
immigrants. And yet they're being told that this is derogatory
information requiring their discharge from the military.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. Stock.
One last question. I want to ask you, if you could, speak a
little bit about what just happened with the USCIS decision to
no longer consider children of military servicemembers and
other government employees as residing in the U.S., for
purposes of acquiring U.S. citizenship. So kids that are born
outside of the United States but their parents are U.S.
citizens are now being denied U.S. citizenship.
Can you talk briefly about that? I'm very concerned about
this new rule.
Ms. Stock. Yes. This was not something that the agency
warned anybody about ahead of time, although I'm told
internally within DOD they floated it, but they didn't float it
with anybody who understood immigration law. If they had
floated it ahead of time, they would've learned that lots and
lots of children were going to be affected by this. But because
the agency doesn't understand immigration law, they didn't
realize -- they claimed there were only 25 children affected,
when that's not true.
So what happened was they said basically they're going to
punish people who choose to be stationed overseas or who are
sent overseas. If they lived in the U.S., their kids would
automatically get citizenship, but because they're not living
in the U.S., the kids are not going to get automatic
citizenship, and the parents are going to have to file
convoluted and expensive applications to get them recognized as
citizens.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And this is for kids of servicemembers
who are American citizens.
Thank you. I've run out of time. Thank you so much.
Ms. Stock. That's correct.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
I'd like to call on Ms. Escobar from the good State of
Texas.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this very important hearing today.
Many thanks to our witnesses. Really appreciate the time
that you've spent helping educate this subcommittee on these
issues.
I want to thank the veterans and their families who are in
the audience, who flew all the way to Washington, D.C., to make
sure that it wasn't just your voices that were heard but the
voices that you bring with you of all veterans who have had to
endure, really, the trauma that you all have endured after
having served our country and protected our Nation.
Thank you for your service. And please share my gratitude
and the gratitude that so many of us have with your fellow
servicemembers who have had to endure the same kind of trauma.
Please tell them we're grateful for their service.
I represent El Paso, Texas, which is a great, safe, secure
community on the U.S.-Mexico border, which is also a home to
Fort Bliss, one of the most important military installations in
the country. And so, many of these issues, for me--El Paso is
an intersection of those issues, of immigration and, really,
the attacks on migrants that we've seen under this
administration, but also trying to uplift and support veterans
and military personnel.
And it is--really, it's been very difficult to watch how
our country has turned our backs not just on allies but turned
our backs on servicemembers who have fought honorably for our
country. And, yes, this is a double punishment; there is
absolutely no doubt.
You know, I just--I want to remind some of my colleagues
that we seem to have come a long way in recognizing how
veterans, after they have served honorably, face these really
incredible challenges reentering into communities after--
especially after being in-theater and serving in war. And so we
go the extra step. We've created veterans services programs.
We've created specialty courts for veterans convicted or being
tried for DWI or for drug-related offenses so that we can be
there for veterans who have been there for us. But it's a
different story when the veteran is an immigrant, it appears.
Ms. Stock, you mentioned something that I kind of--I want
to touch a little bit on. You mentioned the DOD background
checks. And you said some really interesting things about the
challenges with those DOD background checks.
Is there an appeals process for personnel who want to
appeal some of the things that you outlined when Ms. Mucarsel-
Powell was questioning you?
Ms. Stock. There wasn't until some of the immigrants filed
a lawsuit, and now there's a lawsuit pending in the District
Court for the District of Columbia. The Army, in response to
the lawsuit, has decided to institute some sort of process, due
process. Because the immigrants were being kicked out of the
military without being told why they were being kicked out, and
now the Army has agreed that it will provide some due process.
And, again, if you look at these backgrounds checks,
they're not--they don't have anything to do with citizenship
eligibility. The military is applying the top-secret
adjudicative guidelines to immigrants, and the top-secret
adjudicative guidelines say that anything foreign is
derogatory.
So it's a mismatch and a mistake to apply those
adjudicative guidelines to determine whether an immigrant is
eligible to serve in the military. It causes massive failure
rates of the background checks, because all the immigrants have
foreign parents. They have foreign bank accounts because they
emigrated from a foreign country and they had a foreign bank
account. They have foreign relatives who served in the South
Korean military, one of our allies, for example, and that's
something that causes a failure.
So DOD internally has acknowledged that they have a
problem, but they can't get out of it because there's a
bureaucratic struggle going on between the folks at the
consolidated adjudications facility, who cling to their
adjudicative guidelines even though they don't apply to
immigrants--and there is now supposed to be some due process,
but it's spotty. And there are still immigrants being
discharged who are not being told why they're being discharged.
They're not given a chance to refute wrong information in the
record.
It is a travesty, and it's something I hope Congress will
look into. I think it's ripe for a GAO investigation into these
background checks. And I would add that they're costing the
government thousands upon thousands of dollars. They are
spending thousands of dollars to figure out that immigrants
have foreign parents.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Correa. I'd like to call on Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses that are here.
If I might have those who have served in the United States
military raise their hands?
Let me thank you so very much for your service. My applause
to you, if my hands could go.
Are there men and women here that have served in combat?
Thank you so very much.
I recall being here for 9/11, and I'm not trying to give
ancient stories, but I remember, as the call came for
individuals with a passion and commitment to one's country, Mr.
Chairman, there were numbers and numbers of legal permanents
residents who heeded the cry, both for the war in Afghanistan
and the war in Iraq.
Interestingly enough, I have no recollection of any ICE
involvement on anything. I do remember a series of legislative
initiatives to provide for opportunities for soldiers in-
theater to be naturalized. Naturalization ceremonies were going
on.
Isn't it interesting? The country was in need. Men and
women who were either immigrants themselves or immigrant
parents took the oath, put on the uniform unselfishly, and
offered their lives. There are legal permanent residents who
are in the Nation's military cemeteries or in cemeteries today
from the Iraq and Afghan war.
So I am baffled about where we are today. And I think this
is a very important hearing, but I also believe that this
should be brought to the attention of the Armed Services
Committee. Because if there is joint legislation, it would have
to be in combination with the Armed Services Committee so the
Department of Defense can wake up.
So let me just--and forgive me if these questions have been
asked and answered. But there is a standard that ICE is
supposed to utilize when they're addressing veterans. They need
to consider criminal history, evidence of rehabilitation,
family and financial ties to the United States, employment
history, health, and community service. And it's come my
attention, with our report, that some of the folk in ICE don't
even know they're supposed to do that or have the list of
criteria to even address.
So if I could ask both Hector Barajas-Varela and Jennie
Pasquarella--first, Hector, if you can tell me what kind of
complexity that puts your members or who you interact with,
when they're not given any fair assessment by the local ICE
officer. Because they're not seeing Washington; they're seeing
ICE where they are. Could you answer that, please?
Mr. Barajas-Varela. Sure. I mean, it creates a problem
where--one of the things that--the way it could be fixed is
where--you know, when I went to L.A. County jail, they actually
asked me whether I was a veteran or not, and then they go
through certain procedures. And definitely in immigration
there's, you know--they don't even ask you if you're a veteran
or not. So they probably don't even--you know, they don't know
what procedures to take. So they definitely need to make sure
that we hold the government accountable to that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So we need to put in a separate construct
for veterans. We should require both Immigration Services, our
ICE component, ``You have to ask the question. And you have to
prioritize veteran immigrants in your assessment of
naturalization or processing,'' rather than, ``I've lost your
packet. It's so insignificant that I've lost your packet.''
Jennie, can you help us with the work that you do and the
frustration, I guess, that you face?
Ms. Pasquarella. Thank you, Congressman. Yes.
We have to address it on two fronts. First, on the front
end, when a person is encountering ICE, there should be a
requirement that, at a minimum, ICE asks every person they
encounter whether or not they are either serving in the
military or are a veteran. That's the first thing that we know
they're not doing.
Second, they should actually implement the policies that
they have and, ideally, improve the policies to actually do
that assessment--once they know the person is a veteran, to do
that assessment to determine, by weighing all the equities,
their service, everything else about their life, whether
removal actually is a sensible policy decision.
But then on the back end, we also have to ensure that, even
if ICE is putting somebody into proceedings, that our law
accounts for the fact that somebody may have served our country
and deserves to remain in the United States.
And I want to correct something that was said earlier by
Mr. Metcalf because it's very important. The law in 1996
eliminated all judicial discretion, including cancellation of
removal. Cancellation of removal was not available for Hector
when he was being deported from this country because the law in
1996 eliminated any ability for a judge to consider military
service as well as any other equities in a person's life.
So we have to address it with ICE through sensible policy,
but we also have to reform the law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
Mr. Metcalf. Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Metcalf, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Metcalf. Thank you. I do. I really do. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Ms. Jackson Lee, I just want to tell you, I was a judge in
Miami. I can't tell you that every case that would've come
before me under the rubric that's been testified to would have
survived a challenge on cancellation from the government. I
know that I granted 75 percent to 80 percent of the
applications that came before me. And let me also add, I was
typical of judges across the country.
Now, when you add--and if you may, ma'am--or, if I may,
ma'am, when you add the veteran's overall criminal history, his
or her rehabilitation, family and financial ties to the U.S.,
his employment history, his health, his community service, in
addition to duty status, war zone duty, years in service, and
decorated--decorations awarded, that is calling on the judge to
do a much deeper dive. It calls also on the agency looking at
that person to do a deeper dive.
Now, I suggest to you that when judges have that kind of
blush in front of them on an administrative take, they're going
to consider that and be informed by that in their judgments. It
certainly informed mine on people who were not in front of me
as veterans but as people who had had a host of problems which
prompted the U.S. to seek their removal.
So I want to--I want to balance----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Metcalf [continuing]. The opinion of Ms. Pasquarella by
that information.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Correa. If I can----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you going to yield to this gentlelady
in----
Mr. Correa. Yes. I would like to yield to Ms. Stock to--you
raised your hand?
Ms. Stock. I think the disconnect here is that the statute
bars judges from granting any relief under cancellation of
removal to green-card holders who are convicted of a so-called
aggravated felony.
And, if I may, I can give you an example. I know of an
individual serving currently on Active Duty in the Navy. He's a
career Navy person who, long ago, got convicted of something
called obstruction of justice in Virginia--at the time, a very
minor offense. He was told that it would not have any impact on
his military career, and he went on to serve a full career in
the United States Navy.
When he applied for citizenship, he was told that this is
an aggravated felony under immigration law and he's not
eligible for citizenship. They told him he would not be
deported until he leaves the Navy. So he's trying to put off
his retirement. But if he were in front of the Honorable Mark
Metcalf, he would not be eligible for cancellation of removal
because the government considers his conviction to be an
aggravated felony and makes him ineligible for cancellation.
Mr. Metcalf. I would take that deeper dive, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much. With that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Due process, Mr. Chairman, requires us to
look to the options of the individual who's being victimized.
So I yield back. I thank you.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
If I can, I call on Ms. Scanlon from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
And thank you for your testimony, all of you, on this
important issue, the impact of current immigration policies on
servicemembers and their families.
I think it's really important that we look at the impact of
the--and the cost to our national security and our national
honor of the current administration's policies and the impact
they're having on our Armed Forces and those who work with us.
The fact that we are breaking our word to men and women who've
put their lives on the line for this country is profoundly
disturbing to me.
I also want to note the irony that, of the two portraits
that hang on the floor of the House of Representatives, one is
George Washington, and another is a foreign national who fought
for us, and that would be the Marquis de Lafayette. So,
certainly, we have a very long history in this country of
relying upon persons of goodwill who may not be American
citizens.
But with respect to the impact on our national security, I
have some familiarity with the issue of the SIV applicants, the
Iraqi and Afghani nationals who have worked with our Armed
Forces. Before I came here almost a year ago, I worked with the
IRAP group, which was a coalition of law students and law firm
volunteers who would represent Iraqi and Afghani translators
and drivers who worked with our Armed Forces.
And, in particular, I recall one gentleman who had worked
with our Armed Forces in Afghani, who had worked with our Armed
Forces as a translator for 5 years. And when he recognized a
Taliban member on one of our bases and reported him, thereby
saving the lives of many of our forces, he then had to go into
hiding. And he remained in hiding with his family for 4 years
while his application was processed.
He did finally get here, but it was a long process. And
I've certainly heard of additional folks who have had more
difficulty and that have been unable to get their applications
processed.
So just the, you know, impact on national security is huge.
And I can't recall if you had figures on what the processing
rates are at this point. If you could respond to that?
Ms. Stock. It's in my written testimony.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
Ms. Stock. I would refer to that.
Ms. Scanlon. And those processing rates have gone down?
Ms. Stock. They have dropped significantly. And the travel
ban has also affected the ability of Special Immigrant Visa
applicants.
We're also seeing an uptick in people who have been
approved initially but now suddenly, for mysterious reasons
unknown to anyone, they've been--approvals have been revoked.
And there's an appeal process that doesn't work. They send
in their requests for information to rebut the allegations, and
they never hear anything again.
In fact, I got an email today, right before the hearing,
from somebody who had sent in a response to completely
erroneous allegations made against him after he was granted a
visa but then they revoked it, and he sent in his rebuttal,
proving conclusively that these allegations were incorrect, and
he hasn't heard anything.
Ms. Scanlon. All right. Our case was very similar. We had
to do a FOIA request to various officials and take it all the
way up to the court of appeals. Yes.
With respect, I was also concerned about the testimony
concerning folks who join our military with the expectation
that they would become citizens and the fact that our military
is now having trouble recruiting citizens to fill those slots.
Can anyone on the panel speak that?
Ms. Stock. Special Operations Command has conveyed to me
that they are having trouble finding people that speak the
languages of the countries in which they're operating and that
this has reached a critical point. They can't find people.
The other group of people that were helpful are the folks
that know about cyber war. It's just a fact that we have a lot
of legal immigrants in the United States who have great cyber
skills. But they can't put them to work for the United States
unless they're American citizens, because you have to be an
American citizen to get a security clearance. And if they can't
get into the military and can't get their citizenship, then
they can't fill the ranks of Cyber Command. And Cyber Command
is short of skilled people right now.
Ms. Scanlon. So, in a country that has always relied upon
the skills and talents of immigrants, we're turning folks away
for one of our highest and most important duties.
Ms. Stock. That's correct.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Ms. Scanlon.
Let me, first of all, conclude today's hearing, but, first,
I wanted to make a couple of comments, which is: A lot of the
policies we're talking about here, it's not a Democrat or
Republican issue. A lot of the policies we're fighting today
precede the current administration and go back to Democratic
administrations. And I'm hoping my colleagues from the other
side of the aisle will join us in coming up with some good,
commonsense legislation.
You witnesses here today, you identified some very solid
public policy decisions, proposals that we need to move
forward. And I hope we can, because this is about America. It's
about keeping our commitment to our veterans and making sure
that no soldier is left behind. So I'm hoping we can move
forward.
And let me thank all of the witnesses here today, our
veterans that are here today. We can never thank you enough for
your service to our country.
And I want to conclude this hearing by once again thanking
the panelists, our witnesses.
And, without objection, all members will have 5 legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Mr. Correa. And look forward to continuing to work with
you.
And, without objection, this committee is now concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]