[Senate Hearing 117-37]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-37
THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PERSPECTIVE ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND BORDER MANAGEMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2021
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-044 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND BORDER MANAGEMENT
KRYSTEN SINEMA, Arizona, Chair
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JON OSSOFF, Georgia MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Eric A. Bursch, Staff Director
James D. Mann, Minority Staff Director and Regulatory Policy Counsel
Kate Kielceski, Subcommittee Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Sinema............................................... 1
Senator Lankford............................................. 3
Senator Carper............................................... 12
Senator Johnson.............................................. 15
Senator Padilla.............................................. 17
Prepared statements:
Senator Sinema............................................... 29
Senator Lankford............................................. 31
WITNESSES
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Ruben Garcia, Director, Annunciation House....................... 5
Beth Strano, Asylum Seekers and Families Coordinator,
International Rescue Committee................................. 6
Joshua Jones, Senior Fellow, Border Security, Texas Public Policy
Foundation..................................................... 8
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Garcia Ruben:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Jones, Joshua:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Strano, Beth:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 39
APPENDIX
Texas/Mexico Border picture...................................... 49
Border wall picture.............................................. 50
SW Border Apprehensions.......................................... 51
HIAS statement................................................... 52
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Garcia................................................... 54
Ms. Strano................................................... 56
Mr. Jones.................................................... 65
THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PERSPECTIVE ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Government Operations
and Border Management
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. via
Webex, Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, Chair of the Subcommittee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Sinema, Carper, Padilla, Ossoff,
Lankford, Johnson, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA\1\
Senator Sinema. Welcome to the first hearing of the
Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management for
the 117th Congress. I am pleased to chair this Subcommittee and
to partner with Ranking Member Lankford, just as we did in the
116th Congress. I look forward to working with him, the Chair
and Ranking Member of the full Committee, and the rest of my
Senate colleagues to address a wide array of critical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Sinema appears in the
Appendix on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Subcommittee has an expanded jurisdiction this
Congress. We will continue to examine important topics such as
Federal regulatory policy and a more efficient Federal
workforce, and I expect we will also look at how to improve the
U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the decennial census. We will
also focus significant time on a critical topic for my State of
Arizona and the entire nation--improving how we manage and
secure our border.
I grew up in southern Arizona, so like a lot of Arizonans I
have seen first-hand how Arizona, and specifically small
communities along the border, pay the price for the Federal
Government's
failure over decades to fix our broken immigration system. As
Chair of this Subcommittee, I will work to ensure Congress and
the administration take meaningful steps to secure the border,
support our border communities and non-governmental
organizations (NGO's), prevent the spread of coronavirus
disease 2019
(COVID-19), and treat all migrants and unaccompanied alien
children (UAC) fairly and humanely.
Right now our nation confronts a crisis at our Southwest
Border. Since the beginning of 2021, we have seen an
unprecedented surge of migrants arrive at the border. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported 351,803
migrant encounters in just the first 3 months of 2021, compared
to 107,732 during the same period in 2020. This influx of
migrants puts severe strain on both the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The men and women staffing those departments have worked
tirelessly to help migrants while also securing the border,
facilitating trade, and protecting our communities.
But there are many others also working day and night to
help migrants and respond to the ongoing crisis. I am pleased
we have several of those individuals joining us today as
witnesses.
Non-government organizations play a critically important
role in managing the ongoing influx. Their efforts to provide
migrants with basic assistance, including food, shelter, and
travel aid, is a key link in the ongoing effort to ensure
migrants are treated fairly and our communities can
successfully manage this crisis. Without these NGO's, Arizona,
our border States, our nations, and the migrants themselves
would be worse off.
This is why I worked with my colleagues to include $110
million in funding in the last COVID package to provide NGO's
and border communities with additional resources to assist
migrants and protect our communities.
I look forward to hearing directly from the International
Rescue Committee and Annunciation House about how Congress and
the administration can improve its efforts to communicate and
coordinate with NGO's, and it is critical that Congress hear
directly from NGO's about the challenges they face, so it can
craft solutions that make sense for everyone impacted by this
crisis.
It is also critical that we always consider the security
challenges of the ongoing influx. I look forward to hearing
about steps this Congress and the administration can take right
now to better secure our border and protect our communities
from the threats posed by transnational criminal organizations
(TCOs).
Last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator
Cornyn in response to the ongoing crisis. The bipartisan Border
Solutions Act takes a number of important steps to respond to
this influx by improving DHS processing capacity, improving
legal assistance to migrants, and ensuring DHS better
coordinates and communicates with NGO's and local governments.
Our bipartisan bill represents a first step toward dealing
with some of the challenges we see at the border. It does not
tackle every challenge. I look forward to working with my
colleagues, the administration, and outside stakeholders,
including the NGO's represented today on our panel, to improve
our proposal.
Now, without objection, I am entering into the record
statements for the record from the Southern Border Communities
Coalition and Amnesty International.
Thank you all for joining today. I look forward to the
testimony and to the discussion.
I would like to recognize Senator Lankford for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD\1\
Senator Lankford. Senator Sinema, thank you very much. I do
look forward to working with you during the session, and I know
your work ethic and the things that you take on, so I am
grateful to be able to serve alongside of you in this
conversation, and to be able to try to find the areas where we
have common ground on this. I know this will be the first of
many Subcommittee hearings dealing with this issue of border
management, which is an essential part of our Subcommittee
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Lankford appears in the
Appendix on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the witnesses that are here, thank you very much for
coming well prepared, for your prior statements you have
submitted. We appreciate your engagement today. There is a lot
that we need to be able to cover.
The March 2021 Southwest Land Border's Encounters Report
from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) paints a pretty
alarming picture of the crisis that is happening on our
Southern Border. CBP encountered more than 172,000 migrants in
the month of March alone. That is nearly 570,000 migrants in
this fiscal year (FY). To put that in perspective, that is
larger than the entire population of the city of Tulsa in my
home State of Oklahoma, that have come across our border this
year.
Preliminary data for 2021 that is coming shows that we are
continuing to see a surge of migrants coming across our border.
In fact, if you compared the first 3 weeks of this year to the
first 3 weeks of the previous 3 years--2020, 2019, and 2018--we
have had more encounters in April, just this April, than we
have had in the previous 3 years of April, combined. This year
there have also been more than 5,000 encounters with aliens
coming across the border with a criminal record in the United
States.
The number of unaccompanied children crossing our borders
is currently on track to reach a 20-year high. In March 2021,
CBP apprehended nearly 19,000 unaccompanied children. This is a
historic surge of UACs, straining the resources of CBP and the
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at an alarming rate.
The non-governmental organizations appearing today are
working hard, alongside our government, to address this crisis.
Many of the advocates working with these NGO's are living out
their faith and providing food and shelter to the most
vulnerable. While I am grateful for the NGO's, the churches,
religious communities, and many other people in every single
town and community along the border that are walking alongside
these individuals, I am concerned about the series of policy
decisions that still need to be made and some of the decisions
that were made at the White House that actually have led to
this crisis.
President Biden, on the first day of his administration,
began rolling back many of the policies of President Trump,
that were put in place when we faced a similar surge in 2019,
only a smaller surge even than what we are facing now. These
policies put in place by the previous administration
strengthened our security and stabilized our border. Policies
that now enrich the human trafficking cartels are beginning to
rise again, and it is putting thousands of people in danger.
I took trips to the Southwest Border during the 2019 crisis
as well, because we had also worked on this issue at that time
and during the ongoing crisis this year. In fact, I went to the
Donna, Texas, facility that is so well-known now, from housing
so many unaccompanied minors, and I was there in 2019 and there
in 2021, and I can tell you, I was shocked to be able to see
the difference between the two.
Let me show you a picture of what this facility looked like
in 2019 and what it looks like in 2021.\1\ The stark difference
between the two is pretty remarkable. In 2019, they were
housing unaccompanied minors. They were moving their way
through. There was space in that facility. In 2021, that
facility, one of the rooms that I was in that is designed to
hold 80 people, and as I saw it in 2019, did hold 80 people, it
was designed to hold 80 people, but it was actually holding 709
people. In that particular facility, some of those individuals
had been there more than 10 days in that small, crowded space,
with 709 people in a facility designed for 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Picture of Texas/Mexico facility appears in the Appendix on
page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems leading to this crisis are complex. We understand
that. Cartel violence, human trafficking, smuggling, narcotics
trade, depressed economies, coronavirus pandemic, slow economic
growth in the Northern Triangle countries, they all lead to
this situation.
But it is not just the Northern Triangle. As I visited with
Border Patrol agents along our Southwest Border a few weeks,
and asked, ``How many countries have we encountered this fiscal
year?'' the answer I got was more than 100 different countries
have been encountered this year, coming across our Southwest
Border. It is incredibly complicated, and our border has become
so porous and open at this point that we are seeing people
literally from all over the world now crossing that border.
Addressing these problems will require a whole-of-
government approach. We have to build capacity to be able to
strengthen our regional security, to disrupt transnational
criminal organizations that fuel this violence, strengthen our
border security, and provide for some smart reforms in how we
are going to handle our immigration laws. It is significant
that we take this on.
The current asylum system is not working the way that it is
set up, and it has become an incentive. Currently, if you are
an individual coming across our Southwest Border today, you
will be given a notice to appear (NTA) if you request an asylum
hearing, which most everyone does. The current date on the
notice to appear that you will have to appear before Federal
authorities--and it would be your first encounter with the
Federal authorities since you leave the border--is May 22,
2024, 3 years from now.
This Congress, I look forward to working with Senator
Sinema and my colleagues to strengthen our border security, to
ensure we have a better enforcement, to be able to work through
constructive solutions to be able to fix our broken asylum
system and our immigration laws, and I look forward to
beginning that dialog even today.
Senator Sinema, thank you for calling this hearing, and I
look forward to a good dialog today.
Senator Sinema. Thanks so much, Senator Lankford.
Now I will introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. I
will ask all of our witnesses to keep their opening statements
to 5 minutes in length. Your full statements will be submitted
for the record.
Our first witness is Beth Strano, the Asylum Seekers and
Families Coordinator at the International Rescue Committee
(IRC) in Phoenix. In this capacity, Ms. Strano plays a pivotal
role in operating the Phoenix Welcome Center for asylum-seeking
families. Ms. Strano, thank you so much for your work and for
joining us today. You are now recognized for your opening
statement.
[Pause.]
It looks like Ms. Strano might be having a connection
issue, so I am going to skip to our second speaker.
Our next witness is Ruben Garcia. He is the Founder and
Director of Annunciation House, which is an El Paso NGO that
has served asylum-seekers for more than 40 years.
Mr. Garcia, thank you for your work and for joining us
today, and you are now recognized for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF RUBEN GARCIA,\1\ DIRECTOR, ANNUNCIATION HOUSE
Mr. Garcia. Senator Sinema and Senator Lankford, I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and share
my thoughts with you and the full Members of the Subcommittee
on Government Operations and Border Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears in the Appendix on
page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been with Annunciation House since its inception in
1978, and our work has been focused exclusively in providing
hospitality for refugees as they have crossed the border here
in the Juarez, Mexico, El Paso, Texas corridor. Over the years
we have hosted hundreds of thousands of refugees in our
hospitality sites.
The first real family wave or surge that we saw happened in
2014, and it was at that point where we saw the phenomena of
families crossing first, initially, in south Texas, and
literally turning themselves into Border Patrol, and the
challenge of how to handle this surge we saw for the first time
at that point. It resulted in plane-loads of families being
flown to El Paso and then released here in El Paso.
Something that was very pivotal and important that took
place then, in 2014, which I think has a great deal of bearing
on what is happening today, is that the Deputy Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) locally here reached
out to Annunciation House and explained this is what is going
to be happening. These planes are going to start arriving. We
are going to process the individuals, they are going to be
given the NTA, then they are going to be released, and what we
want to know if Annunciation House will receive them, and we
did. As all of these planes arrived, people were processed,
they were released, they came to hospitality sites that
Annunciation House organized.
Thereafter, when the flights stopped coming, we began to
notice that the flow of refugees began to shift to the Juarez-
El Paso area, and we then started to see much higher numbers of
individuals that were crossing the border here, were being
apprehended by Border Patrol, were being processed, and then
were being released to Annunciation House.
That was the first surge back in 2014. A much greater surge
happened in the 2018-2019 fiscal year, which required us to
partner with many churches here in the El Paso and Las Cruces
area. It also required that we reach out to churches and
communities in Albuquerque. There were a couple of times that
we even sent buses to churches in Denver, Colorado, and Dallas,
Texas, all of it done by volunteers, all of it being done by
churches that were making space available in their cafeterias
and their meeting rooms, in their gymnasiums. It was possible
through that coalition of churches and organizations that
stepped forward with their volunteer personnel to accommodate
150,000 refugees that were released by ICE and Border Patrol
during that fiscal year.
We are beginning to see an increase, which is periodic. I
have been at this for many years, and the increases, especially
in the springtime, is something that repeats itself, or has
been repeating, and we are seeing, again, an increase in the
number of individuals. This has been compounded by the need to
unwind the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program and to
allow families that were placed in the MPP program to enter,
which they are entering. As they enter, those that need
hospitality, they are coming to the hospitality sites of
Annunciation House. Then also, and a much greater concern, the
unwinding or the decision of how to handle the Title 42
expulsions. This is something that is of great concern.
As we look forward to what happens, there are two things
that I would emphasize. First, that the MPP unwinding, the
unwinding of the MPP program was thought out, it was planned,
it was organized, and it has been working amazingly well.
People have been entering in a safe manner, COVID tested, and
it has been working amazingly well.
The concern now is how the Title 42 expulsions are going to
be dealt with, and that a similar planned-out, organized, safe
approach is taken in dealing with the Title 42 expulsions.
Thank you.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Ms. Strano, you will now be recognized for 5 minutes of
testimony. Thank you for being with us today.
TESTIMONY OF BETH STRANO\1\, ASYLUM SEEKERS AND FAMILIES
COORDINATOR, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE
Ms. Strano. Thank you. Sorry about the Internet crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Strano appears in the Appendix on
page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairwoman Sinema, Ranking Member Lankford, and
distinguished Senators, I am grateful for the opportunity to
share from the perspective of the International Rescue
Committee, which has a unique vantage point as an NGO working
across the full arc of crisis for thousands of asylum seekers,
from conflict and disaster regions to recovery and protection.
In my role, specifically, I oversee the operations of the
Welcome Center in Phoenix, Arizona, which is a 24-hour
emergency shelter serving asylum seekers and their children.
The center provides emergency humanitarian assistance alongside
local community partners, and works closely with similar
shelters in Tucson, The Inn and Casa Alitas, to provide a
regional response across the State.
Beyond Arizona, the Welcome Center is a member of the
Border Asylum Shelter Coalition, composed of partners offering
critical services to families from San Diego to Brownsville.
This network of shelters has developed best practices over the
years to safely receive asylum seekers, delivering humanitarian
assistance, and assist with onward movement to their sponsors.
Thus far in 2021, the Welcome Center has served more than
6,000 people from 43 different countries. Families and
individuals generally stay onsite for 24 to 72 hours while they
connect to their U.S.-based family members and sponsors. We
work in close collaboration with our county health department
to ensure that everyone who stays at the shelter received COVID
testing, information on health safety, and is given space to
quarantine, if needed.
We recognize that the Federal Government is currently
facing a triple challenge of unwinding inhumane policies from
former administrations, responding to current humanitarian
crises in Central America and Haiti, and humanely managing an
increase of arrivals of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico
border, all during a pandemic.
The United States is one of the most resourced countries in
the world, with the capacity to provide protection and
implement policies that offer refuge for the most vulnerable.
The concept of offering safety to immigrants is deeply embedded
in our culture as a representation of our best natures. ``Give
me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to
breathe free'' still inspires us to become the America that
Emma Lazarus believed in.
To meet these shared goals, we recommend that the U.S.
Government scale up capacity and engagement with community-
based shelters and partners would demonstrate success at
meeting the comprehensive needs of asylum seekers.
We prioritize this engagement in three primary areas.
First, safe and human processing of asylum seekers at the U.S.-
Mexico border must include direct transportation to the nearest
border shelter in the United States.
In Arizona this year, community partners have had to react
quickly to releases of asylum seekers in small communities such
as Ajo and Gila Bend, neither of which have public transit
centers. It should not be expected that under-resourced
communities will be able to provide transportation for up to
100 released asylum seekers with only a few hours' notice,
especially during a pandemic. It is necessary to equip border
shelters to assist in providing transit and coordination.
Second, we recommend that Congress partner with members of
the Border Asylum Shelter Coalition to develop an outcomes-
driven model of humanitarian reception. Legal orientations at
the Welcome Center inform families to help them participate
fully in the asylum process, leading to better outcomes and
addressing obstacles. Approximately 20 percent of the people we
serve have needed assistance to address mistakes in their
immigration paperwork. Without referrals to legal and social
service providers, more vulnerable individuals could fall
victim to exploitation or trafficking.
We are confident that the community-based model of
reception by border shelters can lead to better, longer-term
outcomes for asylum seekers. Sustainable and formal funding for
operating costs for shelters would increase their capacity to
serve as resilient community resources with a lasting, positive
impact on our clients.
Third, case management services in destination locations
should be scaled up and federally funded. Case management is a
proven mechanism for supporting asylum seekers to fulfill their
immigration process obligations and reach self-sufficiency in
their communities. Currently, there is no case management
program that is federally funded or outlined by the government.
They should receive meaningful referrals from the point of
reception to the border at their destination. Without further
delay, the government should implement a nationally coordinated
effort that supports asylum seekers in finding safety and
stability, and empowers them to fully participate in the legal
process.
The right to claim asylum is protected by international
law, and is driven by the need to seek safety from persecution
and violence. Policies which have made it more difficult to
seek or obtain asylum have not resulted in a more safe or
orderly process at the border. In reality, making the road
harder for those who are already fleeing violence does not
change their need to seek safety, but it does reflect on our
willingness to provide it.
Humanitarian needs for asylum seekers have consistently
been met for years at the border and beyond by a network of
community-based shelters, NGO's, legal partners. These networks
represent deep expertise and resources which benefit our
communities throughout the ebbs and flows of policy change and
international crisis, and they are invaluable assets to guiding
the creation of a more human asylum process.
I would like to close with the aspirational words of
Langston Hughes and his vision of the American dream as
accessible to all. He said, ``Let America be America again. Let
it be the dream it used to be. Let it be the pioneer on the
plain, seeking a home where he, himself, is free.''
Thank you so much, Senators, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Sinema. Thank you so much.
Our final witness is Josh Jones, the Senior Fellow on
Border Security for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In this
role, Mr. Jones conducts organized crime and security
assessments in Mexico to evaluate threats to U.S. national
security interests.
Mr. Jones, thank you so much for joining us today, and you
are recognized for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF JOSHUA JONES,\1\ SENIOR FELLOW, BORDER SECURITY,
TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairwoman Sinema, Ranking Member
Lankford, and the other Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify today. I am a Senior Fellow in Border
Security at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. My comments and
recommendations today are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of the foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appear in the Appendix on
page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until December 2020, I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in
the Southern District of California, and I had been a
prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for
approximately 17 of the prior 18 years. For the last 12 of
those years, I worked almost exclusively on investigation and
prosecutions of transnational criminal organizations in Latin
America, first from the Criminal Division of Main Justice and
later from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District
of California.
In my last 18 months with the Department, I served on the
Attorney General's Joint Task Force Vulcan, which coordinated
domestic and international investigations in the MS-13
Transnational Criminal Organization. In that capacity, I
coordinated task force efforts in Mexico and parts of Central
America.
During my time on Joint Task Force Vulcan, I met a young
man, 18 years old, who had recently migrated from Honduras. His
story personifies both the complexity and the tragedy of the
choices faced by Central Americans who make the long, arduous
journey to the United States.
When he was 13 years old, a group of masked MS-13 members
approached him on his way home from school in his small
Honduran village. MS-13 controlled the neighborhood surrounding
his home and school, and along with the rival 18th Street gang
controls virtually all geographic territory in the Northern
Triangle.
The MS-13 members took him to a nearby house and told him
that he would be expected to join the local MS-13 clique. If he
did not, he and his sisters would be killed. He did not want to
join the gang, however, and through a contact with a smuggling
organization he arranged to leave his single mother and sisters
in Honduras, and at the age of 13, make the 1,800-mile journey
to the United States.
His smugglers arranged his journey out of Honduras through
the rocky roads of the Guatemalan hills and jungles and into
the cartel-controlled territories of Mexico. Where necessary,
his smugglers paid the taxes required by the local criminal
syndicate, whether the street gangs of Guatemala or the cartels
of Mexico. He witnessed the atrocities that we have heard about
too often in these migrant caravans--young women raped, kids
given up for ransom, or coerced into trafficking rings.
His journey through Mexico took him along the well-trodden
smuggling routes into Chiapas, through Veracruz and Monterrey,
and eventually to the U.S. border across from the Rio Grande
Valley (RGV), across from Laredo, Texas. The local criminal
organizations knew well the Customs and Border Patrol patterns
along the river valley, and using a network of lookouts on both
sides arranged for him and others to cross safely into the
United States in the dead of night.
The young man then had a problem. His family could not
afford the $5,000 fee charged by the smuggling organization for
his transportation north, so to pay off the debt, his smugglers
had arranged with the local Mexican drug trafficking
organization for him to traffic drug for them. So the young man
who left his home and family in Honduras because he did not
want to be a gang member was forced to traffic illegal drugs
into the United States. Any money he made beyond what he owed
to criminal organizations was sent home to his mother in
Honduras, who, like all the others in the area, was forced by
the local MS-13 clique to pay taxes to the gangs in order to
continue to live in the area.
I met this young man because he had been caught trafficking
50 kilograms of fentanyl-laced heroin into the United States.
He was looking at a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, and a
sentencing guideline that ranged closer to 20 years.
While I have offered few details of this young man's
experience in order to protect his identity, his story is not a
unique one. It is repeated every day in the cities and villages
of the Northern Triangle. The 50-kilogram shipments of
fentanyl, when not stopped at the border, make their way onto
the streets and suburbs of the United States, taking the lives
and the livelihoods of thousands of young people.
In my previously submitted written testimony I described
how criminal organizations from the Northern Triangle gangs to
the Mexican cartels operate, and the human smuggling cycle, and
how they exploit Central Americans who have often no real
choice but to leave for the U.S. border. By the time most
Central Americans reach CBP or Health and Human Services
facilities or the NGO's operating along the border, they have
witnessed or experienced unspeakable atrocities. In some cases,
the minors and young adults taken in by CBP and by the NGO's
are gang members themselves, planning to join an MS-13 or 18th
Street clique in the United States. Others, as we have seen,
will soon be coerced to work for a drug cartel. If they are
lucky, they will be allowed to find work on their own, but the
first $5,000 to $10,000 they earn will still go to their
smugglers.
I look forward to answering your questions and discussing
potential solutions to the complex problems on every side of
the recurring immigration crises, from the national security
threats arising from illegal immigration to the confluence of
transnational criminal organizations and hostile foreign States
at the border, to the so-called root causes of migration from
the Northern Triangle.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Jones, and thank you for
joining us today.
Now we will begin the question portion of the hearing, and
each Senator will get 7 minutes for questions.
Senator Lankford, I would like to recognize you, if you
would like to do the first round of questions.
Senator Lankford. Senator Sinema, why don't I go ahead and
defer to the other Members that may be in the queue, and then
since I will be here the whole time I will take my questions
last.
Senator Sinema. OK. I will go ahead and start then. I am
going to start and then I will go directly to Senator Johnson.
My first question is for Ms. Strano. Communication and
coordination between DHS and NGO partners are crucial to
successfully manage this crisis. In 2019, and again this year,
we have seen communication failures directly impact Arizona
communities and migrants in a negative way. It is a key reason
why my bipartisan bill with Senator Cornyn requires DHS to
improve coordination and communication with local communities
and NGO's.
Which specific aspects of communication and coordination
with DHS still need to get better so NGO's, such as the IRC,
can more efficiently and effectively help our communities?
Ms. Strano. Thank you for your question, Chairwoman Sinema.
I agree with you that increased collaboration and communication
has been a huge driver for increased successful outcomes. We do
still experience a lot of breakdowns around guarding
transportation, from the border to the hubs where there are
services. In Arizona, we really have services centralized
within Tucson and Phoenix, and although there are plentiful
resources there, we have many small towns that are closer to
the border where we see releases happen.
There is cross-agency coordination that needs to happen
between CBP and ICE to ensure that folks are transported
directly to services, rather than being released in those small
towns that have no outward migration options.
That has been one of the points of communication that has
been the most difficult. We have worked closely with our local
ICE field office to increase communication, and we are seeing
increased communication over 2018 and 2019, and to have those
kinds of conversations in a public forum setting, such as our
Maricopa County stakeholders meeting that we do weekly, that
ICE and CBP participate in. That has been a great model for
success. Pima County has a similar meeting that is a great
model for success. When we have all stakeholders at the same
table and in participation with those conversations, we are
seeing that we can come up with collaborative solutions much
easier.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. Mr. Garcia, I know you have
worked in this space for decades, and I would like to get your
historical perspective. How do the current challenges that
NGO's experience differ from previous border crises, and is it
the influence and impact of COVID-19 or are there other issues
that Congress needs to consider, even after this pandemic ends?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you for your question. I want to go back
to 2014, when the planes were sent from south Texas to El Paso.
The Assistant ICE Director, with the approval of the Director,
called me, we sat down, and we said this is going to happen. We
set out ground rules, the planes arrived, refugees were
processed, they were released, the communication was strong,
and it worked amazingly well. They transported the people being
released to us to the sites that we requested. That is an
example of really good communication.
Fast forward to today. I have communication with a lot of
individuals in ICE, in Border Patrol, and Office of Field
Operations (OFO). What I sometimes feel hampers the process is
that not all three of them are on the same page. I speak to
individuals who tell me that they are not sure of what is going
to happen given A, B, or C. So there needs to be interagency
cooperation, collaboration, so that there is clarity as to how
the various situations are going to be handled, so that then
the information that comes to me, as an NGO, is information
that we can trust, that is going to be reliable.
A good example of that is that when the planes from south
Texas, right now with the families, with tender-aged children
that cannot be expelled, are being flown to El Paso, one plane-
load, and Mexico said they would only allow 100 on each plane
to be expelled. The other 35 we were then called and told,
``They are going to be coming to you.''
The next thing that I know is this contract with Endeavors
is signed, and those 35 stopped coming to Annunciation House
and they started going to Endeavors.
My point in that is that people in ICE, in Border Patrol,
and OFO are not clear what was going to happen and how it was
going to happen. There is an example of the importance of
everybody being on the same page.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. My next question is for Mr.
Jones. Based on your research and experience, what role do
transnational criminal organizations play in facilitating the
current border crisis compared to the role that these
transnational criminal organizations played during the 2019
crisis?
Mr. Jones. I think the role is essentially the same. The
TCOs or the drug cartels control the port cities that line the
border, and they essentially control the distribution channels.
So whether it is drugs, whether it is firearms, whether it is
people crossing the border, they control, they tax, and they
manipulate as those things cross. We are seeing the same
dynamics today as we saw in 2019, and as we saw in prior border
crises, where the criminal organizations are recognizing that
volume is up--in other words, the demand is up--so they have an
opportunity to manipulate the situation in order to create
revenue for themselves, because ultimately these are
businesses.
Senator Sinema. Following up on that answer, what are
specific actions that you recommend the administration take to
make it harder for these transnational criminal organizations
to exploit asylum seekers, both before they leave their home
countries and when they first approach the U.S.-Mexico border?
Mr. Jones. I think there are various things that can be
done along that trafficking route, from the Northern Triangle
up through Mexico, such as increased enforcement at the border
of Guatemala and Mexico, which was something that was
negotiated by the prior administration, and it appears that
President Biden has done as well. That is a positive step.
I think one thing that is often not discussed, that should
be on the table, is direct negotiation, a very honest and frank
negotiation, with the government of Mexico, because they are
obviously very much a part of the picture as we try to solve
this problem, and at least at the law enforcement level, our
relationships with Mexico have been deteriorating.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. I now recognize Senator Carper.
Senator Carper, are you ready?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Yes, I am. Madam Chair? I can see you. I
can hear you. Can you hear and see me?
Senator Sinema. Yes, we can.
Senator Carper. Oh, good. Thanks so much. Thanks to you and
Senator Lankford for hosting this hearing today, and to each of
our witnesses. I had the opportunity to go to the Northern
Triangle countries any number of times, and before that to
places like Nicaragua as well, and to Columbia, to try to learn
what is it that compels people, young and old, from different
walks of life, to risk lives and limb to try to get to our
country.
I led a congressional delegation (CODEL) down to El Paso
and to the border near El Paso earlier this month, and when I
returned one of the things I said in my press conference, when
I came back, was that in the New Testament, Matthew 25, we have
a moral obligation to the least of these. Like when I was a
stranger in your land, you welcomed me. According to scripture,
we do have that moral obligation.
I think we are doing a heartfelt, good job, from the folks
in Border Patrol and people in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and a lot of contractors that they are hiring,
and obviously folks like you, some of the folks that are here
witnessing today.
But I said, if all we do is welcome the stranger with
kindness and with compassion, 10 years from now, 20 years from
now, 30 years from now they are still going to be coming. It is
important for us to address the root causes of why they are
coming. I downloaded the President the day after I got back,
with the Vice President the next day, and with her staff the
very next day after that.
Ms. Strano, in your testimony you explained that
restrictive immigration policies and militarization of our
border do not change migrants' needs or desires to seek safety
in the United States, and I would agree. As my colleagues will
tell you, and I have suggested, I am a big root cause guy. I
believe that, as I said earlier, if all we do is welcome the
migrants and be compassionate, 10, 20, or 30 years from now
they are going to still be coming to our borders.
With this in mind, can you take a moment--this would be Ms.
Strano--take a moment to share with us what your organization
is seeing and hearing about why folks are fleeing their homes
and countries today, not a year ago, 5 years, 10 years ago, but
today, and how we can better address the root causes of
migration? Ms. Strano.
Ms. Strano. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question.
What we hear are the types of stories that Mr. Jones also
echoed of gang exploitation and violence, and that this is
something that crosses many borders and carries onto the folks
that join us here in the United States as well and do seek
asylum.
I think that, the root cause is there is a lot of
governmental corruption or lack of influence over those kind of
crime factors that are leading to folks fleeing their
countries. But what we also have to recognize is that sometimes
our policies inadvertently play into empowering the work of
cartels on the Mexican and American border.
When we are creating situations where asylum seekers cannot
reasonably seek asylum at the port of entry (POE), we do play
into the thriving business for smugglers to charge people to
cross. If we do not create situations where we verified the
documents and pass people through the port of entry and allow
access to that process, which already exists and is fair and
judicial, then we create situations where people cross
repeatedly, even though they might be being expelled.
Unfortunately, if what is behind you is violence, you cannot go
back, so folks have no choice but to continue to go forward.
I think that as we are looking at how to better handle
these crises, the root crises aspects, I agree with you that
the root causes are in their home countries, and that there are
things that could improve there. But also at our border we do
have the ability to not feed into the smuggling business by not
allowing people to seek asylum safely and in an orderly process
at the border, at the port of entry. That is something that I
think can be examined and improved.
Senator Carper. This could be for anybody on the panel. Why
not have folks who want that, to seek asylum in the United
States, to go to our embassies, our consulates in their native
countries, like Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. Why not just
do that? I look for very brief answers to that. But, Mr.
Garcia, do you want to go first?
Mr. Garcia. I think it is unrealistic. I think it is
important to understand that we view the border from an
enforcement perspective. What is the reality in the Triangle
countries is a humanitarian perspective, and we have a very
difficult time dealing with what is imminently a social
problem. The conditions are a social problem. It is a
humanitarian problem, and we are trying to address it through
enforcement, and it is not going to work.
People's lives are such that they are making the choice to
then flee, and with that comes all of the factors that then
grow from applying enforcement to that. They are not going to
go consulates, they are not going to go to embassies, because
it means I have to continue to live in the same neighborhood
that I am living in right now.
If you were to ask me if there is one common, repeating
narrative that I hear, it is ``my children.'' Parents say ``my
children,'' be it that I don't want my children to join the
gangs, that I don't want my children to be forced into gangs,
and so they flee. Those are social realities or humanitarian
realities.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. I have another
question and then I will be done. Sometimes we refer to an
African proverb, ``If you want to go fast, go alone. If you
want to go far, go together.'' As we work to ensure that
migrants are safely and responsibly guided through the
immigration process, partnerships with organizations such as
Annunciation House and the International Rescue Committee are
essential.
With that said, though, I also believe that if it is not
perfect we have to work to make it better. The system we have
at the border is far from perfect, but the work that the NGO's
do is invaluable. To that end, how can the Federal Government
be helpful when it comes to facilitating local partnership
between NGO's and State, Federal, and local government entities
that are on the ground?
Would you take a shot at that, Mr. Garcia? How can the
Federal Government be helpful when it comes to facilitating
local partnerships between NGO's and government entities that
are on the ground?
Mr. Garcia. Communication is one. Second, that we have
support in providing transportation to the various shelters
that we have. Support in terms of providing legal assistance
resources, that we have support, as was previously mentioned,
with the case management, to assist families in navigating the
asylum process as they move forward.
The vast majority of available shelters along the entire
border area are prepared, ready, and willing to help provide
the hospitality, the social services, in terms of food,
hygiene, et cetera, do the transportation arrangements, take
people to the airport, to the bus stations. They need the
resources to continue to operate these shelters. I think that
in that way you could have that partnership.
Senator Carper. Much obliged. Thank you.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator Carper. Next is Senator
Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we can get the
webmaster to put up my chart\1\ real quick. Is that possible? I
see it up there. Or do I have to click on it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Sinema. I think your chart is up. It is the one
that has yellow with blue and red?
Senator Johnson. I know Committee Members have seen this in
the past. I know Mr. Garcia was talking about the 2014-2015
crisis that President Obama termed ``the humanitarian crisis.''
If you look at it in the context of this chart, though, you see
it is barely a blip in comparison to the crisis of 2018 and
2019, and now what we have seen over the last month. I think it
is important to take a look. There are different events that
occurred, court decisions, different actions taken, so you can
see cause and effect.
I think it is important to recognize that I know people
disagreed with the Return-to-Mexico policy, some of the
agreements we had with Mexico and Central America, but you have
to admit, it did solve the problem in terms of reducing the
flow of children and family units coming in, exploiting our
broken asylum system. That was well before the COVID crisis. I
think it is important to put that in context.
Over the last 28-day period, the average apprehensions per
day totaled over 5,900. Almost 6,000 people per day were
apprehended on the Southwest Border. That is a large caravan a
day. It is overwhelming our system. It is leading to untold
inhumanity and depredations by the human traffickers.
I am glad to hear that we are talking about root cases. I
talked about that oftentimes during the 30-plus hearings we had
on our immigration border crisis when I was Chairman. To me, I
think we are missing the basic root cause of what is causing
the push factor out of Central America, and I would argue that
is our insatiable demand for drugs. I think I was struck when I
first went to Central America, with Senator Carper and others.
The presidents there were talking about the difficulty of
corruption and impunity. The impunity kind of threw me for a
loop until you realize when you have the drug cartels, who are
untouchable, and they are the most evil people on the planet,
now that we have eliminated the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS), you can understand why they can operate with impunity,
but then that transfers over to the entire culture.
I would argue we are not going to be able to fix Central
America until we reduce or stop our insatiable demand for
drugs. That is a long-term project.
I think we need to refocus on reducing the flow of children
and families, incentivized to put themselves in the hands of
the next most evil people on the planet, which is the human
traffickers.
First of all, Mr. Jones, I want to talk to you. I believe
that the border is 100 percent controlled on the Mexico side of
the border. Is that your evaluation as well? In other words,
nobody comes into America without having to pay or become
indebted to the human traffickers. Is that your understanding
as well, Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Thank you for the question, Senator. The drug
trafficking organizations, or the cartels, or sometimes we call
them transnational criminal organizations, the very large
organizations do control, on the Mexico side, each of the port
cities, and they fight with each other all the time to maintain
that control.
Senator Johnson. To the extent that we make it easier, or
we create pull factors, which I think, personally, is the
greatest attraction right now, and certainly what has sparked
this crisis, when we have elected officials saying they are not
going to deport people or there will be no consequences, or we
will offer people free health care. That is an enormous pull
factor.
If we make it easier, aren't we just increasing the
incentive, and won't more children, more family members give
their children over to these human traffickers, and be raped,
and be kidnapped, and be beaten, and the videotapes be used as
ransom? I mean, those people [inaudible], won't that increase
if we actually make it easier for people to come into this
country and exploit our asylum laws?
Mr. Jones. I think as policy encourages immigration by
loosening the requirements for getting into the United States,
or having a policy where, in the case of undocumented alien
children, they get in 100 percent of the time, I think those
types of pull factors do, indeed, create an increase in demand
on the cartel side, and like with any business, that gives the
cartels opportunity for exploitation, and for making money
themselves off of the immigration crisis. I think you are
absolutely correct.
Senator Johnson. I am all for a legal immigration system.
That is what made this country great, is everyone is coming to
this country but is has to be done in a legal fashion if it is
going to be done, even a humane fashion.
My concern, again, is by making this easier, isn't it true,
to cross over you either have to pay the cartels or indebted
yourself to them--how do they pay off that debt? What have you
seen? For example, in our hearings we heard about a child being
sold for $84.
We have heard of children being reused. We certainly have a
picture of that father with his 2-year-old daughter face down,
drowned in the Rio Grande. When we were down on the border we
saw a dead body floating. The following day, I think a 9-year-
old girl was drowned.
We need to convert this into a legal process, but isn't it
true that around 90 percent of the people who coming in here
claiming asylum, claiming credible fear, they do not have a
valid asylum plan? Is that roughly true?
Mr. Jones. My understanding is that is roughly accurate,
that approximately 90 percent of asylum claims coming from that
part of the world are eventually denied.
Senator Johnson. Now I was also shocked to learn, when we
went down on the border, that the Biden administration is
giving Customs and Border Protection the goal of processing
migrants in about 8 hours, and then I was even more shocked to
realize they are releasing them, first without a COVID test,
but also without even a notice to appear. There is no
immigration process set up whatsoever for these individuals.
By the way, I have to also say, I flew home from McAllen. I
had three migrants sitting next to me with their envelopes,
saying, ``Please help me. I don't speak English. Help me find
my next flight.'' The most polite people. Each one had about a
2- or 3-year-old little girl, the most well-behaved people.
These are people that I think would be wonderful legal
immigrants, but I am so afraid that they are going to be
completely exploited by the human traffickers, and I do not
think we emphasize the depredations of the human traffickers
enough, but what our policies are incentivizing.
Would you comment on that, Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. I absolutely agree with that. I have not heard
about no notices to appear, or people being released without a
notice to appear that may be happening. But as Senator Lankford
said, when they are being given notices to appear these days,
those notices are for 2 and 3 years down the road, which is
essentially the same thing you are talking about. I completely
agree, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, for working with
me over the last couple of years to try to address this
problem. I look forward to working with you to do the same.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to that
as well.
I now recognize Senator Padilla.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
the witnesses that are participating today.
Based on conservations I have had with NGO's serving
immigrant communities at the border in California, there are a
number of areas where it seems that the Federal Government can
support organizations strategically, including funding for
food, shelter, transportation, medical costs, and other
important services. Many of us were proud to write a letter for
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) earlier this year, which
included $110 million for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA's) Emergency Food and Shelter Program, to support
local service organizations in providing continued humanitarian
relief to individuals and families.
However, we know that it is not enough, and we are already
hearing from organizations they need additional long-term
funding, so they can better plan on how to use the funds
effectively.
As we move forward with the fiscal year 2022 appropriations
process--this is a question for Ms. Strano and Mr. Garcia--what
long-term investments would be helpful to support your work?
Ms. Strano. If I can respond first--thank you so much,
Rubin--thank you for your question, Senator. I agree completely
with you that allocation under the ARPA, the $110 million
allocated under ARPA, is very helpful for these community-based
resources. I agree with the direction you are going, though,
that this needs to be sustainable, long-term funding. There is
a tendency to respond to asylum as though it is an emergency or
a crisis, when it is making big headlines and we are seeing
higher numbers of encounters, but there is no funding that is
in place for these types of programs outside of those very
visible increases.
We do see and ebb and flow to asylum, because there is an
ebb and flow of international crises that drive asylum. We also
see that those services are needed in border States year-round.
Prior to 2020, when we had particularly restrictive
policies in place, we were seeing 250 people a month at the
Welcome Center in Phoenix, and that is not considered a high
arrival number. That is the normal flow through a border State.
I think that funding needs to become more long-term and
sustainable, and recognition that these are resources our
communities benefit from year-round, but also that these folks
need to access year-round. I do want to identify that we see
increases and decreases in arrivals, but we also have to
compare those numbers alongside expulsions, alongside
apprehensions. There are very different ways to see those
numbers. The reality is that every day it is a safe assumption
that folks are arriving at our border seeking asylum, and that
those services are needed.
Senator Padilla. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. I would echo what Ms. Strano just finished
saying. I would add to it that part of what complicates all of
this is the inconsistency that results from the politicization
of border policy. As administrations change, the language
changes, the policy, the mentality changes, and the will to
handle individual that are arriving, that are seeking asylum
changes. It is very difficult then to have any kind of a
consistent policy going forward, because there is no consistent
policy on the part of the Federal Government. You can go from
one administration to another and see very radical changes into
how things are being done.
I would say that number one is there needs to be the
establishment, the evolution of a consistent border policy in
regard to asylum. We need to recognize that asylum cannot be a
moment-by-moment decision and policy. It has to be a commitment
to a very long and established right that is recognized
international and nationally, to assist individuals that have a
fear of returning to their home country. And that needs to be
consistent.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. I want to make sure I ask the
next question on an important topic, but let me preface it by
recognizing that the Trump administration put a number of harsh
deterrence measures in place to try to discourage people from
coming to our Southern Border. For example, its Zero Tolerance
Policy was designed to separate children from their parents
when crossing the border, and the Remain-in-Mexico program
forced asylum seekers to return to Mexico to wait for their
asylum hearings in a U.S. immigration court. These migrants
often waited in overcrowded and unsanitary camps, and in
extremely dangerous settings.
A question for Ms. Strano. What are some of the best
practices amongst NGO's on how to work with these migrant
populations and address the complex mental trauma, as well as
the physical trauma they have experienced in making the journey
to the United States?
Ms. Strano. Absolutely. I appreciate your question,
Senator. Within the NGO's, and especially the border shelters
which tend to be the first place that folks land post that
initial processing by Immigration, we do implement a variety of
measures that are informed by research-driven, trauma-informed
care. That is something that is the ability to be codified into
a Federal system that is implemented across the entire border
region, recognizing that folks have experienced both acute and
chronic trauma that led to them fleeing their countries. Many
of them have recently experienced the loss of a child, the loss
of a family member. We see a lot of family units where the
parents are deceased and another family member has had to adopt
the children.
There are a lot of complicated family arrangements that are
arriving at the border, and one of the things that does
contribute to that is the current policy of only recognizing a
biological parent and a biological child as a family unit.
Unfortunately, the nature of asylum is that family units are
not always intact. When we look at unaccompanied minors, some
of these are children being put in facilities because they
arrived with a guardian instead of a biological parent. There
is some opportunity to explore what aspects of the trauma
actually are inadvertently being created by policy.
Additionally, I would add that the restrictive policies you
referred to do not create a safe or more orderly process at the
border. They actually create a lot more work for CBP,
especially Border Patrol. I spoke to the CBP unit yesterday,
Border Patrol from Tucson Sector. They say that although their
encounters are at a 20-year high, they are expelling 90 to 95
percent of those folks back to the other side of the border,
and they not unique encounters. Folks are attempting to cross
over and over again, because of restrictive policies.
If we actually want to holistically address the problem and
not put people back into situations where they are vulnerable
to exploitation and smugglers and kidnapping on the Mexico side
of the border, we have to look at how do we process people
through our ports, following the policies that we already have
that exist for that purpose, and ensure that we are not sending
them to cross outside the port of entry and create greater work
for everybody and more danger.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Senator
Lankford?
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thanks again to our witnesses
that are here today. This is a very serious issue that several
of you have talked about--172,000 encounters last month,
172,000 and climbing. This month, 19,000 unaccompanied
children, in March. We will be at that number again in April.
Those two numbers are record highs for the last 20 years. We
are seeing something very unique at this point.
We are well over 1 million people in the asylum backlog,
and as I mentioned before, we are 3 years before people will
actually get to a court hearing. As of the end of February, the
next date that was available was May 22, 2024, to be able to
get an asylum hearing, which is very difficult for those who
have a legitimate asylum claim, because we have so many people
that are coming through that will not have a legitimate asylum
claim.
In addition to that, we are still dealing with some of the
challenges on the border fencing itself. I have talked to
Border Patrol in Arizona, as I was down in the Tucson Sector
not long ago and got a chance to be able to see some of the
fencing that is not complete there. On January 20th they
stopped construction, leaving large gaps in the system, and
when we have gaps in the wall, obviously it directs people to
illegally cross in those gaps. Those gaps still remain, still
today, because construction on the wall just stopped on January
20th.
When I have talked to Border Patrol, CBP, over and over
again, they said they would much rather deal with people coming
to the ports of entry than going through the desert, where it
makes it even more difficult, or trying to be able to cross in
other areas that are more remote. Allowing the fencing to be up
directs individuals to other places, on the whole, and makes it
much easier for them to be able to actually engage with those
individuals in a more humanitarian way and process.
All these things matter, as it all works together in a
consistent system on this.
Ms. Strano, let me ask you a quick question on this. The
funding that you receive, is it all donations, is it all
volunteers, or do you have a Federal contract?
Ms. Strano. We do not have a Federal contract. As of now
there is no Federal funding for asylum seeker services, which
is something that I think should be examined to create this
kind of consistent process that everybody is seeking a safe and
orderly process. All of our funding comes from private sources
at this point.
Senator Lankford. At this point, for you and your
organization, are you gearing up more staff? Are you gearing up
more facilities? How are you managing? What do you see on the
future at this point in how your organization is trying to
prepare for the future?
Ms. Strano. Absolutely. Thanks for that question, Senator.
We actually began in November speaking directly with the local
ICE offices and CBP offices around what they were anticipating
for increases. We began to expand capacity as a community. We
work closely with collaborative community partners. We were
able to expand our capacity at the Welcome Center, build a plan
for folks to quarantine within the Maricopa County system, and
we are continuing to scale up in case there are increasing
arrivals, further than what we have already been seeing. But we
have seen the biggest numbers we have seen since we opened.
We are fortunate, though, in adding more staff and having
existing systems that are working to be able to process more
people as more folks come through, and to make sure that folks
are getting informed information about their COVID status, what
their choices are. One hundred percent of the folks that we
have encountered and tested and were found to be positive, we
moved to quarantine hotels voluntarily.
Senator Lankford. The individuals who are coming to you in
Phoenix, are these folks that are being delivered to you by
Border Patrol, or how are they coming to you?
Ms. Strano. We receive folks directly from the Yuma Port of
Entry, which is currently the busiest port of entry in Arizona.
They are being delivered primarily by ICE. CBP does their
processing. ICE transports folks up to the Phoenix area. They
process them into a program called Alternatives to Detention,
which means that they do have a check-in within 10 or 15 days
with Immigration, and will have many throughout the course of
their legal process, prior to their court date.
These folks are all arriving with a legal process and
paperwork. Sometimes they did not quite understand it so we go
through it again with them, to make sure they can successfully
participate in that process.
Senator Lankford. But they are departing from you within 72
hours at that point?
Ms. Strano. Generally, unless they are in quarantine, of
course, with is a 10-day process.
Senator Lankford. Then the next time that they will check
in, basically, most of these would be family units of some
type. Most of the time they will check in next with ICE in
their hearing for their notice to appear, 2 to 3 years in the
future.
Ms. Strano. No. The next time they will check in with ICE
is usually about 15 days after we have received them. The
Alternative to Detention program is currently set up very
similar to parole-type programs, where they have regular check-
ins, they provide updates, Immigration checks in on where they
are living, things like that. They do usually have at least one
adult in the household has an ankle monitor at this time, or
they have a SmartLINK GPS phone that tracks their movements.
They actually are staying in very close contact with
Immigration throughout that process.
Senator Lankford. Most of the individuals then coming to
you have an ankle monitor or some kind of link at that point,
when they come to you?
Ms. Strano. That is accurate.
Senator Lankford. OK. Let me ask Mr. Jones about how do we
disrupt the flow of drugs coming across the border? As Senator
Johnson mentioned before, one of the big pull factors for
coming into the country, and one of the major issues for
Central America is the flow of drugs into our country.
Many of the individuals that I have encountered--I have
been on the Arizona border recently, I was on the Texas border
twice in the past month, to get a chance to get an inspection
of what is actually happening onsite--the most common things
that I hear are obviously fear of what is happening in Central
America for them. Economic opportunity is a big issue. Almost
everyone is coming because they have a relative that has a job
for them.
The biggest issue for all of them is that they have a mom,
a dad, a brother, a sister, an uncle, an aunt, someone that is
already living here in the country, and most of those not
legally present as well, and they are coming to re-engage with
their family that has been here in the United States for a
while, and they are reconnecting their family units here.
Much of this, though, has to deal with the some of the push
out of Central America dealing with what is happening with
drugs there and some of the gangs. What can we do in the United
States, from what you have seen, to be able to deal with some
of those issues on how we can deal with the drug problem?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator. In terms of drugs moving
across the border as opposed to people moving across the
border, when we get west of the Rio Grande Valley, in other
words, into New Mexico, Arizona, and the California border,
most drugs are crossed either through tunnels or directly
through the port, particularly the Port of San Ysidro is the
largest land port in the western hemisphere, and there is a
significant quantity of drugs entering the United States just
coming straight through the lanes in that port.
Sinaloa cartel pioneered the use of tunnels to move drugs
into the United States. A good tunnel can go a long way for
them in terms of freely moving drugs across the border.
In the Rio Grande Valley, which is the entire Texas border,
most drugs and people come straight across the river. It is
extraordinarily difficult to police, from a CBP standpoint.
I think in terms of what we can do, from a law enforcement
standpoint to help, is focus on technology, technology to
detect tunnels, technology to figure a way to account for the
fact that it is very difficult to build a wall in a river
valley here in Texas. Separate from that, to account for the
fact that sometimes in these ports where drugs are being moved
across, it is because a CBP guy, or CBP personnel being bought
off by drug cartels. There are some corruption issues on our
end there at the ports, as well.
Senator Lankford. Senator Sinema, may I ask one more
question?
Senator Sinema. Of course.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Jones, let me ask you, as well--thank
you, by the way, Senator Sinema. The Trump administration put
in place a policy of working with the Mexican government, that
they add additional National Guard to their Southern Border
with Guatemala, and then with the Guatemalan government to also
enforce their border with Honduras, and to be able to turn more
people around.
The Biden administration, according to public reports, have
also engaged now, in the last month, with that same policy,
working with the Mexican government to be able to enforce their
Southern Border, working with the government of Guatemala to be
able to turn people around. I have had some conversations with
leadership in the Guatemalan government. They have repeated
that same statement to me, that they have worked with the Biden
administration to start turning people around in Guatemala, so
that they are not coming through Guatemala.
Tell me about that policy. Is that an effective policy? Is
that a tool in the toolbox that should be used?
Mr. Jones. I think the experience of the Trump
administration's efforts in those area show that it does work.
There was, of course, the immigration spike around 2018-2019,
and a lot of those policies went into effect after that, and we
saw the numbers come down. If Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and
El Salvador are enforcing their own borders, I think that is
going to go a long way in terms of minimizing the numbers of
migrants coming up to the United States. I suspect it is going
to work in this case as well. The Biden administration has
initiated that with Mexico.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sinema.
Senator Sinema. Absolutely. Thank you so much.
Senator Lankford, I am going to ask a few more questions.
If you have time and would like to stay, we probably have time
for you to ask more questions if you would like, as well.
My next question is for the entire panel. Several people
have brought up transportation challenges and the need to
improve there. I am glad that Senator Cornyn and I included
language on this very topic in our bill. But what I would like
to ask you are what are the key things regarding improving
DHS's capability to transport migrants that Congress needs to
keep in mind when we are developing initiatives on this topic?
Ms. Strano. I can kick that off, Senator Sinema, if you
like.
One of the things that we have encountered with CBP, in
particular, is the Anti-Deficiency Act often coming into
conflict with their ability to transport folks far enough to
reach services. That is the reason that oftentimes they have
only been able to transport people to a small town instead of
reaching into one of the bigger cities where there are
resources.
I think that if we look at funding for CBP for
transportation that it should be included within the scope of
their work to transport people to a city with outward migration
and services, which is already within the ICE scope of work and
is the model that they follow. If that was paralleled in CBP, I
think that would also help them effectively plan around funding
and transportation in a way that is more consistent with the
goals that everybody has, to make sure that folks are reaching
services, and an opportunity for outward migration and not
overtaxing rural communities.
Mr. Garcia. Senator, if I might add on the transportation
issue, in 2018-2019, ICE had the responsibility of using their
bus fleet to transport individuals as they were being released
to all the different shelters. ICE has a policy that allows
them to transport people that are as far away as 8 hours. We
were able to ask ICE to transport refugees to churches in
Albuquerque, Las Cruces, obviously, which is only like a 45-
minute drive. Beyond that, they cannot transport individual
beyond that 8 hours, and so churches in Denver and churches in
Dallas, Texas, that were willing to receive, we then had to
charter our own busses to get them to Denver and to Dallas.
When the flow became so great that not even ICE could
handle that, Border Patrol then started releasing individuals
in smaller cities, for example, Deming, New Mexico, and Las
Cruces, New Mexico. They stopped transporting them to El Paso
to be processed by ICE and then ICE transporting them to us.
When we asked Border Patrol about releasing people to
smaller cities that have no transportation hubs, like in
Deming, New Mexico, and instead bringing them to us, we found
out that Border Patrol did not have a fleet of buses. Now they
do. They still do not have an adequate number of licensed
commercial drivers, so they are really not able to use their
busses.
My point in this is that in terms of transportation, you
are going to find a lot of churches, a lot of NGO's that are
willing to do the work of hospitality, that are willing to
recruit the volunteers. That is not going to be the issue. The
issue is getting them to those sites, and for that you are
going to need robust transportation, both in the hands of ICE
and in the hands of the Border Patrol.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. I appreciate that. We have had a
similar issue in Arizona, where migrants have been released in
very small communities, sometimes even in communities that do
not have a bus stop or any way for folks to get their own
transportation. I appreciate that.
Let me ask one final question and then I want to make sure
there is time for Senator Lankford to ask a few questions
before we head to the votes. Starting with Ms. Strano and then
turning to Mr. Garcia, what aspect of this current influx of
migrants surprised you and your organizations and required some
unanticipated changes in order to successfully respond?
It is important for Congress and the administration to
better understand what parts were unanticipated, what parts
were anticipated, and then better prepare for these unexpected
challenges in the future.
Ms. Strano. I think the biggest surprise that we have
encountered--and thank you for your question, sorry, Chairwoman
Sinema--the biggest surprise that we have encountered this year
has been the funding and allocation of resources to the private
hotel contracts. We have been very grateful for the
participation in weekly discussions with the White House team
on the Border Welcoming Task Force, to discuss what models
would work best, what systemic obstacles exist to the united
goals that we have around safe, orderly process for everybody.
But it does not feel like that contract was drafted with the
community-based resources in mind as being the primary source
of those kind of resources.
These shelters that have been established for years,
especially a nod to my colleague, Mr. Garcia, Annunciation
House has been a cornerstone of the community for so many years
because of their ability to serve, and because of the wealth of
services they provide. These resources are very important to be
ongoing, sustainable, and available to our communities year-
round with the ebbs and flows of asylum.
The type of emergency allocation to a private contract that
does not last or sustain beyond a 6-month time period is again
addressing asylum from an emergency perspective and not
necessarily from a long view of how we can better improve our
services in collaboration.
We would strongly suggest that the community-based
resources be looked at as the first resources to reinforce and
build, and not these one-off and fairly expensive allocations
of emergency funding to private contracts that will dry up in 6
months and leave nothing behind.
Senator Sinema. Mr. Garcia, if you have a response I would
like to hear it, as well.
Mr. Garcia. I would say that for myself here in El Paso and
Annunciation House, the flow that we have been seeing since
January 2021, of individuals that have been released to us, has
actually been on the low side. It has been a number that has
been very manageable for us, and that includes the reception of
the individuals that are coming to us from MPP.
What is very surprising has been how Title 42 is being
managed, especially the decision to fly a plane from south
Texas to El Paso, and then to expel everybody on that plane,
and discovering that the vast majority of these families had no
idea where they were being flown to and were absolutely in
shock when they were then expelled to Jua rez, Mexico. Some of
them did not even realize they were in Mexico until they had
already been expelled, and that, to me, was beyond
understanding, that we would fly that plane and then expel.
Mexico then went on to say only 100, which I do not understand
why that number. Why was it 100 and not 50 or not 70 or 0 that
could not be expelled?
The Title 42 is a tremendous concern to me, as I look
forward to the number of individuals that are going to continue
to cross over. I am caught by the fact that many of the
families that are crossing, that get encountered and then get
expelled, continue to attempt to cross over, over and over and
over again. I do not believe that is going to stop. It is going
to continue until we have some kind of a response.
Senator Sinema. Thank you so much, Mr. Garcia. Senator
Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. I would say, in meeting with
Border Patrol and CBP, they are very concerned that Title 42
authority will go away, and if that goes away, what will happen
in the acceleration of additional individuals coming across the
border? When I have spoken to Border Patrol and CBP, they
brought that up over and over and over again, saying we have
this incredible rush at the border right now, and if Title 42
authority goes away, that rush is going to accelerate to a
whole different level, and it will move from unmanageable to
really unmanageable at that point.
It will be interesting to be able to see the decision that
President Biden and his team make on how they are going to
enforce the border, and what that actually looks like for them.
Ms. Strano, I did want to ask you about the asylum process
and what is going on and the challenge of this. You are trying
to explain the asylum process to individuals that are obviously
not familiar with our laws. They have been told by the cartels
that are actually moving them through Mexico, with the
smugglers, ``Here is what to say when you get there.'' It is
interesting, when I visited with children at the border and
talked to families at the border and asked them, ``Why did you
come right now?'' I get the exact same answer from each person.
``It's dangerous in my country,'' and it is always that
sentence and then they stop.
It has been very interesting to be able to visit with
people. It is clear they have been coached to know exactly what
to be able to say at that point. But when they get to you it is
different. You are trying to help them know kind of what the
next is, what actually happens at this point.
The backlog of over 1 million people, the very long delay
for an asylum hearing, what effect does that have, and how do
you explain that to people that you interact with?
Ms. Strano. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Senator. You are correct. Our point that we are encountering
people, we are not talking to them about the veracity of their
case or the basis of their case. We are talking to them about
the next steps, to make sure they are informed, that they can
participate in the process.
I will say that a very important aspect of an asylum case
is the presentation of country conditions reports. Those
reports are used to present what are the risks of violence and
persecution that this person is facing back in their country.
There are some fairly substantial information about the risks
they are facing. For instance, femicides in Honduras. Very
important information that when people say they are feeling
danger, there is a lot to back that up. Winning their
individual cases is, of course, a different matter entirely,
and a lot of it has to do with their access to legal resources
in determining their outcomes.
What we are offering and encountering at this point is that
folks have had their information explained to them in a cursory
way or not in their native language. We are making sure they
understand about their check-ins, that they understand that
their court date is coming. I absolutely agree with you that
that prolonged period between the time that they cross and they
time of their court date is against all of our shared goals. I
think it is more humane to get them to that court process much
sooner, because it is a very bad situation to be put in, to be
in the country, seeking legal protection, but to not have a
determination of whether you have legal protection or not yet.
I would definitely advocate for adding more immigration
judges, increasing the docket size, and making sure also that
there is more access to the types of legal resources that help
the asylum seekers understand that process and successfully
participate in it. We are in agreement about the length of time
being too far, and a lot of that does have to do with dockets
that backed up because of the delays caused by some of these
processes, such as MPP, such as Title 42. There is a docket
backup as a result. But I do think it would be addressed with
more judges.
Senator Lankford. The docket is actually very old and
continues to be able to grow, and obviously with so many people
that we have encountered in the last couple of months, it has
accelerated dramatically, to be able to get that number down.
You had mentioned, I think, a number earlier, of how many
countries that you have encountered this year. How many
countries have you encountered at your facility there in
Phoenix?
Ms. Strano. We have encountered folks from 43 different
countries this year, although we are primarily seeing folks
that are not eligible for Title 42 expulsion, and so those are
people from further away distances. Our primary countries are
Cuba, Brazil, Haiti, Romania, China, India. Most of the folks
from Mexico and Central America are still currently being
subjected to expulsion under Title 42.
Senator Lankford. Good. All right. That is very helpful.
Senator Sinema, thanks. Thanks for allowing me to be able to
drop a couple other questions in. I know that we have a vote
that is ongoing at this point, so I will reserve my other
questions for the record.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator Lankford. With that we
have reached the end of today's hearing. We do have a vote
going on in the Senate, so we will head over there. I want to
thank the witnesses for their time and their testimony, and
thank all of my colleagues for their participation.
Before we leave, I do want to announce that our next
hearing will be the first of a two-part hearing on our nation's
land ports of entry, how to improve security and better
facilitate trade and travel.
Today's hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks, until
May 13, 2021. Any Senators that would like to submit questions
for the record for the hearing witnesses should do by May 13th.
Thanks again. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]