U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–929 PDF 2015

UNACCOMPANIED MINORS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 24 and JULY 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–74 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

VACANCY

VACANCY

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

JOAN O’HARA, Acting Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2014 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Accompanied by W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Ronald D. 

Vitiello, Deputy Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Article, ‘‘Why 90,000 Children Flooding Our Border Is Not an Immigration 

Story’’ ................................................................................................................. 21 

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association ........................ 33 

Statement of the Women’s Refugee Commission ............................................... 37 

Article, ‘‘Young migrants stuck in limbo on Mexican border’’ .......................... 42 

The Honorable Beto O’Rourke, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas: 

Statement of First Focus Campaign for Children ............................................. 45 

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of South Carolina: 

Article, ‘‘Internal Memo: ‘DREAM Act’ Deluge ‘Compromising’ Border Security’’ .................................................................................................................... 59 

The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Pennsylvania: 

Advertisement ...................................................................................................... 66 

THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2014 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 78 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 82 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 83 
Page

IV 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85 

The Honorable Beto O’Rourke, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 87 

The Honorable Rube ́n Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 88 

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 90 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 92 

PANEL II 

Mr. Kevin W. Oaks, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, U.S. 

Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 126 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 127 

Mr. Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 131 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 133 

Mr. Jose Eduardo ‘‘Eddie’’ Guerra, Interim Sheriff, Sheriff’s Office, Hidalgo 

County, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 135 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 137 

Mr. Ramon Garcia, Hidalgo County Judge, Hidalgo County, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 138 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 140 

Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz, Bishop, Catholic Diocese of El Paso, Texas, 

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 144 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 146 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Statement of the Texas Border Coalition ........................................................... 79 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas .............................. 161 

Letter from the President—Efforts to Address the Humanitarian Situation 

in the Rio Grande Valley Areas of Our Nation’s Southwest Border ............ 164 

APPENDIX 

Statement of the National Immigrant Justice Center .......................................... 175 
(1) 

DANGEROUS PASSAGE: THE GROWING PROBLEM OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN 

CROSSING THE BORDER 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul [Chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Broun, Miller, 

Meehan, Duncan, Chaffetz, Palazzo, Barletta, Daines, Brooks, 

Perry, Sanford, Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Clarke, Higgins, 

Richmond, Barber, Payne, O’Rourke, Vela, and Swalwell. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to examine the current crisis at 

the border regarding unaccompanied children. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today on the Southwest Border we are facing an escalating refugee crisis. Parents are handing over their young children by the 

thousands to cartels who are profiting by smuggling these kids to 

the United States. Many are under the age of 10, including some 

barely old enough to walk. 

These children with no parents, relatives, or legal guardians risk 

a perilous and sometimes fatal journey, riding buses or trains from 

Central America via Mexico. 

As a father of five, it is unimaginable to me what would compel 

a parent to risk the lives of their children on such a dangerous passage. Not to mention the risk of sexual assault, exploitations, and 

the potential to be trafficked. 

When they arrive at the border, the children are simply turning 

themselves in to the nearest Border Patrol Agents. However, patrol 

stations are not set up to handle this massive and growing number 

of detainees, let alone children. Shelters have been established like 

the one at Lackland Air Force base in San Antonio. We have all 

seen the photos of hundreds of children piled on top of each other, 

and the flow shows no signs of abating. 

Every Member of this committee including myself is gravely concerned about the safety of children, no matter where they come 

from. Since October, 52,000—52,000—unaccompanied minors have 

crossed into the United States from Mexico. Nearly two-thirds of 

those cross through the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. 
2 

CBP estimates that next year more than 150,000 unaccompanied 

children may attempt to cross our borders. This is a crisis. It is a 

crisis that has been in the making for years. One that we should 

have seen coming. But few concrete actions have been taken. 

The Department of Homeland Security and the United States 

Government as a whole has been slow to act, turning a blind eye 

to the warning signs. The tragic fact is these children are making 

a dangerous journey based on misinformation and the false promise 

of amnesty. 

The first step is for the administration to acknowledge the cause 

of this problem. No one questions the fact that there are horrible 

economic conditions and violence in Central America. But these 

conditions are not new. What is new is a series of Executive actions 

by the administration to grant immigration benefits to children 

outside the purview of the law. The relaxed enforcement posture 

along with talk of comprehensive immigration reform. 

It is beyond dispute that such a narrative shapes behavior and 

encourages people to come to our country illegally. In fact, newspapers in El Salvador and Honduras seem to be encouraging youth 

to head to the United States based on these policies. 

In recent internal DHS surveys, these children reveal that more 

than 70 percent believe they are going to stay in the country. 

This administration should send an unambiguous message that 

those arriving will be promptly sent home. I, for one, do not want 

to see another child harmed because we have not clearly articulated the realities on the ground consistent with current law. 

Yesterday I was glad to see Secretary Johnson’s letter, an open 

letter to the parents of children crossing our Southwest Border, notifying them that there are no free passes into the United States. 

This is a good start. But a lot more needs to be done. 

In addition to a robust and effective public service campaign, we 

should also engage with the government of Mexico to step up their 

efforts to secure their southern border. I call on the president of 

Mexico and his interior minister to do just that. 

I am very concerned that this recent surge is weakening our border security efforts here at home. Border Patrol Agents and ICE 

Officers who are looking after these children are being taken away 

from their main duty, their mission of tracking down drug and 

weapon smugglers, as well as criminal aliens. Operation control of 

the Rio Grande Valley, the busiest sector in the Nation, may be 

suffering. Cartels will no doubt exploit this situation. 

Recently the State of Texas announced that it would surge border security operations along the border to fill a void left by the 

Federal Government. Securing the border is a responsibility of the 

Federal Government. States should not need to protect what is in 

the Federal Government’s role under our Constitution. 

The President needs to immediately send the National Guard to 

the Southwest Border to deal with this crisis. 

We need to find solutions to this crisis and soon. 

While Secretary Johnson has largely inherited the current situation, I look forward to hearing now how he is planning to respond 

to this emergency. 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

JUNE 24, 2014 

Today on the Southwest Border we are facing an escalating refugee crisis. Parents 

are handing over their young children by the thousands to cartels who are profiting 

by smuggling these kids to the United States. Many are under the age of 10—including some barely old enough to walk. 

These children, with no parent, relative, or legal guardian, risk a perilous and 

sometimes fatal journey riding buses or trains from Central America via Mexico. As 

a father of five, it’s unimaginable what would compel a parent to risk the lives of 

their children on such a dangerous passage, not to mention the risk of sexual assault, exploitation, and the potential to be trafficked. 

When they arrive at the border, the children are simply turning themselves into 

the nearest Border Patrol Agent. However patrol stations are not set up to handle 

this massive and growing number of detainees—let alone children. Shelters have 

been established, like the one at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. We’ve 

all seen the photos of hundreds of children piled on top of each other, and the flow 

shows no signs of abating. Every Member of this committee, including myself, is 

gravely concerned about the safety of children no matter where they come from. 

Since October, 52,000 unaccompanied minors have crossed into the United States 

from Mexico—nearly two-thirds of those crossed through the Rio Grande Valley in 

Texas. CBP estimates that next year more than 150,000 unaccompanied children 

may attempt to cross our borders. 

This is a crisis that has been in the making for years—one that we should have 

seen coming—but few concrete actions have been taken. The Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Government as a whole, has been slow to act, turning 

a blind eye to the warning signs. 

The tragic fact is these children are making a dangerous journey based on misinformation and the false promise of amnesty. 

The first step is for the administration to acknowledge the cause of this problem. 

No one questions the fact that there are horrible economic conditions and violence 

in Central America. But these conditions are not new. 

What is new is a series of Executive Actions by the administration to grant immigration benefits to children outside the purview of the law—a relaxed enforcement 

posture—along with talk of comprehensive immigration reform. 

It is beyond dispute that such a narrative shapes behavior and encourages people 

to come to our country illegally. In fact, newspapers in El Salvador and Honduras 

seem to be encouraging youth to head to the United States based on these policies. 

And recent internal DHS surveys of these children reveal that more than 70% believe they are going to stay in the country. 

This administration should send an unambiguous message that those arriving will 

be promptly sent home. I, for one, do not want to see another child harmed because 

we have not clearly articulated the realities on the ground, consistent with current 

law. 

Yesterday, I was glad to see Sec. Johnson’s open letter to the parents of children 

crossing our Southwest Border notifying them that there are no free passes into the 

United States. This is a good start but more must be done. 

In addition to a robust and effective public service campaign we should also engage with the government of Mexico to step up their efforts to secure their Southern 

Border. I call on the president of Mexico, and his interior minister to do just that. 

I am very concerned that this recent surge is weakening our border security efforts here at home. Border Patrol Agents and ICE Officers who are looking after 

these children are being taken away from their main duty of tracking down drug 

and weapons smugglers, as well as criminal aliens. Operational control of the Rio 

Grande Valley, the busiest sector in the Nation may be suffering, and cartels will 

no doubt exploit the situation. 

Recently, the State of Texas announced that it would surge border security operations along the border to fill a void left by the Federal Government. Securing the 

border is a responsibility of the Federal Government. States should not need to protect what is in the Federal Government’s role under our Constitution. The President 

needs to immediately send the National Guard to the Southwest Border to deal with 

this crisis. 

We need to find solutions to this crisis, and soon. While Secretary Johnson has 

largely inherited the current situation, I look forward to hearing how he is responding to this emergency. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for agreeing to appear 

on such short notice. 
4 
5 

Chairman MCCAUL. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for 

being here today on such short notice. The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

also for holding today’s hearing. 

I want to thank the witnesses also for their testimony. 

On a daily basis, waves of children ranging from toddlers to teenagers are fleeing violence, oppression, and economic desperation 

from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, many of them sent 

by their families. They are simply looking for a safe haven. 

As an intense and significant humanitarian crisis develops, we 

are finding its origins to be as complex as its implications. It is irresponsible to attribute this crisis to one U.S. policy or for that 

matter, one U.S. President. 

Despite the demagoguing by many, this crisis is not just an immigration matter nor is it just a foreign policy matter. This crisis 

is not exclusive to the United States; much of the Western Hemisphere is reeling with this crisis. According to the United Nations, 

these children are streaming into Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, and 

Belize as well as Canada and the United States. 

From our perspective, we seem to be barraged on a daily basis 

by troubling images of vulnerable children, many still clutching 

their dolls and teddy bears, crossing the border into the United 

States and being immediately apprehended by Border Patrol Officers. This fiscal year alone, Border Patrol Officers have apprehended and detained over 50,000 unaccompanied children at the 

Southwestern Border. 

The number of kids arriving at our border without their parents 

seems to grow by the day. The influx of these kids has certainly 
6 

strained Border Patrol resources. But the men and women of the 

Border Patrol have risen to the challenge. 

In 2008, then-President George Bush signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The law 

recognizes that special care is demanded when dealing with the 

young and vulnerable. 

Under these laws, the Border Patrol is required to take unaccompanied children who are not from Mexico into custody, screen them 

and transfer them to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refuge Resettlement. 

I would note for the record that during this challenging time, 

even though Border Patrol has had to ramp up activities in the Rio 

Grande Valley, the agency’s effectiveness rate has improved. 

For those out there who are looking for simple answers, to lay 

the blame on President Obama’s policy on deferred action for childhood arrivals or even the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, I would note that neither would apply to 

these kids. Hence the assertion that the recent surge in unaccompanied children is due to lack of immigration enforcement does not 

pass the smell test. 

In a time of crisis such as this, Mr. Chairman, we need to get 

our priorities in line and find both near-term and long-term ways 

to address this situation. On June 2, the President tapped Secretary Johnson to establish a unified coordinating group to ensure 

Federal unity of effort to address this situation. 

In turn, Secretary Johnson appointed FEMA Administrator 

Fugate to be the fellow coordinating official and lead those efforts 

throughout the Executive branch. 

Looking out to the long-term, we need to do more to turn the tide 

on this crisis by, among other things, fostering greater stability 

among our neighbors and dissuading families from taking such action. 

Over the weekend, Secretary Johnson issued a public service announcement in various Central American countries, debunking the 

myths about U.S. immigration policy and informing the parents 

about the danger of traveling from Central America to the United 

States. 

Today, I want to hear from the Department about the response 

and their work with other fellow agencies including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, and State in addressing this crisis. We need to organize all our fellow agencies involved, not just DHS, to effectively address the sudden surge. 

Looking beyond DHS, there are questions to ask about HHS’s resources, for that matter, States’ engagement through regional security initiatives such as the Central American Regional Security Initiative. Do these programs have enough funding and personnel to 

be effective? I recognize that the panel assembled today may not 

be in a position to answer this question, but it is a question I will 

be pursuing. 

Dehumanizing and labeling these kids and their parents will not 

yield a solution. Labeling this as an administration failure will not 

address what is actually going on in El Salvador, Honduras, and 

Guatemala that would cause a parent to hand over their son or 
7 

daughter to a smuggler or send that child through a perilous trek 

through Central American and Mexico to the United States. 

At this time, Mr. Chairman, we can use our platforms to rise to 

the occasion and be helpful or we can engage in political 

grandstanding at the peril of young lives. It is my hope that this 

committee with its strong history of bipartisanship, can choose the 

former and be a model for effective leadership on this matter. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Ranking Member for his constructive comments. Other Members are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

We are pleased here today to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us here today. 

First, the Secretary—Jeh Johnson—of Homeland Security was 

sworn in on December 23, 2013 as the fourth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Prior to joining DHS, he served as general counsel for the Department of Defense where he served as part of the senior management team and led more than 10,000 military and civilian lawyers 

across the Department. 

As general counsel of the Department of Defense, Secretary 

Johnson oversaw the development of the legal aspects of many of 

the Nation’s counterterrorism policies and spearheaded reforms to 

the military commission systems at Guantanamo Bay. 

Sir, as you and I talked privately, you have traveled many times 

down to my home State of Texas and seen this crisis first-hand, 

and we thank you for doing that. 

He is accompanied today, this morning, by Mr. Greg Fugate, the 

administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 

Mr. Ronald Vitiello, the deputy chief of the United States Border 

Patrol. 

Mr. Fugate and Mr. Vitiello will not be offering opening statements; they are here to answer any questions that Members may 

have. 

Secretary has submitted a written statement on behalf of those 

witnesses, which will appear in the record. The Chairman now recognizes the Secretary for 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ACCOMPANIED BY W. 

CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, AND RONALD D. VITIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman. You have my prepared statement. I will deliver an abbreviated version of it. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of this 

committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 

our efforts to address the recent rise of unaccompanied children 

and others crossing our border in the Rio Grande Valley. 

With me today to answer questions are Craig Fugate, the administrator of FEMA, and Deputy Chief Ron Vitiello of the U.S. Border 

Patrol. 
8 

To be clear, we face an urgent situation in the Rio Grande Valley. Last fiscal year, CBP apprehended more than 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. By mid-June of this year, that number has doubled to more than 52,000. Those from Guatemala—Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras make up three-quarters of that migration. 

On Friday, I traveled to South Texas for the fourth time in 6 

months in office, this time, to lead an interagency team to oversee 

our efforts there. While there, we met with officials at McAllen and 

Lackland to review the situation and hear directly from those on 

the ground what their needs are. 

While there, I spent time talking with the children again. It is 

a vivid reminder that this is a humanitarian issue as much as it 

is a matter of border security. We are talking about large numbers 

of children without their parents, who have arrived at our border 

hungry, thirsty, exhausted, scared, and vulnerable. 

How we treat the children in particular is a reflection of our laws 

and our values. Therefore, to address this situation, our strategy 

is three-fold. First, process the increased tide of unaccompanied 

children through the system as quickly as possible; No. 2, stem the 

increased tide of illegal migration into the Rio Grande Valley; and 

No. 3, do these things in a manner consistent with our laws and 

values as Americans. 

So here is what we are doing. 

First, on May 12, I declared a Level 4 condition of readiness 

within DHS, which is a determination that the capacity of CBP and 

ICE to deal with the situation is full, and we need to draw upon 

additional resources across all of DHS. 

I appointed Deputy Chief Vitiello, to my left, to coordinate this 

effort within DHS. 

Second, on June 1, President Obama, consistent with the Homeland Security Act, directed me to establish a unified coordination 

group to bring to bear the assets of the entire Federal Government 

on this situation. This group includes DHS and all of its components, the Department of Health and Human Services, Defense, 

Justice, State, and GSA. 

I, in turn, designated FEMA Administrator Fugate, to my right, 

to serve as the Federal coordinating official for the U.S. Government-wide response. 

Third, we have established added capacity to deal with the processing and housing of the children. We are creating additional capacity in places, and we are considering others. 

Fourth, DHS and HHS are increasing Spanish-speaking case 

management staff, increasing staff handling incoming calls from 

parents or guardians, raising awareness of the parent hotline provided by FEMA and operated by HHS, surging staff to manage the 

intake of CBP referrals to track shelter bed capacity and facilitate 

shelter designations. 

Here I must note from personal observation that our Border Patrol and other CBP personnel, as well as personnel from HHS, ICE, 

FEMA, and the Coast Guard are doing a remarkable job in difficult 

circumstances. All of these dedicated men and women deserve our 

recognition, support, and gratitude. 
9 

Fifth, DHS is building additional detention capability for adults 

who cross the border illegally in the Rio Grande Valley with their 

children. For this purpose, DHS is establishing a temporary facility 

for adults and children on the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center’s campus in Artesia, New Mexico. The establishment of this 

temporary facility will help CBP process those encountered at the 

border and allow ICE to increase its capacity to house and expedite 

the removal of adults with children in a manner that complies with 

Federal law. 

Artesia is one of several facilities that DHS is considering to increase our capacity to hold and expedite the removal of the increasing number of adults with children illegally crossing the Southwest 

Border. 

Sixth, DHS has brought on more transportation assets to assist 

in the effort. The Coast Guard is loaning air assets to help transport the children. ICE is leasing additional charter aircraft. 

Seventh, throughout the RGV sector we are conducting public 

health screening for all those who come into our facilities for any 

symptoms of contagious diseases or other possible public health 

concerns. 

Both DHS and HHS are ensuring that the children’s nutritional 

and hygienic needs are met while in our custody, that children are 

provided regular meals and access to drinks and snacks throughout 

the day, that they receive constant supervision, and that children 

who exhibit signs of illness or disease are given proper medical 

care. 

We have also made clear that all individuals will be treated with 

dignity and respect and any instances of mistreatment reported to 

us will be investigated. 

Eighth, working through FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center, we are coordinating with voluntary and faith-based organizations to help us manage the influx of unaccompanied children crossing the border. The American Red Cross is providing 

blankets and other supplies, and through their Restoring Family 

Links Program is coordinating calls between children in the care 

of DHS and families anxious about their well-being. 

Ninth, to stem the tide of children seeking to enter the United 

States, we have also been in contact with senior government officials of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico to address 

our shared border security interest, the underlying conditions in 

Central America that are promoting the mass exodus, and how we 

can work together to assure a faster, secure removal and repatriation. 

Last week, President Obama spoke with Mexican president Pen ̃ a 

Nieto about the situation, as has Secretary Kerry. This past Friday 

Vice President Biden also visited Guatemala to meet with regional 

leaders to address the influx of unaccompanied children and families from Central America and the underlying security and economic issues that are causing this migration. 

The Vice President announced that the United States will be providing a range of new assistance to the region, including $9.6 million in additional funding for Central American governments to receive and reintegrate their repatriated citizens and a new $40 million U.S. Agency for International Development program in Guate-
10 

mala over 5 years to improve citizen security. An additional $161.5 

million will be provided this year to the Central American Regional 

Security Initiative to further enable Central American countries to 

respond to the nations’ most pressing security and governance challenges. 

I will travel to Guatemala on July 8–9. The government of El 

Salvador has sent additional personnel from its consulate in the 

United States to south Texas to help expedite repatriation to its 

country. 

Tenth, DHS together with DOJ has added personnel and resources to the investigation, prosecution, and dismantling of the 

smuggling organizations that are facilitating border crossings into 

the Rio Grande Valley. 

Eleventh, we are initiating and intensifying our public affairs 

campaigns in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV post to communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long 

journey from Central America to the United States and the dangers of putting children into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. 

As the Chairman noted, I have personally issued an open letter 

to the parents of those who are sending their children from Central 

America to the United States, which has been distributed broadly 

in Spanish and English to highlight the dangers of the journey and 

to emphasize there are no free passes or permisos at the other end. 

We are stressing that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

or DACA program, does not apply to children who arrive now or 

in the future in the United States and that to be considered for 

DACA individuals must have continually resided in the United 

States since June 2007, 7 years ago. 

We are making clear that the earned path to citizenship contemplated by the Senate bill passed last year will not apply to individuals who cross the border now or in the future, only to those 

who have been in this country for the last year-and-a-half. 

Twelfth, given the influx of unaccompanied children in the Rio 

Grande Valley, we have increased CBP staffing and detailed 115 

additional experienced agents from less active sectors to augment 

operations there. I am considering sending 150 more Border Patrol 

Agents, based on my review of operations there this past week. 

Thirteenth, in early May I directed the development of a Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Plan effort that is putting 

together a strategic framework to further enhance security for our 

Southern Border. 

Finally, we will continue to work closely with Congress on this 

problem and keep you informed. DHS is updating Members and 

staff on the situation in conference calls twice a week and we are 

facilitating site visits to Border Patrol facilities in Texas and Arizona for a number of Members and their staff. 

I have directed my staff to be forthright in bringing to me every 

conceivable, lawful option for consideration to address this problem. 

In cooperation with the other agencies of our Government that are 

dedicating resources to the effort, with the support of Congress, 

and in cooperation with the governments of Mexico and Central 

America, I believe we will stem this tide. 

Thank you. 
11 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEH C. JOHNSON

JUNE 24, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about our efforts to address the recent rise of unaccompanied children and others crossing our border in the Rio 

Grande Valley (RGV). With me today to answer questions are Craig Fugate, the administrator of FEMA, and Ron Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. 

To be clear, we face an urgent situation in the RGV. Last fiscal year, CBP apprehended more than 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. By mid-June of 

this fiscal year, that number has doubled to more than 52,000. Those from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras make up about three-quarters of that migration. 

On Friday, I traveled to South Texas for the fourth time in 6 months in office, 

this time to lead an interagency team to oversee our efforts there. While there we 

met with officials at McAllen and Lackland to review the situation and hear directly 

from those on the ground what their needs are. While there I spent time talking 

with the children again. It was a vivid reminder that this is a humanitarian issue 

as much as it is a matter of border security. We are talking about large numbers 

of children, without their parents, who have arrived at our border—hungry, thirsty, 

exhausted, scared, and vulnerable. How we treat the children, in particular, is a reflection of our laws and our values. 

Therefore, to address this situation, our strategy is three-fold: (1) Process the increased tide of unaccompanied children through the system as quickly as possible; 

(2) stem the increased tide of illegal migration into the RGV; and (3) do these things 

in a manner consistent with our laws and values as Americans. 

So, here is what we are doing: 

First, on May 12, I declared a Level IV condition of readiness within DHS, which 

is a determination that the capacity of CBP and ICE to deal with the situation is 

full and we need to draw upon additional resources across all of DHS. I appointed 

Deputy Chief Vitiello to coordinate this effort within DHS. 

Second, on June 1, President Obama, consistent with the Homeland Security Act, 

directed me to establish a Unified Coordination Group to bring to bear the assets 

of the entire Federal Government on the situation. This Group includes DHS and 

all of its components, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, 

Justice, State, and the General Services Administration. I, in turn, designated 

FEMA Administrator Fugate to serve as the Federal Coordinating Official for the 

U.S. Government-wide response. Under Administrator Fugate’s supervision, there 

are now more than 140 interagency personnel and members stationed in FEMA’s 

National Response Coordination Center dedicated to this effort. 

Third, we have established added capacity to deal with the processing and housing of the children, we are creating additional capacity in places, and we are considering others. To process the increased numbers of unaccompanied children in Texas, 

DHS has had to bring the children to our processing center at Nogales, Arizona before they are sent to HHS. We are arranging additional processing centers to handle 

the rise in the RGV. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has provided space at 

Lackland Air Base in Texas for HHS to house the children before HHS can place 

them. DoD is also providing facilities at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and Ventura, California 

for the same purpose. FEMA, DHS, and HHS are working to continue to identify 

additional facilities for DHS and HHS to house and process the influx of children. 

Fourth, DHS and HHS are increasing Spanish-speaking case management staff, 

increasing staff handling incoming calls from parents or guardians, raising awareness of the Parent Hotline provided by FEMA and operated by HHS, surging staff 

to manage the intake of CBP referrals to track shelter bed capacity, and facilitate 

shelter designations. We are developing ways to expedite background checks for 

sponsors of children, integrate CBP and HHS information-sharing systems, and increase capacity to transport and place children. (Here I must note, from personal 

observation, that our Border Patrol and other CBP personnel, as well as personnel 

from HHS, ICE, FEMA, and the Coast Guard, are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances. I have also witnessed how the not-for-profit Baptist Child Family Services stepped in quickly and is also doing a remarkable job housing the unaccompanied children at Lackland, identifying and then placing them consistent with 

HHS’s legal obligations. All of these dedicated men and women deserve our recognition, support, and gratitude.) 

Fifth, DHS is building additional detention capacity for adults who cross the border illegally in the RGV with their children. For this purpose DHS is establishing 
12 

a temporary facility for adults with children on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s campus at Artesia, New Mexico. The establishment of this temporary 

facility will help CBP process those encountered at the border and allow ICE to increase its capacity to house and expedite the removal of adults with children in a 

manner that complies with Federal law. Artesia is one of several facilities that DHS 

is considering to increase our capacity to hold and expedite the removal of the increasing number of adults with children illegally crossing the Southwest Border. 

DHS will ensure that after apprehension, families are housed in facilities that adequately provide for their safety, security, and medical needs. Meanwhile, we will 

also expand use of the Alternatives to Detention program to utilize all mechanisms 

for enforcement and removal in the RGV Sector. DOJ is temporarily reassigning immigration judges to handle the additional caseload via video teleconferencing. These 

immigration judges will adjudicate these cases as quickly as possible, consistent 

with all existing legal and procedural standards, including those for asylum applicants. Overall, this increased capacity and resources will allow ICE to return unlawful migrants from Central America to their home countries more quickly. 

Sixth, DHS has brought on more transportation assets to assist in the effort. The 

Coast Guard is loaning air assets to help transport the children. ICE is leasing additional charter aircraft. 

Seventh, throughout the RGV Sector, we are conducting public health screening 

for all those who come into our facilities for any symptoms of contagious diseases 

or other possible public health concerns. Both DHS and HHS are ensuring that the 

children’s nutritional and hygienic needs are met while in our custody; that children 

are provided regular meals and access to drinks and snacks throughout the day; 

that they receive constant supervision; and that children who exhibit signs of illness 

or disease are given proper medical care. We have also made clear that all individuals will be treated with dignity and respect, and any instances of mistreatment reported to us will be investigated. 

Eighth, working through FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center, we are 

coordinating with voluntary and faith-based organizations to help us manage the influx of unaccompanied children crossing the border. The American Red Cross is providing blankets and other supplies and, through their Restoring Family Links program, is coordinating calls between children in the care of DHS and families anxious about their well-being. 

Ninth, to stem the tide of children seeking to enter the United States, we have 

also been in contact with senior government officials of Guatemala, El Salvador, 

Honduras, and Mexico to address our shared border security interests, the underlying conditions in Central America that are promoting the mass exodus, and how 

we can work together to assure faster, secure removal and repatriation. Last week 

President Obama spoke with Mexican President Pen ̃ a Nieto about the situation, as 

has Secretary Kerry. This past Friday, Vice President Biden also visited Guatemala 

to meet with regional leaders to address the influx of unaccompanied children and 

families from Central America and the underlying security and economic issues that 

are causing this migration. The Vice President announced that the United States 

will be providing a range of new assistance to the region, including $9.6 million in 

additional funding for Central American governments to receive and reintegrate 

their repatriated citizens, and a new $40 million U.S. Agency for International Development program in Guatemala over 5 years to improve citizen security. An additional $161.5 million will be provided this year under the Central American Regional Security Initiative to further enable Central American countries to respond 

to the region’s most pressing security and governance challenges. I will travel to 

Guatemala on July 8–9. The government of El Salvador has sent additional personnel from its consulate in the United States to South Texas to help expedite repatriation to its country. 

Tenth, DHS, together with DOJ, has added personnel and resources to the investigation, prosecution, and dismantling of the smuggling organizations that are facilitating border crossings into the RGV. Homeland Security Investigations, which is 

part of ICE, is surging 60 additional criminal investigators and support personnel 

to their San Antonio and Houston offices for this purpose. In May, ICE concluded 

a month-long, targeted enforcement operation that focused on the logistics networks 

of human smuggling organizations along the Southwest Border, with operations in 

El Paso, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego that resulted in 163 arrests 

of smugglers. ICE will continue to vigorously pursue and dismantle these alien 

smuggling organizations by all investigative means to include the financial structure of these criminal organizations. These organizations not only facilitate illegal 

migration across our border, they traumatize and exploit the children who are objects of their smuggling operation. We will also continue to work with our partners 
13 

in Central America and Mexico to help locate, disrupt, and dismantle transnational 

criminal smuggling networks. 

Eleventh, we are initiating and intensifying our public affairs campaigns in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots, to communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long journey from Central America to the United States, 

and the dangers of putting children into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. 

In collaboration with DHS, the Department of State has launched public awareness campaigns in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to warn families about 

the dangers encountered by unaccompanied minors who attempt to travel from Central America to the United States, and to counter misperceptions that smugglers 

may be disseminating about immigration benefits in the United States. Our embassies in Central America have collaborated with CBP to ensure both the language 

and images of the campaign materials would resonate with local audiences. I have 

personally issued an open letter (see attached) to the parents of those who are sending their children from Central America to the United States, to be distributed 

broadly in Spanish and English, to highlight the dangers of the journey, and to emphasize there are no free passes or ‘‘permisos’’ at the other end. We are stressing 

that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or ‘‘DACA,’’ does not apply to children 

who arrive now or in the future in the United States, and that, to be considered 

for DACA, individuals must have continually resided in the United States since 

June 2007. We are making clear that the ‘‘earned path to citizenship’’ contemplated 

by the Senate bill passed last year will not apply to individuals who cross the border 

now or in the future; only to those who have been in the country for the last yearand-a-half. 

Twelfth, given the influx of unaccompanied children in the RGV, we have increased CBP staffing and detailed 115 additional experienced agents from less active sectors to augment operations there. I am considering sending 150 more Border 

Patrol Agents based on my review of operations there this past week. These additional agents allow RGV the flexibility needed to achieve more interdiction effectiveness and increase CBP’s operational footprint in targeted zones within its area of 

operations. 

Thirteenth, in early May I directed the development of a Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Planning effort that is putting together a strategic framework 

to further enhance security of our Southern Border. Plan development will be guided by specific outcomes and quantifiable targets for border security and will address 

improved information sharing, continued enhancement and integration of sensors, 

and unified command-and-control structures as appropriate. The overall planning 

effort will also include a subset of campaign plans focused on addressing challenges 

within specific geographic areas, all with the goal of enhancing our border security. 

Finally, we will continue to work closely with Congress on this problem, and keep 

you informed. DHS is updating Members and staff on the situation in conference 

calls two times a week, and we are facilitating site visits to Border Patrol facilities 

in Texas and Arizona for a number of Members and their staff. 

I have directed my staff to be forthright in bringing to me every conceivable, lawful option for consideration, to address this problem. In cooperation with the other 

agencies of our Government that are dedicating resources to the effort, with the support of Congress, and in cooperation with the governments of Mexico and Central 

America, I believe we will stem this tide. Thank you. 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN CROSSING OUR SOUTHWEST BORDER

This year, a record number of children will cross our Southern Border illegally 

into the United States. In the month of May alone, the number of children, unaccompanied by a mother or father, who crossed our Southern Border reached more 

than 9,000, bringing the total so far this year to 47,000. The majority of these children come from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, where gang and drug violence terrorize communities. To the parents of these children I have one simple message: Sending your child to travel illegally into the United States is not the solution. 

It is dangerous to send a child on the long journey from Central America to the 

United States. The criminal smuggling networks that you pay to deliver your child 

to the United States have no regard for his or her safety and well-being—to them, 

your child is a commodity to be exchanged for a payment. In the hands of smugglers, many children are traumatized and psychologically abused by their journey, 

or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted, or sold into the sex trade; they are 

exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of criminals. Conditions for an attempt 
14 

to cross our Southern Border illegally will become much worse as it gets hotter in 

July and August. 

The long journey is not only dangerous; there are no ‘‘permisos,’’ ‘‘permits,’’ or free 

passes at the end. 

The U.S. Government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also 

called ‘‘DACA,’’ does not apply to a child who crosses the U.S. border illegally today, 

tomorrow, or yesterday. To be eligible for DACA, a child must have been in the 

United States prior to June 15, 2007—7 years ago. 

Also, the immigration reform legislation now before Congress provides for an 

earned path to citizenship, but only for certain people who came into this country 

on or before December 31, 2011—21⁄2 years ago. So, let me be clear: There is no path 

to deferred action or citizenship, or one being contemplated by Congress, for a child 

who crosses our border illegally today. 

Rather, under current U.S. laws and policies, anyone who is apprehended crossing 

our border illegally is a priority for deportation, regardless of age. That means that 

if your child is caught crossing the border illegally, he or she will be charged with 

violating United States immigration laws, and placed in deportation proceedings— 

a situation no one wants. The document issued to your child is not a ‘‘permiso,’’ but 

a Notice To Appear in a deportation proceeding before an immigration judge. 

As the Secretary of Homeland Security, I have seen first-hand the children at our 

processing center in Texas. As a father, I have looked into the faces of these children and recognized fear and vulnerability. 

The desire to see a child have a better life in the United States is understandable. 

But, the risks of illegal migration by an unaccompanied child to achieve that dream 

are far too great, and the ‘‘permisos’’ do not exist. 

JEH C. JOHNSON

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Secretary. 

The Chairman now recognizes himself for questions. 

Let me say, first, I commend you for your immediate response to 

this crisis. But we do have a crisis on the border. It is in our backyard. It is impacting my State particularly probably the greatest. 

When I see our military bases now turning into refugee camps 

here in the United States, I think that is something I never 

thought we would see in the United States. 

I talked with senior officials of Border Patrol down in the Rio 

Grande Valley sector. We have 250—over 250 children being apprehended every day down there. 

I think the saddest thing about this whole story is the exploitation of these children. I think, as you recently mentioned in your 

open letter, you said that it is dangerous to send a child on the 

long journey from Central America to the United States in the 

hands of smugglers. Many children are traumatized, psychologically abused by their journey, or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted, or sold into a sex trade. They are exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of the criminals. 

You know, we see these publications down in Central America, 

saying that if you come into the United States, you can stay. Now, 

whether that is a misinterpretation of our policies, I think there is 

a lot of confusion out there. I personally believe that this administration’s policies have contributed to this problem, and have encouraged more people to come. 

When I talk to law enforcement, whether it is border sheriffs or 

CBP, on the border, they believe that this problem will continue 

until we provide a deterrence, a strong message that if you do 

come, you cannot stay. 

So, Secretary Johnson, what are you doing in that respect? What 

deterrence are we providing to stop this? Because if we don’t provide that deterrence, this problem will not stop. 
15 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree. First of all, we need to stem the 

tide. 

These gentlemen here, to my left and right, are leading a Herculean effort to deal with the current capacity, but we have got to 

stem the tide. I believe, among the things that I listed here, that 

what is critical is we correct the record. We straighten the 

misperceptions. 

The smuggling organizations are creating a misinformation campaign that there is a permisos or a free pass. I have even heard 

that you have to get here by May 2014 in order to get your free 

pass. So, the smuggling organizations have an incentive to induce 

these kids to have their families pay money to smuggle them up 

here, and so they are putting out misinformation, which we are trying to correct through our public awareness campaign. 

But we are also building, as I mentioned, increased detention capability for adults who bring their kids into the country, to expedite their removal and return back to their home nations. 

The other thing that we in the Department of Justice are very 

focused on right now is going after the networks of smuggling organizations, through their financial transactions, through prosecuting 

the personnel. We have surged DOJ and criminal investigators into 

Texas for that purpose. But I agree, Chairman, we need to stem 

the tide. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think that—I know in 2006 we had a Brazilian crisis, and we provided mandatory detention, and it—it 

worked. So I think—I think the administration needs to look at 

that. I think the National Guard, I know DOD doesn’t like that option, but I think if they could help with the influx and allow Border 

Patrol to do their job on the border, I think that would be helpful 

as well. 

In the limited time I have, I want to focus on what I think could 

be a very good solution to this problem in addition to deterrence. 

You and I have talked about this issue, and it has to do with Mexico, and Mexico’s cooperation with the United States. They are allowing this to happen in their country. The drug cartels are exploiting these children as they come through Mexico, and we know that 

the Mexicans’ southern border is completely wide open. 

I know that we have offered assistance to Mexico that to date, 

I don’t know whether that has been accepted, but my information 

is that it has not been. I would like to commit my efforts to work 

with you to get that problem solved, because I think, as you look 

at these children, they are all coming from Central America. If we 

can close the southern border of Mexico, that stops 99 percent of 

our problems here. 

So, if, Mr. Secretary, if you wouldn’t mind commenting on that 

issue. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first, as I mentioned in my opening 

comment, I want to hear every legal available option for consideration, whether it is from my own staff, whether it is from the interagency, or whether it is from Members of Congress or former Government officials who write op-eds. I want to hear every available 

option. 

Clearly, the key—a key to this is what the government of Mexico 

can do. I agree with your assessment, Chairman, and as you and 
16 

I have discussed in private, we need to engage that government at 

the senior-most levels, and we have begun that in President-topresident discussions. I have had discussions with my counterpart. 

I think that the Mexicans’ southern border, our shared border security interest is the key. I also think that engagement with the government of Guatemala is the key, which is why I am going there 

personally next month. 

So, but—no doubt, we have got—this is a critical way to stem the 

tide. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I encourage you. I think you are right. Central America as well, with the Secretary of State, State Department 

has a role to deal with Central America and this crisis coming out 

of there. 

With that, Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you Mr. Secretary for your excellent testimony. How often have you had a discussion with Secretary Kerry 

or Burwell on this situation? What I am looking for is, right now 

the microscope is on you, but they have some other players in this 

effort also. Are you having discussions with other officials of the 

Cabinet? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, definitely. On June 1, as I noted, the 

President established a Government-wide effort, pursuant to the 

Homeland Security Act, to deal with this and set up a unified coordination group, which I oversee, Administrator Fugate is in 

charge of it, which brings to bear the resources and assets of not 

only DHS, but HHS, DOJ, Department of Defense. 

So we have an effort which FEMA, day-to-day, Craig and his 

staff, day to day, coordinate and support, but in addition to that, 

we are in routine—I am in routine conversation with my Cabinet 

counterparts about this issue. I am having a meeting with my Cabinet counterparts right after this testimony as a matter of fact. 

Last Friday, I brought a group of interagency colleagues down to 

McAllen and Langley myself to—not Langley, Lackland, myself to 

see the situation. So, we are in good consultation with all these 

other agencies. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I am just trying to make sure that there is 

a understanding that it is not just Jeh Johnson who is responsible 

for this issue, but there are other players also who actually, we 

need to have a conversation with. 

One of the conversations that I think would be important is 

under existing law, how long would the children be in custody of 

DHS before they are passed off to HHS? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Under existing law, we are required to 

transfer the child within 72 hours to HHS, from the point at which 

we identify the child as an unaccompanied minor. I know that the 

provision in law says that there is an exception for extraordinary 

circumstances, but in general, the legal requirement is 72 hours. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I guess my question to Administrator Fugate is, 

have you been able to coordinate the resources so that 72-hour 

pass-on is working? 

Mr. FUGATE. At this time, with the number of children coming 

in, we are not meeting the 72 hours, but since June 1, we have 

added over 3,000 beds to the Health and Human Services Office of 
17 

Refugee Resettlement, including the three military bases that previously were referenced. 

In addition to that, we wanted to get these kids as quickly as we 

could from the detention facilities to a bed, even if we could not get 

them into HHS’s custody. So, Customs and Border Protection has 

built out one processing center. Another one is coming on-line in 

mid-July. 

So, at this point we have not reached the 72 hours, but we are 

building more capacity to get children in beds, but also, Health and 

Human Services is stepping up placement for the longer-term care 

of these children. 

Our other hope is that the quicker we can place children longterm, either reunited with legal guardians or parents, or with foster families while they await further proceedings, the fewer beds 

that will be required. 

So, we have increased capacity, but the number of children coming in have increased as well, and we have not reached the 72-hour 

mark. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I guess the follow-up to that is, in your coordinating role, do you feel that the resources necessary to be successful have been made available to you? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. It is—the challenge is again, in building 

out facilities and bringing on additional foster care facilities. These 

are licensed facilities. It is diligent work by a lot of Federal agencies to get this done, and it is time-consuming. That is why we 

looked at some intermediate steps to increase bed capacity within 

Customs and Border Protection. 

But you do have, I believe, additional requests that have been 

identified from OMB, that there will be additional resources required in the next year. We continue to work within our authorities 

and within the budgets we currently have. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Vitiello, can you tell us whether or not the 

Border Patrol as it is presently staffed can meet this influx of 

young people coming across the border? 

Chief VITIELLO. As is typical, the men and the women of the Border Patrol have stepped up to this task. I think you heard the Secretary describe that we were there on Friday. We watched the 

hard, diligent, heroic work that they are doing to make the best of 

this situation. 

It is our—it is my assessment and what we heard from the leadership on the ground down there, the agents that are involved in 

this crisis, we are adequately staffed and even better staffed than 

we were this time last year. 

So we are concerned as this goes on about staffing levels and our 

ability to do the other Border Patrol functions. But the reports that 

we got on Friday, I am very comfortable that they have the resources that are available and they are using them in an adequate 

way to protect the border. 

This isn’t a security problem in the sense that this population, 

both the family units and—and the children, are not trying to 

evade apprehension at the border. They are essentially coming in 

an area that is well-known by us, well-patrolled by us and they are 

not evading arrest. 
18 

Then in the other locations along the border, we are adequately 

or we are better-staffed or the same staffing that we had last year. 

So there is some risk involved here but the reports that we heard 

on Friday don’t concern me. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman now recognizes the gentleman 

from New York, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, let me thank you for your testimony today. 

Before we get into this issue, let me thank you for what you have 

done as far as counterterrorism efforts. I want to personally thank 

you for that. It is greatly appreciated. 

On this issue, let me get to the question that the Chairman is 

raising regarding deterrence. In your statement, you say that you 

want to emphasize there are no free passes. I understand what you 

mean by that. 

But if you are a parent in Central America, in effect, this can 

look like a free pass because you are making the situation more humanitarian, you are making more facilities available, as Mr. 

Fugate said, you are providing foster families, all which is understandable. That is our obligation as human beings. 

But the other hand, if you are a family in Guatemala or El Salvador this, in a way, is a free pass. It is a much better life for them 

than they are getting right now in South America. So I don’t know 

how that is going to in any way stall what is happening. 

On the issue of diplomatic engagements, it would appear that, as 

the Chairman said, the southern border of Mexico is the key here. 

Do we have any realistic hope that Mexico is going to be cooperative on that? 

Also, you mentioned going after the coyotes? What is the time 

frame on that? As a practical matter, we have been trying to do 

that for years. Is there any reason to think homeland security or 

DOJ can expedite that or be more effective? 

I am not reflecting on you; I am just saying we have been doing 

this for as long as I can remember, going after the coyotes and they 

are still there. 

So I guess, you know, what is the deterrence? Because the more 

you take what is proper humanitarian action, the more you are 

making it, to me, more accessible and more hospitable. It seems to 

be almost a Catch-22 unless we can really step up the diplomatic 

efforts regarding the southern border of Mexico and whatever pressure we can bring on El Salvador and other countries and going 

after the coyotes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, a couple of things. 

First, I am convinced that the principal reason these kids—from 

everything I have heard, everything I have seen and from my own 

conversations with these kids, the principal reason they are leaving 

is the push factor from the countries they are leaving. 

The conditions in Honduras, for example, are horrible. It is the 

murder capital of the world. 

There is—there is this disinformation out there that there are 

permisos. That is what we are hearing. Permiso, free pass, like you 
19 

get a piece of paper that says, ‘‘Welcome to the United States. You 

are free.’’ 

That is not the case. When you are apprehended at the border, 

irregardless of age, you are a priority for removal. So they are 

given a notice to appear in a deportation proceeding. 

The way the law works, the 2008 law, we are required to give 

that child to HHS and HHS is required to act in the best interest 

of the child, which most often means placing that child with a parent who is here in the United States. But there is a pending deportation proceeding against the child. 

Now in terms of—but that is not a free pass. In terms of—— 

Mr. KING. But if I were a parent in Guatemala, wouldn’t I see 

that as being a free pass? I mean, a child, a 5-year-old child getting 

an order to show up in immigration court, you know, are you going 

to actually deport that child? You know, to me, it is a free pass, 

you know, from their perspective. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t—Congressman, I don’t see it as a free 

pass, particularly given the danger of migrating over 1,000 miles 

through Mexico into the United States, especially now in the 

months of July and August that we are facing. 

A lot of these kids stow away on top of freight trains, which is 

exceedingly dangerous. I spoke to one kid who was about 12 or 13 

who spent days climbed on top of a freight train, a boxcar. 

These kids, sometimes they fall off because they fall asleep. They 

can’t hold on any longer. It is exceedingly dangerous. 

Mr. KING. I am not saying it is a free pass. I am just saying how 

do we change their minds to not think it is a free pass considering 

the poverty they are under. 

Also, if I could ask on that, is the situation any worse in Honduras today than it was 2 years ago or 3 years ago or any tougher 

economically or gang-wise in these countries than it was several 

years ago before we had this mass influx? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know it has been bad for a while. I know 

it has been bad for a while. 

If you are asking me to explain why the influx over the last couple of months all of the sudden—— 

Mr. KING. If you could, yes, sure. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure I have the answer to that 

question. 

I do believe that the smuggling organizations are putting out a 

lot of disinformation about the conditions, the legal conditions here 

in the United States to induce this activity. I agree with you, Congressman, that we have to put in place—and I think we are doing 

this—a number of deterrent factors, increased housing to detain 

parents, adults who come to this country with their children, expedited removals and the public relations campaign. 

One of the things I am doing in addition to everything else we 

have done on the public relations front is I am talking to the U.S. 

Conference of Catholic Bishops about how they can help. I have 

had very good conversations, and I think that they will because 

they realize that—the dangers of a parent sending a child through 

this type of migration. 

Mr. KING. Thank you for your service. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
20 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank both the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member for the spirit of this hearing. 

The combined recognition that this is a humanitarian crisis way 

beyond our imagination, we might use hindsight, Mr. Secretary, 

and look at this and say: Why did we not see it? 

I think the variables of the world would argue that the world remains in crisis in many areas and it makes it very difficult, even 

when individuals are your neighbors, to be able to spot crises 

maybe before they begin to show themselves. 

So I am grateful for the response of the Border Patrol and the 

agencies and the President who has recognized that we have come. 

Let me first of all acknowledge that this should not be political 

grandstanding. I would commend some of my colleagues to read— 

I will hold up this article that says, ‘‘Why 90,000 Children Flooding 

Our Border Is Not an Immigration Story.’’ 

In a survey of 404 by the United Nations, they found that 58 percent of these children were forcibly displaced and to a degree, it 

warranted international protection, meaning that if the United 

States breached its responsibility—and I know some adhere to the 

United Nations, I do, I respect it as an international organization— 

we would be breaching many of its conventions that we have adhered to. 

So we are doing the right thing. I think it is important that I 

ask unanimous consent to put this in the record, an article dated 

June 16, 2014. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 
21 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

WHY 90,000 CHILDREN FLOODING OUR BORDER IS NOT AN IMMIGRATION STORY

Virtual cities of children are fleeing their homes. This is a lot bigger than U.S. border control, a United Nations protection officer explains. 

A boy in Mexico peers through a border fence into Arizona following a special ‘‘Mass 

on the Border’’ on April 1, 2014 in Nogales, Ariz. (John Moore/Getty Images). 

National Journal, June 16, 2014. 

The numbers are astounding. 

Just a few weeks ago, the United States was projecting 60,000 unaccompanied minors would attempt to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year. 

That projection is now 90,000, and it may be surpassed. 

Virtual cities of children are picking up and fleeing El Salvador, Honduras, and 

Guatemala—some of the most dangerous places in this hemisphere. In Washington, 

the story has stoked the long-standing debate over border policy. But U.S. immigration policy is just a small part of this story. Yes, the U.S. immigration system is 

now bottle-necked with the influx, prompting emergency response from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. But changing U.S. border policy won’t stem the 

root of the exodus. 

‘‘The normal migration patterns in this region have changed,’’ Leslie Velez, senior 

protection officer at the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, explains. These people 

aren’t coming here for economic opportunity. They are fleeing for their lives. 

‘‘For the U.N. refugee agency to register an uptick in asylum applications in 

places other than the United States is a huge red flag for us.’’ 

Earlier this year, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees surveyed 

404 children from Mexico and Central America who arrived in the United States 

illegally, and asked a simple question: Why did you leave? The report found ‘‘that 

no less than 58 percent of the 404 children interviewed were forcibly displaced’’ to 

a degree that warranted international protection, meaning that if the U.S. refused 

these children, it could be in breach of U.N. conventions. 

Velez was one of the authors of that report, interviewing undocumented immigrant children across the U.S. immigration system for two hours each. They told 

Velez and her team stories of extreme violence, and fear of being caught up in 

gangs. Forty-eight percent of the children ‘‘shared experiences of how they had been 

personally affected by the augmented violence’’ at the hands of ‘‘organized armed 

criminal actors, including drug cartels and gangs, or by state actors.’’ 

Recently, I spoke with Velez over the phone to learn more about the forces motivating children to make the journey north. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation. 
22 

When did it become apparent that something out of the ordinary was happening with 

migration out of Central America? 

Our sister agency, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, started the clock at the 

increase in violence and insecurity in the Northern Triangle in 2006. 

Around 2008, it was probably the first time it really hit the U.N. refugee agency’s 

radar. When we went back to the numbers, there was an increase in asylum applications starting as early as 2005. It wasn’t too significant until we got to 2008. And 

in 2008 to 2013 we noted a 712 percent increase that were lodged in countries other 

than the United States [like Mexico, Panama, Belize, and Costa Rica]. 

So why are we hearing about this now? 

The numbers have been doubling every year since 2011. And for us, that’s dramatic. For the U.S. government—who has been really challenged in order to process 

this large number—I think their capacity has really been tested in the last few 

weeks. I think that’s what generated a lot of attention. Because the numbers have 

rapidly increased. 

And your next follow-up question is probably going to be, ‘‘Why?’’ 

Yes it is. Why? 

Out of the 404 children surveyed, only nine of mentioned anything about U.S. immigration policy. 

From reports that we are hearing from individuals on the ground, both from our 

U.N. offices that are there, as well as NGOs—in particular Catholic Relief Services 

in El Salvador—they have been really clear that on the ground a few important 

things are happening. 

One is that the criminal armed actors, specifically gangs, are really operating 

with significant impunity and targeting children at a younger and younger age. Recently there was a very public massacre and dismemberment of children as young 

as seven who had refused to join the gang. So it was a message to show who is in 

power, who is in control. 

This is a huge story, involving tens of thousands of personal stories and the intricate 

histories of three troubled countries. But for those unfamiliar with the happenings 

in Central America—how would you encapsulate what’s going on down there? 

It’s a humanitarian crisis in the region. The numbers are alarming, but the stories behind them are even more so. The situation is basically this: we have weak 

governments, entrenched poverty, and a growing control and power of criminal actors. 

Why kids? 

That’s a really good question. The kids are vulnerable because they are children. 

And they are being targeted. 

We liken the situation very much to the situation of the recruitment of child soldiers on other continents. Children are particularly vulnerable, they are susceptible 

to harm, they are easily terrorized, and the very fact that they are children is the 

single factor in the harm that they are experiencing. They are specifically being target to be recruited. They are the ones who are being bullied. 

Much of the news has focused on the U.S. response at the border. But is there much 

journalism coming out of the conflict areas? 

There’s really little. Most of the media that covers it well is Spanish media. 

Is that changing? 

I hope so. 

Who is making the decision to flee, to go north? Is it the kids themselves, the parents? 

How much choice do the kids have in this and how do they make this decision? 

‘‘This is not a migration story. This is a humanitarian crisis.’’ 

I think I hear the question you are asking but I’m going to give you a different 

answer. 

This is a situation of forced displacement. After interviewing 404 children for our 

own report, when the numbers came back they showed that 58 percent of them were 

fleeing violence. Very little choice, that they were fleeing. 

I think your question went to, well, who has the agency here, is it the children 

making decision for themselves, the grandparents, the family members? Who is 

doing it? 

I guess the question back to you is, is there really a choice here? Already in the 

context of entrenched poverty in which criminal gang armed actors can really act 

with impunity. This is a bad recipe. 

According to reports, as many as 60,000 minors have come to our border this year. 

When I hear numbers that high, I wonder, is this a systematic form of travel? Are 

there economies involved in this mass movement of people? Exploitation? 

Well, the 60,000 mark was hit maybe a good 3 or 4 weeks ago. The projections 

are about 90,000 by the end of the fiscal year. We’re talking about unaccompanied 

children. 
23 

In terms of how they are getting here: So many of them are just invisible. Some 

people are being smuggled, some people are being trafficked, some people think that 

they are paying a smuggler and they end up being trafficked, some people come 

with other relatives. There are so many different stories. And I think there are a 

lot of actors that are actually exploiting the fact that these children are increasingly 

vulnerable. And there are a lot of for-profit entities out there that are trying to profit [off] the children who are trying to leave. 

Is the answer we just don’t know? Is there a fog of information between Central 

America and the U.S.? 

Last year Mexico apprehended 5,500 [children] in the same year, 23,000 arrived 

to the United States, and I’m not including Mexicans in the 23,000 figure. These 

are all children from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Twenty-three thousand of them made it through Mexico without being detected. 

In the wake of these trends, some lawmakers have called on increased southern border security for Mexico. What do you make of that? 

I think that’s a knee-jerk reaction, which is not entirely inappropriate. But any 

conversation about increasing enforcement of other countries at points south has to 

include protection from sending people back to where they fear persecution or torture. 

I’ve been reading that these children are coming north on rumors that the United 

States will let them in, that the Obama administration has lax policies toward minors. Did you find that at all in your survey? 

We interviewed 404 children asking extremely open-ended questions as to the reasons and the nature of having left and what they were expecting when they arrived. 

Out of the 404, only 9 of them mentioned any kind of possibility of the U.S. treating 

children well. Two said ‘‘immigration reform’’; one said ‘‘I hear they treat kids well.’’ 

It’s very general and from the perspective of a child. But only nine out of 404 said 

anything about that. 

So what is attracting them to the United States? 

First, I have to point out to you, it’s not just the United States. That was a another red flag for us. There is an increasing trend to seek asylum in Mexico, which 

is much safer for them than where they are from. The number of asylum seekers 

in Nicaragua, in Belize, in Costa Rica, in Panama—all of that has grown 712 percent since 2008. 

This is not the normal flow. For the U.N. refugee agency to register an uptick 

in asylum applications in places other than the United States is a huge red flag for 

us. People are leaving to places where they can find safety. 

So what are the countries experiencing the influx? 

The U.S., Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, Belize. 

How many people have left El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala? I’m trying to 

imagine the long-term impacts of tens of thousands of young people leaving their 

homes behind. 

We don’t know how many people have left. I can generally signal how many have 

been picked up on the radar by the states. As of last month we have 45,000 adults 
24 

who have indicated a fear of return to U.S. border officials. Of that number, approximately 70 percent of that 45,000 figure are from those same three countries. 

These are just the folks who are claiming fear of return, getting that registered. 

This is what has actually hit the radar. We have no idea about how many people 

don’t get intercepted by border authorities. There is no way for us to track the number of individuals that are part of regular migration-enforcement activities. 

Already to be talking about a flow of over 100,000 people from three countries is 

quite alarming. 

Are these refugees? Immigrants? Does the distinction matter? 

What we learned from our empirical study was that 58 percent of the children 

we interviewed flagged an international-protection concern. Where we drew the line, 

was that these children feared return because of violence and insecurity. They 

feared harm to themselves, and had the single conviction that they could not be protected in their countries. So that was our most conservative lens that we could look 

at the numbers. We excluded entrenched poverty, we excluded everything else. So 

58 percent of the kids, in a statistically significant pool of 404, we wanted to be able 

to extrapolate to have a significant pool, present international protection concerns. 

So what does that mean? We did not interview them [to determine refugee status]. We interviewed them to find out why they left. We did a preliminary screening 

which to us was enough to say these individuals presented concerns. 

Which means that if a country was to reject these people from their borders without allowing them any access to asylum protection or complementary protection 

processes, it actually would be in breach of the conventions. 

Is the U.S. handling this well? 

‘‘The humanitarian response is not going to solve the problem. The faucet has to 

be turned off or the water is going to keep flowing.’’ 

The U.S. is doing everything that I think it possibly can in this short-term context. We have really applauded that President Obama has recognized there is a humanitarian crisis, and that he engaged FEMA and has asked the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to respond. The machinery is in place, it’s starting to move. The 

domestic response, in the short term, is doing the best that it can to get people out 

of the bottlenecking facilities that are just not equipped to deal with this type of 

flow. 

But what the U.S. could be doing better, is that this is really a regional issue. 

Each country is unique and if you look at the data in our report about what’s happening in each country, you are going to see some clear difference. At the same time 

it’s a regional challenge—people are leaving and they are going to points North, 

points South—it requires a regional response. It’s not on the U.S. alone to solve. 

But were supporting it to recognize that there is a foreign policy element here to 

all of the challenges. 

The humanitarian response is not going to solve the problem. The faucet has to 

be turned off or the water is going to keep flowing. To that end, the U.S. needs to 

address the root causes, and it has a role in addressing the root causes. First, on 

the top of the list, is to continue violence-prevention efforts—like job creation, education, strengthen women’s counsels—do a lot more institution strengthening, more 

government programs. 

What is the American media getting wrong about this story? Or, what’s the takehome point we miss? 

This is not a migration story. This is a humanitarian crisis, and an example of 

consequences of weak governments. It’s a humanitarian crisis and a foreign policy 

issue. We’re responding in a humanitarian way, and supporting the government to 

do so, but that’s not going to shut off the faucet. 

The normal migration patterns in this region have changed. While it is still a 

mixed migration flow—people are still coming for a number of reasons. There is a 

growing number of people who are literally fleeing for their lives. 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/why-90-000-children-floodingour-border-is-not-an-immigration-story-20140616 
25 

ATTACHMENT.—UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AT THE BORDER

U.S. Customs and Border Protection struggles to process the rising numbers of minors 

By Chet Susslin, June 20, 2014. 
26 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I also want to hold up what we are talking 

about. We are talking about a little baby holding a bottle, maybe 

not even carried by his own family. 

We are talking about children who are not in the Taj Mahal but 

are desperate and maybe internally displaced or chased off by the 

violence of their countries, and we are trying to respond to it. I 

think that is very important. 

I think it is also important to note that the Wilberforce Act was 

signed in 2008 by President Bush. This is the one about unaccompanied children that were supposed to be handled by HHS. It was 

legislation that originated in the Judiciary Committee. I remember 

it very well. 
27 

* The information has been retained in committee files and is available at http:// 

www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca. 

The idea was for 20 children or 100 children to be handled by 

HHS, a more humanitarian—it was not an open-door policy. It was 

never, if you will, amnesty. 

Then I want to put into the record the June 15, 2012, statement 

by ICE on DACA, which has now been accused of being the opendoor policy. It is dated June 15, 2012. It says, come to the United 

States under the age of 16 and continuously reside in the United 

States for 5 years. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered.* 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What child can imagine that they would fit 

under DACA? It is clearly an issue of devastating human smuggling and human trafficking, something that my colleague, my 

Chairwoman, Mrs. Miller and myself have looked at and included 

this language even in our authorization bills some few weeks ago. 

So I ask these questions, as long as we can keep the facts. It is 

not an issue of the Wilberforce bill. It is not an issue of DACA. 

It is a humanitarian crisis of huge proportions, and we have to 

deal with it. It is also a question of detention facilities, and, as 

well, the need for diplomatic interaction, as we have done with the 

crisis and the leaders of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. 

They are in crisis. They are violent. 

I ask you about creating more processing centers, and as well, 

the Senate passed about a $2 billion out of their Labor-HHS. Is 

this what you need, about $2 billion to $3 billion, to make sure we 

can respond to this? 

I also ask if someone would address the question, and I thank 

the Border Patrol for the work they have done, the suggestions 

that there have been some form of abuse. I think we should not 

run away from challenges that have been made regarding the 

treatment of these children. I think we should be open. We want 

to make sure they have facilities. So, I would appreciate your response to those questions. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congresswoman, I will just answer quickly 

and then ask my colleagues if they would like to supplement. 

In general, in response to your question, we need to identify and 

create more processing center space, more shelter space for HHS, 

before they place the kids, and more detention space for adults 

with children. We do not have a lot of detention space for family 

units. 

So as a deterrent and to simply deal with the sheer numbers, we 

need to create more detention space for adults who bring their children. So that is one of our principal goals as part of this process. 

I will ask Administrator Fugate or Chief Vitiello if they have 

anything they want to add? 

Mr. FUGATE. No. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Okay. 

Chief VITIELLO. I would just add on the claims of abuse, my 

chief, the commissioner, and the Secretary have been very direct, 

and we are all focused on that issue. There is no room for abuse 

of detainees in custody, specifically children. Those matters will be 

taken up with the Office of Inspector General, and we will be fully 
28 

cooperative in all manner of getting to the bottom of those allegations. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am very glad to hear you say that publicly 

and openly, that we are not running away from it, we are investigating and we care about these children and we are gonna address this in the way that the United States has always done in 

a humanitarian crisis. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The lady’s time expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I would remind the Members that the Secretary has to leave at 12:30, and I will strictly enforce the 5-minute 

rule. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, is recognized. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, when you took office, do you believe that we had 

effective control of the border, our Southern Border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I recognized when I took office that we had 

some real issues in the Rio Grande Valley sector, in particular, 

with those coming from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. 

Mr. ROGERS. Any areas of the border where we have a fence have 

we had children coming across? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If you are referring to—— 

Mr. ROGERS. For example, around San Diego, the southern part 

of California? 

Secretary JOHNSON. This has not been a big phenomenon in 

southern California or Arizona. 

Mr. ROGERS. Any place we have had a fence, have we had 5-yearold children coming across the border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not in very large numbers. It has got a lot 

to do with the fact that south Texas is so closely located to Central 

America, too. That is the migration path. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, let me ask, in the Rio Grande Valley, if we 

had the same sort of fencing we have along the southern border of 

California, do you believe these children would be coming across 

the border in the numbers they are coming across or anything close 

to it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is hard to answer because you are talking 

about the Rio Grande River, which is a very—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I have been there. I know what I am talking 

about. We don’t have a fence down there, and, if we did, we 

wouldn’t have 5-year-old children coming across. 

You know, this Congress in 2006, because I was here, we authorized and appropriated the money for 700 miles of fencing. We have 

gotten most of that. But that was done in 2009. We haven’t had 

any more since then. This is what we get for it. 

Let me ask this. I have been down to Nogales, where they have 

the large detention facility, and I have seen the folks that we detained be debriefed, cleaned up, put on a bus, and sent back. 

Why aren’t we doing that with these children? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, Nogales is being used right 

now as a processing center for the unaccompanied children. They 

are leaving Nogales and they are going to HHS custody for shelter 

and then placement. 
29 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, why aren’t we putting them on a bus like we 

normally do and sent them back down to Guatemala? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Because the law requires that I turn them 

over to HHS, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the law required Obamacare to be kicked in 

2 years ago. That hasn’t stopped the administration before when it 

wants to do something different. 

This is a humanitarian crisis. It is a National security crisis for 

our country. 

I don’t know why these children are being treated any differently. You know, you talked a little while ago about trying to 

talk with the Guatemalan government about what we should be 

doing. 

I think what you need to do is ask the Guatemalan government 

where they want these kids dropped off when the buses bring them 

back down there. 

You know, what are we doing, other then taking them and putting them in a facility here, that is gonna make it more likely we 

will keep them here for months, if not years. 

Tell me what we are doing to get them returned home. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We are creating additional detention space 

for adults who bring their children. I am considering—I want to 

consider every option for stemming this tide, sir. 

The law requires, the law that was created in 2008, requires that 

we turn these kids over if they are unaccompanied to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours, generally, so 

that is what we do. But they are turned over with a notice to appear, that is, you know, effectively a deportation proceeding that 

has been commenced against them. But the law requires I turn 

them over to HHS. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you believe these are exigent circumstances? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe these are exigent circumstances, 

yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you believe that the President should issue an 

Executive Order, due to these exigent circumstances, to deal with 

this crisis? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure I can comment on that. Of 

what nature? 

Mr. ROGERS. To supersede the law. I mean, this is not the first 

time the President has gone around the law—don’t know why he 

can’t do it with these children. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Last time I looked an Executive Order can’t 

supersede the law. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is what we thought, too. If we can find 

a way to get in front of the Supreme Court, we would resolve that. 

But right now we have a crisis, and I don’t see this administration doing anything about it other than trying to house the children. I understand the humanitarian basis for that. 

But we need to send a signal to these other countries that it is 

not gonna work. You can’t send your children up here and let them 

stay. We are gonna turn them right back and give them right back 

to you. 
30 

That is what I am looking for from you is a way for us to do that. 

That is the clearest signal to these parents to not send these children up to us in the future. 

So, tell me what you can do, other than give them to HHS. Nothing? Have you called the National Guard out? Or asked for it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Like I said, I would like to consider every 

option that is presented. I went through in my prepared testimony 

the 12 or 13 steps we have taken to deal with the crisis, which includes building more detention space—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is once they get in here. The President— 

or the Speaker of the House last week called on the President to 

mobilize the National Guard to go down and give some relief to the 

Border Patrol and the FEMA in this crisis. Why can’t you call on 

the President to do that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, sir, if you are asking me if I can take 

an unaccompanied child, turn him around on the border and send 

him right back to Guatemala, I don’t believe the law would permit 

us to do that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Higgins, from 

New York. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I just—we had an incident in Buffalo regarding 

facilities for undocumented and unaccompanied children in Grand 

Island, New York. A local developer offered to GSA a property that 

the local developer doesn’t own and either represented that the 

property was vacant and available or Federal agents assumed that 

the property was vacant and available. 

That offer of property made its way from GSA to HHS, and then 

finally to the Department of Homeland Security where three DHS 

agents showed up at the property unannounced, and upon their arrival, they realized the property wasn’t vacant and wasn’t available, and found it to be a 236-room functioning hotel and spa. 

Now, it would seem to me that someone that represents that 

they own a property and knows anything about it and offers that 

property to the Federal Government for use under this program, 

some due diligence would have had to have occurred to verify either the assumptions or to refute the misrepresentations that were 

made. 

Are you familiar with this? Can you offer any—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have been informed that somebody within 

DHS looked at a hotel in upstate New York, and we were quickly 

informed that it is an up and running, functioning, occupied hotel. 

So, obviously, it is not a viable candidate for this situation. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, but I think this misses the point. My real concern is that, you know, again, a local developer that doesn’t own 

the property reaches out to a Federal agency, and it makes its way 

through one, two, three other Federal agencies, and Federal agents 

show up at the property and it is confirmed then that it could have 

easily been confirmed through some kind of Internet search, 

Google, that the property was not available. It just created a lot of 

confusion in the local community. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I imagine that’s just some investigators being thorough. But as I mentioned, that property obviously is 
31 

not an option for—to deal with this situation. It is an up-and-running occupied hotel. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. Well, it just seems to me that more due diligence could have, should have been exercised here before, you 

know, Federal agents were sent unannounced to a functioning hotel 

and spa facility for the purposes of housing unoccupied children 

that crossed the border. 

I will yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank the gentlemen. 

I would like to remind the Members, the purpose of this hearing 

is to address unaccompanied minors crossing the border. 

The Chairman now recognizes Dr. Broun, from Georgia. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, on January 29 of this year, the Department of 

Homeland Security issued a document, an ad actually, requesting 

people to apply for a job to accompany these children, these unaccompanied children, to be placed across the country. In that document, it said up to 65,000 kids. 

So, back in January of this year, the Department already knew 

that these kids were coming, was actually trying to get contractors, 

independent contractors, to come on board to accompany these 

kids. At what point did y’all have a knowledge that there were 

going to be up to 65,000 children, unaccompanied children coming 

into this country? 

Obviously, this is before January 29. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, I have heard about this solicitation. I don’t know where this estimate comes from or what it is 

based on, so I can’t comment on the—— 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I didn’t ask about the document, I asked about 

the—at what point did the Department project that there were 

going to be up to 65,000 children coming into this country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, like I said, I don’t know where that estimate comes from. I have heard about this document, but I have 

never seen it. I don’t know where the estimate comes from. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, the point is, what have y’all done? If January, 

the Department understood that there were going to be up to 

65,000 unaccompanied children coming to the United States, as a 

medical doctor, I try to prevent disease. I try to prevent problems 

with my patients. The administration should be doing the same 

thing. 

If you knew that up to 65,000 unaccompanied children were 

going to be coming to this country, for Pete’s sake, you should have 

been doing something about it. I don’t see where this administration or the Department of Homeland Security has done anything. 

Am I wrong? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Very clearly. Since I have been in office, we 

have known that there is an issue of a rising tide of unaccompanied children coming into this country. I have known that since 

I have been in office for 6 months. The issue intensified, I would 

say, for me at least, in the period April or May. 

In April, I asked my staff to develop an overall campaign plan 

for the Southwest Border, the Rio Grande valley in particular, to 

deal with the children and to deal with the rising tide of those com-
32 

ing from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, adults and children. I saw this myself when I visited there in January. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for interrupting you, because I just have about 2 minutes left, and I have got a lot of questions. But the point is, nothing has been done except for just to get 

ready for these children to come. Is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have to disagree. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Well, I would like to know what y’all have 

been doing to try to stop the flood. Because I believe that the administration policies is what has invited these kids to come here. 

Now, I understand that these kids are being placed with family 

members across the country. I have seen some statistics that over 

90 percent of these individuals, and you just said, that they were 

given a notice to appear, but 90 percent have actually absconded, 

and never been heard from again. How are you tracking and following up with these individuals if they don’t show up in court? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I am not—I don’t know where the 90 

percent comes from. I do know that through HHS, we have a process to track the kids when they move. If they move with their— 

with the adult whose supervision that they are under, that HHS 

places them with, there is a process to track them. I inquired and 

I am told that there is—— 

Mr. BROUN. These kids have come here illegally. They have been 

lawbreakers already. You place them with families, and it is my 

understanding that some of these families may be illegal themselves? Is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sure that is true in certain circumstances. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. So what is the Department doing to try to deport or deal with these families that are illegal in themselves? 

Then you have got another lawbreaker, and the kid—y’all should 

be following up. 

I don’t have but just a second or two, but who has told y’all— 

who has given the Department of Homeland Security the directive 

of not enforcing the law to deport people who are identified who are 

here illegally? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I would have to disagree with that 

characterization, sir. There are priorities for removal focused on 

public safety, National security, and border security. We have 

prioritized the enforcement of the law in that manner. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I disagree. It has been very obvious the President has been very public that he has said that he is not going to 

deport these illegal aliens, he is going—we don’t even deport people 

who have broken the law and have committed felonies. I think this 

administration is inviting these kids, inviting illegal aliens to come 

to this country, and is—wants to give them legal status, and I find 

that intolerable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the—Ms. 

Jackson Lee for the purpose of entering statements into the record. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, I ask unanimous consent to submit the American Immigration Lawyers Association statement 

dated June 24, 2014. The statement of the Women’s Refugee Commission, dated June 24, 2014, and finally, a Washington Post story, 
33 

1 UNHCR Report, ‘‘Children on the run: Unaccompanied children leaving Central America and 

Mexico and the need for international protection.’’ May 2014. http://www.unhcrwashington.org/ 

sites/default/files/UAClChildren%20on%20the%20RunlFull%20ReportlMay2014.pdf. 2 CBP Border Patrol Statistics. http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children. 3 ‘‘Obama creates group to help border crossing kids’’ June 2, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/ 

story/news/nation/2014/06/02/obama-immigration-group-undocumented-children-border/ 

9876003/. 4 UNHCR, ‘‘Children on the Run’’. 

5 UNHCR, ‘‘Children on the Run’’. 

6 International Centre for the Human Rights of Migrants (CIDEHUM), Forced Displacement 

and Protection Needs Produced by New Forms of Violence and Criminality in Central America. 7 ‘‘Children traveling solo across U.S. border face dangerous trip.’’ June 4, 2014. http:// 

www.npr.org/2014/06/04/318733312/children-traveling-solo-across-u-s-border-face-dangeroustrip. 

‘‘Young Migrants Stuck in Limbo on Mexican Border, Children Now 

Stuck Alone in Shelter Bases,’’ June 20, 2014. I ask unanimous 

consent. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

JUNE 24, 2014 

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submits this statement to 

the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. AILA is the National association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice and advocate for fair 

and reasonable immigration law and policy. AILA has over 13,000 attorney and law 

professor members. 

CURRENT HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

Contrary to the title assigned to this hearing, the escalation in the movement of 

unaccompanied alien children (UACs) is a regional humanitarian crisis born from 

the rapid growth in crime, violence, and poverty that has affected Mexico and several Central American countries for many years. In October 2011, the United States 

experienced a dramatic rise in UACs, particularly from the countries of El Salvador, 

Guatemala, and Honduras. The number of unaccompanied children apprehended by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) jumped from 17,775 in fiscal year 2011 

to 41,890 in fiscal year 2013.1 For the fiscal year 2014, beginning October 1, 2013 

up through May 31, 2014, CBP has already apprehended 47,017 unaccompanied 

children just in the Southwest Border sectors alone.2 The children making the difficult and treacherous migration journey are now younger than in years past (many 

under 13), and a higher percentage are girls.3

This humanitarian crisis affects not only the United States but the entire Central 

American region as well. The United States is the largest country in the region, 

with the most developed asylum and humanitarian protection regime. Hence, the 

greatest number of displaced individuals continues to seek asylum in the United 

States. Yet other countries in the region, in particular, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, 

Mexico, and Costa Rica, have seen a striking 435 percent increase in asylum applications from El Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Guatemalans; an even more dramatic 

increase considering the small size of these nations.4

Drawing upon interviews with 404 children aged 12 to 17 who had left their home 

countries, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) concluded that the 

‘‘the children’s responses to the questions of why they left... were as complex as 

the children themselves.’’ The reasons most frequently cited by children—even by 

those who had a parent or family member with whom they wished to reunite—were 

domestic abuse within the home, gang and cartel violence, deprivation of basic survival necessities, and labor and sex trafficking.5 Violence and destabilization in 

these countries has grown in recent years due to the strength of transnational criminal actors (including gangs).6 In many cases, State actors are unwilling or unable 

to stem the violence. 

UNHCR found that the majority of the children made statements indicating that 

they may well be in need of international protection. Children who migrate without 

an accompanying parent or guardian face a harrowing journey, during which they 

are often targeted for theft, sexual abuse, and abduction.7 Some may be lured by 
34 

false promises from smugglers or local media touting U.S. policies that do not exist 

or that cannot benefit them. But the root causes that make these children desperate 

to leave their home countries and seek a safe haven are indisputable. Given the severity of conditions in Mexico and these Central American nations, it would not be 

accurate to attribute the surge in child migration to any specific circumstances in 

the United States or actions taken by the U.S. Government. 

The dramatic increase in the influx of UACs on the Southwest Border has raised 

speculation as to its cause, including accusations that DHS’s Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative or perceived weaknesses in the enforcement 

system have drawn more children to our borders. However, no one arriving in the 

United States after June 15, 2007 would even qualify for the DACA initiative, and 

it is well-known that human smugglers and traffickers spread rumors about nonexistent immigration benefits, new laws, and opportunities to encourage people to 

make the journey to the United States. Such misinformation should be counteracted 

with better public information campaigns by the Government and credible non-Governmental organizations. 

Claims that the President’s enforcement policies are insufficiently robust ignore 

the overwhelming evidence that immigration enforcement has reached unprecedented levels under this administration. By early 2014, DHS will have removed 2 

million people during the course of the Obama administration, at a time when net 

migration to the United States from Mexico is at or near zero and border crossings 

are at a 40-year low. Immigration detention rates continue to rise and now total 

about 430,000 individuals each year, at a cost of $2 billion annually to American 

taxpayers. Federal criminal prosecutions of immigration-related offenses are at the 

highest point in history—up 468 percent from fiscal year 2003. The border is more 

secure than ever. Increased manpower, infrastructure, and technology on the border 

have resulted in heightened enforcement with record numbers. As a result, removals 

are happening more quickly than ever, often at the expense of due process. In 75 

percent of all removals, DHS relied on summary procedures that allow enforcement 

agents to bypass the immigration court system. 

Even more severe detention and deportation practices are not likely to change the 

desperate behavior of those fleeing from the violence, instability, and poor conditions 

in the sending countries. The current humanitarian crisis will only be solved when 

those factors are lessened, when gang violence is not an overriding fear, and when 

abuse and trafficking are not ever-present. Therefore, while the administration has 

taken important steps to provide necessary international assistance, its announced 

‘‘surge’’ in resources to expand its capacity to detain families—including women and 

young children—is an inappropriate response. The announcement is particularly 

troubling given the recent history of family detention. In 2009, the administration 

ended the detention of immigrant families at the T. Don Hutto detention facility due 

to inhumane conditions and abuses. Revisiting this failed experiment would be a 

step backward. For families that cannot be released, alternatives to detention are 

extremely effective, far more humane and cost-effective than institutional detention, 

and would preserve America’s core commitment to the protection of families. Moreover, a harsher system would undermine or even violate long-standing U.S. obligations to protect children and other vulnerable individuals and would greatly diminish America’s status as a humanitarian leader. 

U.S. PRINCIPLES ON PROTECTION

Welcoming and protecting the vulnerable and those fleeing persecution is a deeply-rooted American value that has defined our country since its founding and is 

firmly established in our laws. In 1968, the United States acceded to the 1967 U.N. 

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which extends the obligation of nonrefoulement, or the duty not to return a refugee to a country where there is a risk 

that his or her life or freedom would be threatened on the basis of certain grounds— 

an obligation that was first enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status 

of Refugees. Additionally, the United States is bound under the U.N. Convention 

Against Torture not to return an individual to a country where the person would 

likely face torture. In 1980, the United States enacted the Refugee Act to bring its 

laws into compliance with international law and has continued to be a leader in the 

area of asylum and refugee protections internationally. 

The United States also has specific protocols for the treatment and protection of 

children that are guided both by U.S. immigration law and child welfare principles. 

Unaccompanied immigrant children are a highly-vulnerable population given their 

age, lack of English language skills, and the severe trauma many experienced before 

or after arriving in the United States. Significant numbers of these children may 

have been trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked. They commonly exhibit a com-
35 

8 ‘‘OMB: Child migrants to cost U.S. $2.3 billion’’ May 31, 2014. http://www.politico.com/ 

story/2014/05/omb-child-migrants-107284.html#ixzz34XLyaHHV. 

bination of physical, emotional, and other trauma symptoms and urgently need intensive case management services, such as counseling, medical care, and access to 

legal services while in custody. 

Since the 1990s, the United States has followed guidelines that were established 

following the 1993 Supreme Court case, Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). These 

protocols govern the detention, release, and repatriation of UACs and require that 

there be adequate food, drinking water, and bathroom facilities as well as proper 

medical care for those in custody. Importantly, children are required to be separated 

from unrelated adults when held in custody and should be transferred to facilities 

more appropriate for juveniles, such as foster care homes, within 3 to 5 days. 

In recognition of the vulnerability of child migrants, Congress passed several laws 

intended to protect UACs in Government custody: In 1990, Congress amended the 

Immigration and Nationality Act and created a special form of protection called 

‘‘Special Immigrant Juvenile’’ status for abused, neglected, or abandoned children 

who are in the custody and care of a State or agency and who cannot be reunified 

with their parents. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) tasked the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) with the apprehension, transfer, and repatriation of UACs and the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement 

(ORR) with their long-term custody, care, and placement. Upon apprehension, UACs 

from countries other than Mexico are placed into removal proceedings. While these 

proceedings are pending, they remain in ORR custody until a parent, legal guardian, or other suitable custodian can be found. The William Wilberforce Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) requires that CBP transfer 

custody of UACs from countries other than Mexico or Canada to ORR within 72 

hours, barring exceptional circumstances. For children from Mexico or Canada, the 

TVPRA requires that they be screened to determine whether they have a fear of 

persecution or have been trafficked. If they have not, and are determined to have 

made an independent decision to return, children from Mexico or Canada are returned across the border and are not taken into ORR custody. 

For the past 2 decades, the existing system has managed an influx of between 

5,000 to 20,000 UACs each year with numbers steadily rising since 2011. In response to the more dramatic increase in 2014, this spring the administration initiated a coordinated and comprehensive response to the crisis. First, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security declared a Level IV condition of readiness—the highest level of 

contingency planning within DHS, through which DHS personnel can be reassigned 

to assist in the emergency. The President then directed an interagency Unified Coordination Group to address the situation. Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate was appointed as the Federal Coordinating Official. 

On May 30, the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a letter 

to the leaders of both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees showing 

that the projected costs of caring for and resettling child migrants from Central 

America could reach $2.28 billion next year—well over double what the administration asked for in its fiscal year 2015 budget.8 On June 10, the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education indicated 

that it would increase funding for the UAC program by $1.03 billion in fiscal year 

2015, bringing the total funding proposal to $1.94 billion. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

While the United States has made great strides in the last 20 years, the protection regime is still inadequate to meet the needs of those it is designed to safeguard. 

More must be done to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. The United 

States can strengthen its overall protection regime, not only for UACs but for everyone who comes to our country seeking protection. 

• Ensure that children and other vulnerable populations are not exploited or 

abused in custody.—While DHS has taken steps to shorten the length of time 

children spend in detention and improve the care and treatment of children, reports of abuse at the hands of agents and officers persist. On June 11, 2014, 

a group of civil, immigrant, and human rights organizations filed an administrative complaint on behalf of 116 children who had reported abuse and mis-
36 

9 Complaint to DHS OCRCL and OIG by National Immigrant Justice Center, Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Florence Immigrant and Refugee 

Rights Project and the ACLU Border Litigation Project. http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/ 

immigrantjustice.org/files/FINAL%20DHS%20Complaint%20re%20CBP%20Abuse%20of%- 

20UICs%202014%2006%2011.pdf. 10 American Immigration Council. ‘‘No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse’’ May 2014. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/noaction-taken-lack-cbp-accountability-responding-complaints-abuse. 11 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz & Philip Schrag, Refugee Roulette: Disparities in 

Asylum Adjudication, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 295, 340–41 (2007). 

treatment while in CBP custody.9 The complaint includes reports that children 

were shackled, subjected to inhumane detention conditions, had inadequate access to medical care, and were verbally, sexually, and physically abused. 

This complaint follows a long history of reported abuse and highlights an urgent 

need to address the detention of children and other vulnerable populations. A 

report by the American Immigration Council shows over 800 complaints received by CBP from 2009–2012, including reports of inhumane detention, physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, including some by minors.10 AILA recognizes 

that most officers and agents perform their jobs professionally and do not engage in abuses. However, the administration should take these complaints seriously to ensure that the culture at CBP does not accept abuse. Abuse at the 

hands of immigration officers and agents compounds the trauma and abuse that 

many of these children have already suffered. Greater oversight and accountability is needed for CBP as it encounters and interacts with children, many 

of whom have fled violence and persecution in their home countries and are in 

the aftermath of a dangerous journey here. Short-term detention facilities must 

also be regulated and improved as they are the first stop for the children in the 

process. • Ensure adequate access to legal orientation programs and counsel.—Children 

who are in detention should be given information about their rights, the U.S. 

immigration system, opportunities for relief, and the complaint process. Such 

orientation should be provided in a language and manner that is meaningful 

and age-appropriate to the child, and can be understood. Adequate funding and 

training should be in place so that each child is screened for vulnerabilities such 

as risk for trafficking as mandated. 

Unaccompanied alien children, like other indigent persons appearing in removal 

proceedings, have no right to legal counsel paid for by Government. This compounds their vulnerability as they move through our Nation’s complicated removal system. For asylum seekers, the lack of legal counsel contributes to the 

immigration court backlog, and to the prolonged state of uncertainty for many 

seeking protection in the United States. Six out of ten individuals, including 

asylum seekers, children, and mentally-ill respondents, appear before immigration courts without legal counsel. Children, even those who survived trauma or 

persecution or live in fear of return, are left to navigate our laws and to present 

their claims without any legal assistance when representation by an attorney 

is the ‘‘single most important factor’’ affecting the result in an asylum case.11

Adequate consideration and resources should be given to facilitate the representation of asylum-seekers in immigration court. 

AILA welcomes the announcement this month by the Department of Justice and 

the Corporation for National and Community Service of a new AmeriCorps partnership that will create 100 positions for AmeriCorps members to provide legal 

services and paralegal services to UACs in immigration courts starting next 

year. Planning for this program preceded the current crisis and will not likely 

be up and running until next year. For that reason it is unlikely to help resolve 

the immediate humanitarian crisis of migrant children. • Strengthen the U.S. protection regime.—Core to America’s leadership on the 

world stage is the strength and generosity of our humanitarian protections. 

Nonetheless, in many ways, our protections do not go far enough. Screening for 

trafficking, fear of persecution, and other vulnerabilities needs to be improved 

including through improvements in training, oversight, and redress procedures, 

particularly of CBP Officers and agents who play the critical role as the first 

contact for individuals coming to U.S. borders. 

In response to the current crisis, some are calling for more rapid procedures to 

deport those who come. Any changes that further curtail due process would be a 

mistake as they are likely to jeopardize meaningful access to asylum and other humanitarian relief for children and families. Already DHS has dramatically increased 

the use of expedited removal and other summary removal procedures for those apprehended in the wide swath of land considered the border region. These procedures 
37 

1This testimony has also been submitted to the House Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs. 2Women’s Refugee Commission, Forced from Home: The Lost Girls and Boys of Central America, 2012. http://womensrefugeecommission.org/component/docman/?task=docldownload&- 

gid=844. 3 UNHCR Report, ‘‘Children on the run: Unaccompanied children leaving Central America and 

Mexico and the need for international protection.’’ May 2014. http://www.unhcrwashington.org/ 

sites/default/files/UAClChildren%20on%20the%20RunlFull%20ReportlMay2014.pdf. 4 Id, http://unhcrwashington.org/children. 5 Id. 

6 CBP Border Patrol Statistics. http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children. 7 ‘‘Obama creates group to help border crossing kids’’ June 2, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/ 

story/news/nation/2014/06/02/obama-immigration-group-undocumented-children-border/ 

9876003/. 

hinder meaningful access to present claims and to seek eligible relief. The United 

States cannot compromise humanitarian principles and must ensure that children 

and families who come are given an opportunity to present their case before an asylum officer or an immigration judge. 

The solution to this humanitarian crisis will require a comprehensive and coordinated effort by the U.S. Government, foreign governments, and international and 

domestic non-governmental organizations. These steps will take time to develop and 

implement. In the mean time the United States cannot compromise its long-standing commitment to humanitarian principles including the protection of refugees and 

child welfare in the hope of finding a quick solution to a complex problem. In the 

past decade, other nations with fewer resources, such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have responded to huge migrations of people fleeing war or violence. The United 

States has called upon these and other nations to respect and honor their obligations to protect those who are vulnerable. Now is not the time for the United States 

to back away from its own principles. 

STATEMENT OF THE WOMEN’S REFUGEE COMMISSION 1

JUNE 24, 2014 

CURRENT HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

Since 2011, the Women’s Refugee Commission has been closely monitoring the increasing number of refugee children coming to the United States to seek protection. 

Through our research, we concluded over 2 years ago that the United States would 

continue to receive more vulnerable migrants from Central America due to the regional humanitarian crisis born from the rapid growth in crime, violence, and poverty that has affected Mexico and several Central American countries for many 

years.2 As we predicted, without major changes in U.S. aid or foreign policy to the 

Central American region, the danger to children and families with young children 

would only increase and more and more vulnerable populations would need to flee 

their homes. Unfortunately, our predictions rang true, and the United States, along 

with other countries in the region with a strong rule of law, has experienced a surge 

of refugees seeking protection on our territories. The United States, along with Panama, Belize, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica are experiencing a surge in people seeking 

protection and are faced with many challenges in ensuring the protection of these 

large numbers of children.3 The number of asylum claims in the entire region has 

increased by 712%.4

Beginning in October 2011, the United States has experienced a dramatic rise in 

unaccompanied alien children (UACs), particularly from the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The number of unaccompanied children apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) jumped from 17,775 in fiscal 

year 2011 to 41,890 in fiscal year 2013.5 For the fiscal year 2014, beginning October 

1, 2013 up through May 31, 2014, CBP has already apprehended 47,017 unaccompanied children just in the Southwest Border sectors alone.6 Particularly concerning 

is that the children making the difficult and treacherous migration journey are now 

younger than in years past (many under 13), and a higher percentage are girls, 

many of whom arrive pregnant as a result of sexual violence.7

WHY THEY ARE COMING

There has been a great deal of research into the root causes of this surge of unaccompanied children fleeing the region. In 2012 we interviewed 161 children to find 

out why they were coming. In our interviews, the children reported to us that they 
38 

8 USCCB, Mission to Central America: the Flight of Unaccompanied Children to the United 

States, November 2013. http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf 9 UNHCR, ‘‘Children on the Run’’. 

were predominately being pushed from their homes due to rising violence and insecurity in their home countries. Moreover, almost every single child we spoke with 

reported having a good understanding of the dangers of trying to migrate through 

Mexico and into the United States without authorization. They knew of the risks 

of kidnapping, rape, and even death. The children we spoke with told us they felt 

like they would die if they stayed in their home country, and although they might 

die during the journey, they at least would have a chance. 

In 2013, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops traveled to Central America to 

interview children who had tried to migrate to the United States. Their report reaffirmed our findings that violence in the three countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, 

and Honduras was the overriding factor leading to the migration of these children.8

One mother they spoke with told them that she knew her son might die on his journey to the United States but she preferred that he die trying to find safety, then 

on her doorstep. 

Most recently, in 2014, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) interviewed over 400 children who had left their homes countries. Most 

children—even those who had a parent or family member with whom they wished 

to reunite—cited domestic abuse within the home, gang and cartel violence, deprivation of basic survival necessities, and labor and sex trafficking as the reasons for 

their migration.9 Most significantly, UNHCR found that the majority of the children 

made statements indicating that they may be in need of international protection. 

There have been numerous reports and claims by Government authorities that 

many of these children or the family members who may try to help them migrate 

are being encouraged to undertake the dangerous journey by false promises from 

smugglers or inaccurate media reporting on U.S. policies that do not exist or that 

cannot benefit them. But it is impossible for us to dispute the root causes that make 

these children desperate to leave their home countries and seek a safe haven. No 

child or parent would agree to pay a dangerous smuggler to take a young child on 

such a harrowing journey if they did not feel it was the only option. No promise 

of a tenuous and temporary status in the United States, such as administrative closure or Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA), would encourage someone to 

risk their lives, or risk the lives of their child. It is the underlying severe conditions 

in Mexico and these Central American nations that is forcing this migration pattern, not the lure of intangible reform. 

Furthermore, the facts do not support that rumors or U.S. policy with respect to 

these populations is what is encouraging the migration. Nicaragua is the poorest 

country in the region. At the same time Nicaragua, like El Salvador, Honduras, and 

Guatemala, has a history of migration to the United States, resulting in many Nicaraguan children having family members in the United States. Yet, we have not seen 

any increase in the number of Nicaraguan children arriving at the Southern Border. 

The difference is that Nicaragua, as one of the safest countries in the region, is not 

experiencing the violence that is driving children from its three neighbors. 

THE U.S. DETENTION AND TREATMENT OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

The United States has been a global leader in the way it has received and processed unaccompanied children seeking protection. Since 2002, in accordance with 

international protection standards, the U.S. Government has employed alternative 

models of detention for most children arriving on our shores who are waiting for 

adjudication of their immigration court processes. As noted in our 2008 report, Halfway Home, we believe the Government’s movement to more child-appropriate custody models was an important advancement in the rights of these children and an 

effective way to enforce our immigration laws. Although not a perfect system, ORR 

shelters and programs have strived to ensure the Government considers the best interest of the child in detention, placement, and reunification decisions for the time 

a child is in deportation proceedings. 

In recent months, the Government’s intricate system of shelters, foster homes, 

and secure detention facilities has been overwhelmed by the numbers of children in 

need. In response, the Government has modified its procedures to meet the goal of 

appropriate detention and care of these children. Despite its best intentions, ORR 

has been unable to keep up with the demand on its resources. As a result we have 

seen children warehoused in border facilities that were never intended to hold children for any length of time until more appropriate arrangements can be made. We 
39 

10 Complaint to DHS OCRCL and OIG by National Immigrant Justice Center, Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Florence Immigrant and Refugee 

Rights Project and the ACLU Border Litigation Project. http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/ 

immigrantjustice.org/files/FINAL%20DHS%20Complaint%20re%20CBP%20Abuse%20of%- 

20UICs%202014%2006%2011.pdf 11For more information on the use of family detention in the United States and the T. Don 

Hutto facility conditions see ‘‘Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families’’, 

Women’s Refuge Commission and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 2007. http:// 

wrc.ms/Ye9KnE. 

have seen our Customs and Border Protection Agents, who have no special training 

on how to work with traumatized children, working overtime to screen and care for 

these children instead of carrying out other pressing law enforcement duties. 

In our research, we have interviewed hundreds of children who have reported 

mistreatment, abuse, or neglect at the hands of U.S. Government officials during 

their detention. The most striking thing about these interviews is that despite unacceptable treatment, these children almost always remind us that they are still 

thankful to be in a country where they might have a future. Most recently, in June 

2014, a group of civil, immigrant, and human rights organizations filed an administrative complaint on behalf of 116 children who had reported abuse and mistreatment while in CBP custody.10 The complaint includes reports that children were 

shackled, subjected to inhumane detention conditions, had inadequate access to 

medical care, and were verbally, sexually, and physically abused. Additionally, a recent FOIA by the Houston Chronicle identified more than 100 incidents of sexual 

abuse of children in ORR shelters that were never referred for further criminal investigation. The numerous reports and complaints of abuse of children in immigration custody highlight a need to address the oversight of places of detention where 

children are held. 

The United States must remember that severe detention conditions have never 

been a deterrent against unauthorized migration anywhere in the world. Holding 

children in Border Patrol stations for up to 2 weeks and denying them adequate nutrition or recreation only serves to harm them, not dissuade more from coming. 

Harsh detention or deportation proceedings will not stop this migration flow, it will 

only violate long-standing U.S. protections afforded to children and other vulnerable 

migrants and greatly diminish America’s status as a humanitarian leader. 

U.S. DETENTION AND TREATMENT OF MIGRANT AND ASYLUM-SEEKING FAMILIES

Not all children arriving at the border are unaccompanied. Children also come to 

the United States with their parents. Since 2012, the number of families arriving 

at the Southern Border of the United States has increased significantly. They are 

fleeing the same violence driving the unaccompanied children. 

The vast majority of families arriving at the border are made up of women with 

very young children. Almost all are asylum seekers fleeing violence, including gang 

violence, organized crime, and domestic violence. Just like unaccompanied children, 

the majority of families come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The 

journey for these families, just like that for unaccompanied children, is extremely 

perilous. The Women’s Refugee Commission has interviewed hundreds of women in 

detention, and the women we have spoken to universally tell us that they were well 

aware of the risks before fleeing their homes. No mother makes that trip with her 

young children or baby unless she feels she has no other choice. 

In 2001, as part of the overall increase in immigration enforcement and in an effort to deter family migration, the United States began detaining families, first at 

a converted nursing home in Leesport, PA and later at a prison in Taylor, Texas. 

In 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stopped using that prison— 

the by then notorious T. Don Hutto facility—to detain families after a firestorm of 

opposition11 and a lawsuit that was filed by the ACLU and University of Texas. 

When the Women’s Refugee Commission visited Hutto, we found conditions that 

were wholly inappropriate for children and families and in violation of the Flores 

Settlement Agreement governing the immigration detention and custody of children. 

As documented in our 2007 report on family detention, ‘‘Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families,’’ young children at Hutto were clothed 

in prison jumpsuits and had catatonic expressions on their faces. Mothers were 

brought to tears by the simple question, ‘‘How are you?’’ Families slept in freezing 

cold prison cells, next to toilets without a privacy curtain to separate the sleeping 

and hygiene areas. The families were confined to their cells for up to 12 hours a 

day. Children received only 1 hour of education a day, and were only allowed to go 

outside for short periods of time—on the days guards were in the mood. Pregnant 
40 

women were denied adequate access to medical care and did not have enough food 

to eat. 

Perhaps most disturbing was the fundamental breakdown in family structure that 

detention created. Guards would threaten parents that if they didn’t keep their children in line, the family would be separated. Parents turned to strict discipline to 

make sure their children behaved—leading children to react with anger at their parents and eroding trust that their parents were able to take care of them. 

It would have been prohibitively costly and all but impossible for ICE to retrofit 

the facility to make it suitable for children. The Government’s only realistic option 

for complying with the terms of the Hutto Settlement was to close the facility for 

families. In doing so, DHS acknowledged that it is extremely difficult and costly to 

detain families in a manner that is appropriate for children and complies with U.S. 

and international law. Contrary to concerns at the time, family arrivals did not increase after this shift in policy. The increase in arrivals did not begin until 3 years 

later when conditions of violence in Central America became more pronounced. 

Following the closure of Hutto to families, ICE continued to detain families at the 

Berks Family Residential Facility in Leesport, Pennsylvania. This facility, which 

has been renovated to meet the unique needs of this population, has the capacity 

to house 96 individuals. In addition, ICE uses a variety of alternatives to detention 

for families, including supervised release, bond, and parole. Both the Berks facility 

and the use of Alternatives to Detention meet the terms of the Flores Settlement 

Agreement, which sets out National policy for the detention, release, and treatment 

of all children who are in the custody of DHS. Flores requires DHS to place children 

in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the children’s needs pending the outcome of their immigration removal case. 

All families who are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or 

ICE receive Notices to Appear. Those who are not in custody, including those who 

are in Alternatives to Detention, are required to check in with ICE regularly, and 

to appear in immigration court. Despite reports of rumors that families who arrive 

in the United States are given a free pass (or a ‘‘permiso’’) to enter and stay, every 

family who is apprehended is required to appear in immigration court and is formally placed in removal proceedings. 

Alternatives to detention have been shown to be 96% effective in ensuring appearance in immigration proceedings. They are also significantly less expensive than detention, and far more appropriate for families with children. Families should be accorded special consideration befitting their unique vulnerabilities and circumstances. We are deeply concerned by the Government’s recent announcement 

that it will drastically expand the detention of families and will expedite the processing of asylum cases. These policies endanger the well-being of children and families and present a risk that families with legitimate claims to asylum and other 

forms of protection will be summarily returned to countries where their lives are 

at risk. As history demonstrates, the detention of families and the denial of their 

basic human rights is inhumane, costly, and harmful to the well-being of children. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The United States has long been a global leader in the promotion of human rights 

and the provision of protection for those fleeing persecution. Not only have we led 

by example in the past, we also hold others accountable to receive refugees in times 

of crisis. Now is the time to reaffirm and stand by our principles. The solution to 

this humanitarian crisis will require a comprehensive and coordinated effort by the 

U.S. Government, foreign governments, and international and domestic non-governmental organizations. While this is being implemented, the United States must not 

compromise its long-standing commitment to humanitarian principles, including the 

protection of refugees and child welfare, in the hope of finding a quick solution. 

We have the tools we need. The answer is not to turn on our backs on those arriving. Rather we must address root causes to prevent vulnerable populations from 

having to make the difficult decision to flee their homes and at the same time treat 

migrants humanely and support our infrastructure to process cases through our immigration court efficiently and fairly so that those who need protection receive it. 

Foreign Assistance 

• Address root causes of this migration flow by investing in development, justice, 

and accountability programs in the three countries from which the majority of 

children and families are coming. 

• Conduct repatriations in a safe manner and support reintegration programming 

so that children and families are not just thrust back into the same dangerous 

situations that forced them to flee in the first place. 
41 

• Partner with countries in the region to crack down on traffickers and smugglers 

who are preying upon migrants and bringing many of the children and families 

across the border. 

• Provide support to governments in the region who are also receiving migrants 

in order to strengthen and implement internationally compliant protection systems. 

Emergency Shelters and Detention 

• Ensure that detention facilities used for immigration compliance purposes are 

only used as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. Any detention facilities used to house adults with children must be equipped to handle the 

unique needs of this population and must comply with the Flores Settlement 

Agreement, the Family Residential Standards, and relevant terms of the Hutto 

Settlement Agreement. 

• Expand the use of cost-effective alternatives to detention, including community 

support programs, for families and other adult migrants. Alternatives to detention, such as community support programs, electronic monitoring and ankle 

bracelets, have been proven to be 96% effective in ensuring that people appear 

for their immigration hearings and comply with court orders. 

• Ensure that no one is exploited or abused in custody. CBP should immediately 

create public, enforceable standards for its short-term hold facilities; PREA and 

all relevant custody standards and protections must be fully implemented in 

ALL DHS and HHS custodial situations; DHS and HHS should allow civil society to regularly and thoroughly monitor conditions in their facilities, including 

emergency and short-term facilities. 

• Ensure that all persons in immigration custody are given information about 

their rights, the U.S. immigration system, opportunities for relief, and the complaint process. For unaccompanied children, such orientation should be provided 

in a language and manner that is meaningful and age-appropriate to the child, 

and can be understood. 

• Ensure that Know Your Rights presentations or Legal Orientation Presentation 

Programs (LOP) are available in all facilities housing child, families, or adults, 

including short-term and emergency facilities. 

• HHS must provide resources to adult sponsors of all released children so that 

they are aware of their obligations and can ensure that children comply with 

immigration court requirements. Some children may have relief under current 

immigration law and others may be returned to their home country after full 

proceedings that respect due process. 

• HHS should expand post-relief services to ensure that children who are released 

to families or sponsors are safe and appear in immigration proceedings. Like 

alternatives to detention, post-relief services are more cost-effective and more 

humane than detention, and serve to ensure compliance with court proceedings. 

Immigration Courts and Protection Mechanisms 

• Provide sufficient funds and support to effectively resource immigration courts 

and asylum officers to eliminate the backlog and process cases effectively, efficiently, and fairly. Adequate funding and training should be in place so that all 

children and their parents receive screening for international protection concerns. 

• Afford everyone seeking refuge in this country full protection under U.S. and 

international law. There should be no exceptions for any child, family, or refugee seeking protection. Ensure due process and a meaningful opportunity to 

access protection mechanisms. Screenings must take into account the traumatic 

experiences of those fleeing. In many cases, people fleeing rape, abuse, and 

other violence are too traumatized to recount intimate details, particularly if 

they are still in detention. Expedited screenings must not become a tool to repatriate people back to dangerous situations. 

• Maintain and improve upon the protections currently extended to children, families, and other migrants seeking asylum seekers and other forms of protection 

to ensure that migrants with legitimate claims are not returned to violence and 

abuse. The United States’ threshold for protection is already in many ways less 

welcoming and protective than international standards. The United States must 

ensure that any new attempts to expedite removals do not further erode these 

protections. This crisis provides an opportunity to strengthen our overall protection regime, not only for unaccompanied children and families, but for everyone 

who comes to our country seeking protection. 

• Support and expand the provision of legal assistance for children, including 

both appointed counsel and the facilitation of pro bono representation through 
42 

the private sector. The provision of attorneys for these children will make the 

system more efficient and effective, and ensure that more children comply with 

proceedings. Children with attorneys are more likely to appear for their court 

dates than children without as they have help understanding the system and 

learning what relief they may or may not be eligible for. Child advocate or 

guardian ad litem programs are also critically important for the most vulnerable children. • Adequate consideration and resources should be given to facilitate the representation of children and adults in immigration court through support of pro-bono 

representation programs. 

Reform our immigration laws 

• Pass comprehensive immigration reform that puts migrants in the United 

States on a pathway to citizenship and reduces backlogs and waiting times in 

the family visa process that encourages unlawful migration. • Include in any reform package a mechanism by which parents who are eligible 

for a legalization program can bring their children to join them in a safe, lawful, 

and timely manner. 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY HON. SHIELA JACKSON LEE

YOUNG MIGRANTS STUCK IN LIMBO ON MEXICAN BORDER

By Joshua Partlow and Nick Miroff, June 20, 2014. 

Brayan Duvan Soler Redondo, a 14-year-old Honduran boy, overlooking the Rio 

Grande. He is staying at a migrant shelter in Reynosa. He is traveling alone and 

trying to get to the United States to find work to help his family. (Joshua Partlow/ 

The Washington Post) 

REYNOSA, Mexico.—Susanna Torres was a dimple-cheeked preteen living lonely 

with her stepmother in El Salvador—her father had disappeared, her mother was 

on Long Island, N.Y.—when she hatched her plan. 

For three years, she secretly socked away the money her mom sent for school 

until she had $6,000. It was enough to hire a smuggler and join the underground 

network of buses and train tops, through jungles and deserts. 

She had one thing in mind when she left in her freshman year of high school to 

travel 1,400 miles north to the United States by herself. 

‘‘I wanted to be with my mom,’’ she said. 
43 

Instead, she found herself on the banks of the Rio Grande in early June, too exhausted to walk on. She ended up behind coils of razor wire in a home for child 

migrants run by the Mexican government, watching ‘‘Ice Age’’ on DVD as she waited 

to be deported. 

Sudden surge in unaccompanied children at border 

As migrants stream north from Central America, thousands of children such as 

Susanna are ending up alone and adrift in a border-land limbo. On the U.S. side, 

they are being crammed into Border Patrol stations designed to detain and deport 

single males, not provide food and care for third-graders without their parents. On 

the Mexican side, they are bunking down in the rough world of church shelters, surrounded by sunburned men heading north for work or reeling from deportation. 

‘‘Right now I’m small, but I’ve heard they’re giving minors the opportunity to 

work in the U.S.,’’ said Brayan Duvan Soler Redondo, a 14-year-old Honduran boy 

who has spent the past two weeks alone in a shelter here in Reynosa. ‘‘I have to 

trust in God to get me to the other side.’’ 

The surge of juveniles across the Rio Grande in south Texas is a new challenge 

for U.S. immigration policy and the debate in Washington about whether to change 

it. Although the overall number of illegal migrants arrested along the southern U.S. 

border is still far lower than the 900,000 per year or more apprehended before 2006, 

U.S. agents are ill-equipped to deal with so many Central Americans, let alone children. 

In the past, border cities on the Mexico side have been more likely to have large 

groups of deportees on their streets—not child travelers on their way north—as illegal immigration from Mexico plummeted to its lowest levels in 40 years. Shelters 

became filled with anxious fathers kicked out of the United States, desperate to 

swim the river or hike the desert at night to get back to jobs, wives and U.S.-born 

children. 

The children and mothers coming now from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are different. In many cases, they appear to be heading north to reunite with 

parents or husbands already in the United States. Some are being summoned by 

relatives because of rumors that the United States is offering ‘‘permits’’ for women 

and children to stay. The children, as young as 4, often arrive with no legal guardian but carry handwritten notes for the Border Patrol with relatives’ phone numbers. 

To avoid the sweltering Texas heat, the border-crossers are fording the Rio 

Grande in large groups in the early evening, wading through shallow crossings or 

floating over in cheap dinghies. They follow dirt paths through cottonwood groves 

up to the levee roads where Border Patrol vehicles are parked every night, waiting. 

‘‘Sometimes they’ll come right up and knock on your windows,’’ said Chris Cabrera, 

an agent and Border Patrol union spokesman. 

On one recent evening, a group of 15, including a woman with a baby strapped 

to her back and seven other children, emerged from the brush and climbed up the 

levee. They waited on the gravel road for the Border Patrol trucks to arrive, making 

no attempt to flee or hide. 
44 

The U.S. government is giving rare access inside the facilities where thousands 

of unaccompanied immigrant children are being held after they were caught crossing the border from Mexico. (AP) 

‘‘Are there any unaccompanied minors?’’ one border patrol agent asked in Spanish, 

as he took down names and nationalities. ‘‘Who came alone?’’ 

A thin boy in an Aeropostale T-shirt raised his hand. 

More children are on their way. A draft of an internal Border Patrol memo for 

the White House from last month estimated that the number of unaccompanied minors detained by the border patrol will reach 90,000 this year, higher than expected, 

and rise to 142,000 next year. President Obama has declared a humanitarian crisis 

and pledged $2 billion to build temporary housing for the new migrants. Thousands 

of unaccompanied children picked up by Border Patrol are being held on military 

bases and in converted warehouses if they don’t have parents or guardians who can 

claim them. 

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) requested $30 million from the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday to send more law enforcement officers to 

the border, because children have ‘‘so overwhelmed the U.S. Border Patrol that federal agents are devoting time and resources to the humanitarian aspects of the influx, and are not available to secure the border and successfully stop criminal activity,’’ his office said in a statement. 

For those detained by Mexican authorities before they reach the United States, 

many will be deported. Some of these children await removal at the Attention Center for Border Minors, a government-run shelter in Reynosa, where as many as 400 

children arrive each month. 

‘‘The majority of their parents are already in the United States. That’s the main 

reason the children are coming,’’ said Jose ́ Guadalupe Villegas Garcı ́a, the organization’s director, who said he thinks U.S. immigration rules have gone lax. ‘‘This was 

something President Obama ordered.’’ 

Maynor Delgado, a 16-year-old from Guatemala, has spent 84 days at the shelter, 

watching TV and making bracelets to pass the time, calling his family on Fridays, 

unsure whether he will be deported or released. ‘‘I don’t know how my papers are,’’ 

he said. 

His parents gave him $7,000 to pay a guide and join five others—none of them 

relatives—on the journey from his home town of Quetzaltenango, an 11-day trek by 

taxi, train and bus, with stays at crowded stash houses and campsites, eating occasionally and sleeping on the ground. He has an older brother in Washington and 

wanted to join him to help support his parents. 

‘‘My family is poor. My mom washes clothes,’’ he said. ‘‘I’ll do whatever I can 

find.’’ 

On his journey north, Brayan, the Honduran boy, parted ways with his elder 

brother after a fight over money. Left on his own, Brayan said he begged for food 

and rides along the way, until he arrived at a church in Reynosa, and eventually 

to Path of Life, a private migrant shelter. ‘‘I’m traveling with empty pockets,’’ he 

said, patting his shorts. ‘‘Zero.’’ 

He has no money to pay for a guide across the river and is afraid to venture out 

into city streets controlled by the kidnapping and drug-trafficking cartel. 

‘‘I have no idea how long I’m going to be here,’’ he said. 

Susanna Torres’s mother, Rosa, a 39-year-old nursing-home employee in Huntington, Long Island, didn’t know until she received a phone call this month from 

the Mexican shelter that her daughter was traveling to find her. ‘‘I had no idea,’’ 

she said. ‘‘I was very worried.’’ 

She has talked with a lawyer about her daughter’s chances of being with her and 

her two other children in the United States but was told it’s a ‘‘slow process.’’ 

‘‘I want to be with my daughter, but there’s nothing I can do,’’ she said. ‘‘To be 

with your kids is the most important thing in life. I only ask God that he protects 

her.’’ 

David Nakamura in Washington contributed to this report. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. O’Rourke from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also ask 

unanimous consent to submit for the record a statement from the 

First Focus Campaign for Children regarding the issue facing migrant children and families. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 
45 

1Southwest Border Unaccompanied Children, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (April, 

2014) http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children. 2 Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central American and Mexico and 

the Need for International Protection, UNHCR (2014). 3 Julia Preston, New U.S. Effort to Aid Unaccompanied Child Migrants, New York Times, 

June 2, 2014 Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/politics/new-us-effort-toaid-unaccompanied-child-migrants.html?lr=1. 4 Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central American and Mexico and 

the Need for International Protection, UNHCR (2014). 5 Unaccompanied Alien Children Report Serious Abuses by U.S. Officials During Detention. 

American Civil Liberties Union, June 11, 2014. Available at: https://www.aclu.org/immigrantsrights/unaccompanied-immigrant-children-report-serious-abuse-us-officials-during. 

STATEMENT OF FIRST FOCUS CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN

JUNE 24, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the Committee 

on Homeland Security, we thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement 

for the record for this hearing entitled ‘‘Dangerous Passage: The Growing Problem 

of Unaccompanied Children Crossing the Border.’’ 

The First Focus Campaign for Children is a bipartisan advocacy organization 

dedicated to making children and families a priority in Federal policy and budget 

decisions. As an organization dedicated to promoting the safety and well-being of 

all children in the United States, we urge Congress to work towards finding comprehensive solutions to address the Central American child migration crisis that 

prioritizes the best interest of the child and addresses both the immediate needs of 

the children who have recently entered the United States as well as the root causes 

of their forced migration. 

There is no doubt that the recent influx of unaccompanied children across the 

Southern Border represents a humanitarian crisis. Recent data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals that since October 1, 2013, 47,017 children have entered the United States, with the majority coming from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala and a significant increase in the number of girls 

and young children.1 2 According to a recent report by the U.N. High Commissioner 

for Refugees (UNHCR), the majority of the children are escaping extreme violence 

and instability in their home countries, spurred by drug traffickers and increased 

gang activity.3 While some children are also motivated by domestic abuse, extreme 

poverty, high unemployment rates and hopes of reunifying with family members in 

the United States, the vast majority are fleeing desperate situations which force 

both youth and their families to make the very difficult decision to stay and accept 

near certain death or risk ‘‘probable death’’ by migrating to surrounding countries. 

On their arduous and dangerous journey, many children fall victim to trafficking, 

sexual abuse, and violence. In fact, UNHCR estimates that nearly two-thirds of the 

unaccompanied minors they interviewed qualify for international protection due to 

violence and abuse in their home countries.4

These children are some of the most vulnerable, and yet despite their hope of finding protection and safety in the United States, they are faced instead with a complicated immigration system that does not reflect their specific needs. After apprehension and screening by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), children are held for 

up to 72 hours in detention centers that are frequently not equipped to meet children’s needs and lack personnel who are trained in working with traumatized children. A recent lawsuit by the ACLU and other civil rights groups against CBP cited 

over 100 instances of abuse and maltreatment of unaccompanied children in CBP 

custody, including freezing cold cells, inadequate access to food or medical care, and 

incidents of physical and sexual abuse.5 Upon release from CBP, children are either 

immediately repatriated to their home country or referred to the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

to be placed in shelter care or released to a parent, relative, or other sponsor pending the outcome of their immigration hearing. All unaccompanied children are 

placed into removal proceedings, and must undergo the same immigration process 

as adults. Despite their age, even children as young as 2 years old are not appointed 

legal counsel, forcing them to undergo proceedings alone or rely on the limited pro 

bono representation provided by non-profit organizations. 

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT FEDERAL RESPONSE

We recognize that the administration has taken several steps to address the unprecedented surge in child migrants, including creating an interagency Unified Coordination Group led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 
46 

6The Department of Justice (June, 6, 2014) Justice Department and CNCS Announce New 

Partnership to Enhance Immigration Courts and Provide Critical Legal Assistance to Unaccompanied Minors [press release]. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/June/14- 

ag-609.html. 7The White House, Presidential Memorandum—Response to the Influx of Unaccompanied 

Alien Children Across the Southwest Border, June 2, 2014. Available at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/02/presidential-memorandum-response-influx-unaccompanied-alien-children-acr. 8White House Fact Sheet. Unaccompanied Children from Central America. June 20, 2014. 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/fact-sheet-unaccompanied-children-central-america. 9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. 

Residential Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children, Office of Refugee Resettlement, HHS– 

2015–ACF–ORR–ZU–0833, June 6, 2014. Available at: http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/ 

files/documents/HHS%20Grant%20Illegal%20minors.pdf. 10Dozier, M., Kaufman, J., Kobak, R., O’Connor, T.G. Sagi-Schwartz, A., Scott, S., Shauffer, 

C., Smetana, J., van Ijzandoorn, M.H., Zeanah, C.H. ‘‘Consensus Statement on Group Care for 

Children and Adolescents: A Statement of Policy of the American Orthopsychiatric Association.’’ 

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84.3 (2014): 219–225. 

deal with the emergency situation and announcing a new ‘‘justice AmeriCorps’’ program, launched in partnership by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Corporation for National and Community Service.6 7 Last week, the administration also released a plan to increase foreign aid to the Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and 

Honduras, with a focus strengthening citizen security, gang prevention, youth development, public policy campaigns, and reintegration and repatriation program.8 The 

plan also includes increased enforcement measures, including increased resources 

for expediting the removal proceedings of families and placing families and children 

in family detention centers. We believe that the administration’s belated response 

continues to fall short of meeting the needs of these extremely vulnerable children, 

especially given that the projections for the current influx have been available since 

early this year. Thus, we urge the administration to devote more resources and engage more stakeholders with expertise in child welfare in both the short- and longterm response to this crisis. The following are some specific concerns we have with 

the administration’s response to date: • Appointing FEMA to be the lead of the emergency response and utilizing large 

institutional shelters may be a short-term necessity, but FEMA lacks the expertise in dealing with the long-term, unique needs of these child refugees. We are 

also gravely concerned regarding the conditions in the border detention centers 

as well as the large emergency-style shelters in which thousands of children are 

currently being housed. HHS announced that $350 million would be awarded 

in grants for shelters to house and provide services for unaccompanied children, 

and currently three military bases are being used for this purpose, including 

Lackland Air Force Base (San Antonio, Texas), Naval Base Ventura (Oxnard, 

CA), and Fort Sill (Oklahoma).9 Research has consistently shown that large institutional settings are not appropriate for children, particularly for those who 

have experienced trauma and have special needs.10

• We are concerned with recent changes by the ORR to expedite the release process of unaccompanied children to potential sponsors by waiving the fingerprint 

checks for sponsors claiming children over the age of 12 and for sponsors who 

are parents or legal guardians. While we support placement in communitybased settings over shelter care, we are concerned that policy changes that 

weaken the screening process for potential sponsors may put children at risk, 

particularly given the extremely limited follow-up services. • Recent data released by the DHS on the number of unaccompanied children 

who have been apprehended include a significant number of Mexican children, 

the majority of whom are being returned rather than referred to ORR. Prior to 

passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 

2008, Mexican children apprehended at the border were often immediately returned to Mexico while Central American children and those from other noncontiguous countries were automatically referred to ORR. While the TVPRA of 

2008 required CBP to follow a new process to screen for certain vulnerabilities 

before repatriating Mexican children, the number of Mexican children referred 

to ORR remains relatively low given the high number of children apprehended. 

Given that CBP lacks sufficient training to appropriately screen children, significant concerns remain that many Mexican children who may be victims of 

trafficking or have other humanitarian concerns continue to fall through the 

cracks. • While the new legal aid program ‘‘justice Americorps’’ is step in the right direction to address the critical need to provide legal representation to unaccom-
47 

11 Erik Wasson, Senate to provide 1.9 billion for rise in child migrants, The Hill, June 10, 

2014. Available at: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/208840-senate-toprovide-19b-to-handlespike-in-child-migrants. 12Stipulated Settlement Agreement at 7, Flores v. Reno (1997). Available at: http:// 

immigrantchildren.org/cases/FLORES%20CASE/Flores%20Procedural%20Docs/FloresStpultdSetlmt%20AGMT.pdf. 

panied children, we have concerns with the limited experience of the lawyers, 

the 1-year service period, and the restrictions to providing counsel to youth 16 

and older, who are at the greatest risk losing their right to humanitarian relief 

upon reaching the age of 18. • The administration’s recent decision to dedicate resources to expedite removal 

proceedings for children families as well as open family detention centers place 

is a misguided plan with grave consequences. The administration ended the policy of family detention in 2009 with the closing of the T. Don Hutto detention 

facility in Texas due to the public outcry concerning the conditions families and 

children were subjected to in such settings. • The increase in U.S. foreign aid that was recently announced for Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala is insufficient to fully address the violence 

and instability in the region that are causing children to flee. While the administration noted that aid is intended to address the increased violence in the region, there was insufficient mention of the need to fund efforts to mitigate the 

dangers posed by drug traffickers and smugglers in the region. Rather than use 

resources on public awareness campaigns to clarify current U.S. immigration 

policies, more funding should be targeted to addressing the extreme violence 

and desperate situations that are driving children and families to flee. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We urge both Congress and the administration to hold the best interest of the 

child paramount in all solutions that are being developed to address this crisis. The 

following are specific recommendations from the First Focus Campaign for Children, 

many of which were included in the plan presented last week by Senators Robert 

Menendez (D–NJ), Dick Durbin (D–IL), Mazie Hirono (D–HI), and Representatives 

Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D–CA). • All the Federal agencies that deal with unaccompanied children, including 

DHS, DOJ, and HHS should adopt a best interest of the child standard to guide 

all decisions made regarding the care of unaccompanied children as well as 

their eligibility for humanitarian relief. • Congress should increase funding levels to HHS, DHS, DOJ, and other relevant 

agencies so that adequate resources are available to ensure that children are 

receiving proper treatment and services that reflect their unique needs and 

vulnerabilities. On June 10, 2014, Senator Harkin introduced a bill that provides $1.94 billion to HHS to address the surge of unaccompanied children. The 

Labor-HHS bill with this provision has been approved by the sub-committee but 

is pending passage by the full Senate Appropriations Committee.11 Congress 

should move quickly to approve this bill. • CBP should contract with child welfare experts to screen children along the border so that children are properly evaluated for trafficking and other humanitarian concerns and connected to services. • DHS and HHS/ORR should ensure that temporary CBP holding facilities and 

emergency shelters meet the required humanitarian standards for children set 

forth in the Flores v. Reno settlement and the TVPRA and codify these standards in DHS regulations.12 The Flores Settlement, born out of a class action 

brought by the ACLU against the INS sets standards of how a minor in the 

custody of the INS should be treated. It stipulates that facilities will provide 

access to toilets and sinks, drinking water and food, medical assistance, adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision of minors, and 

contact with family members. Likewise, family detention centers should not be 

reopened; rather, effective alternatives to detention should be used whenever 

possible for families. • ORR should ensure that children are placed into community-based care whenever possible, including placement with parent or relative sponsors, and 

strengthen screening mechanisms for sponsors to ensure children are being 

placed in safe and appropriate settings. When community-based care is not an 

option, children should be placed in proper facilities and other settings that are 

adequately equipped to meet the medical, mental health, and other special 

needs of children, as well as pregnant and parenting teens, rather than placing 

children in large institutional settings. 
48 

• ORR should strengthen and significantly expand the follow-up services provided 

to children and their sponsors once they are released from Federal custody to 

ensure their safety and well-being. 

• All unaccompanied children placed into removal proceedings should be provided 

legal representation and child advocates to increase their chances for obtaining 

immigration relief and to ensure consideration of their best interests. Congress 

should pass The Vulnerable Immigrant Voice Act of 2014 by Congressman 

Jeffries, which would address the dire need for unaccompanied children to have 

access to legal counsel. The new Federal ‘‘justice Americorps’’ legal services 

grant should also be modified so that it includes 16- and 17-year-old youth who 

risk losing their eligibility for immigration upon reaching the age of 18. 

• The Department of State, in partnership with over relevant Governmental and 

non-Governmental agencies in the United States and in the sending countries, 

should develop a program focused on the safe and successful repatriation and 

reintegration of children that are returned to their home countries. 

• Foreign aid should be targeted to address the instability and violence being 

caused by drug traffickers and smugglers in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, 

and Mexico and a comprehensive strategy in partnership with governments in 

the region should be developed that is focused on restoring children’s safety, 

rights, and opportunity in their home countries. 

• Congress should establish a bicameral and bipartisan committee focused on developing strategies to meet the needs of child refugees and address the root 

causes of the child migration crisis. 

We thank you again for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. 

We look forward to working with Congress in the weeks ahead to find solutions to 

address the short- and long-term needs of these vulnerable children who are in dire 

need of protection and assistance. Should there be any questions regarding this 

statement, please contact Wendy Cervantes, Vice President of Immigration and 

Child Rights. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your testimony so far today. Everything that you have done so far to address 

the issue that we are discussing in today’s hearing, and I would 

also like to commend through you your director in El Paso for ICE, 

Adrian Macias and your assistant director, Jesus Piacencia. 

There have been not unaccompanied alien children, but migrant 

families transported from the Rio Grande valley to El Paso. Hundreds of them so far. More plane loads coming in this week. Your 

team on the ground in El Paso has just been exceptional in how 

they are handling and processing these families and how they are 

working with social service groups like Enunciation House in El 

Paso to make sure that the interests of these children and families 

and the security of our country are protected. 

So, I want to thank you for that. 

I also want to—you and I have discussed this privately, but I 

want to say publicly that the Border Patrol Agents, the CBP Officers who are on the front lines of this crisis, are doing an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances. 

We hear story after story of Border Patrol Agents bringing toys 

from their own homes for these kids who are in incredibly vulnerable, difficult situations, who are—Border Patrol Agents who are 

working in cramped conditions. Sometimes, conditions that I know 

you are addressing, but border on perhaps unsafe, unsanitary, and 

I know that we are quickly changing that. 

So, I just want to thank all those agents and officers who are on 

the line facing this issue directly. 

I also—to follow up on Ms. Jackson Lee’s comments, I want to 

thank you and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for addressing the claims and allegations brought by the ACLU and others about mistreatment of migrant children in custody of Border 
49 

Patrol. We don’t know what the facts are. We just know the allegations have been made. But you have promised to follow up on that 

aggressively and get to the facts and address that issue once we 

have all the facts. So, I want to thank you for that, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the larger context of this 

issue, brought up by you in your opening remarks about what has 

created the conditions for this crisis that we have right now. I will 

acknowledge, I do think that the President’s piece-meal administrative approach to this when it comes to the DREAMers or through 

DACA might contribute to a perception that there are these 

permisos that are available in the United States. 

Mr. King’s point that, given the way that these children are processed, and given an order to appear and placed with a family in 

the United States, that may also create the perception. 

There is also the fact that Congress, in the year-and-a-half that 

I have been here, has been unable to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I think that contributes to this issue. 

Ms. Jackson Lee brought up the Wilberforce Act from 2008 under 

President Bush and the Congress at that time. But all of those 

facts about Congress and the administration’s ability or inability to 

deal with immigration are lost on the families and the parents of 

these unaccompanied children who are sent north. 

I can only imagine—we just celebrated my daughter, Molly’s 

sixth birthday yesterday. I can only imagine what that must be 

like to be in a position to put her on a train north through Mexico 

up to the border with the United States, not knowing how she will 

fare, if she will get there, what will happen to her once she arrives. 

Conditions have to be really bad—unimaginably bad to me for that 

to happen. 

So, while I agree that maybe Mexico can do more—although I 

find it ironic that so many of us question whether we have an appropriate border policy, that we would be implementing or imposing one on another country. Mexico can do more. Perhaps we could 

completely fence the border and build a giant moat with alligators 

to keep kids and people away. Maybe we could put these kids on 

a bus and just drop them off at the border with Guatemala. 

I don’t think any of those are consistent, No. 1, with the law; No. 

2, with our values; No. 3, with my conscience or the conscience of 

many of the people in this country. I think we have to address the 

issues in those countries of origin. We have some complicity in this. 

We are the world’s largest drug market. Those countries are in between the world’s largest drug suppliers and the world’s largest 

drug market. 

I think your public relations campaign, Mr. Secretary, to those 

countries, to tell them that this is a dangerous journey is well-intentioned. I don’t know how frankly effective that is going to be. 

I think we need a public relations campaign in the United States: 

‘‘If you use drugs, you are complicit in the dangers that these children face.’’ 

We do have a humanitarian crisis here. There is no easy solution. It certainly won’t be solved by walls or border enforcement. 

I think we need to go the—to the countries of origin. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 
50 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman—the Chairman now recognizes Mrs. Miller, from Michigan. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would say that, unfortunately, the Central Americas have had 

a very long history of both bad economies and violence. Both of 

these things are probably as bad now as they have ever been. But 

to say that that is a reason that we suddenly have tens of thousands of children—children almost entirely coming from Guatemala 

and Honduras and El Salvador, traveling thousands of miles 

through Mexico—all the way up through Mexico, and then illegally 

entering the United States simply isn’t true. 

I think that this humanitarian crisis can be laid directly at the 

feet of President Obama as a result of his DACA policy in 2012. 

So, I hope that our hearing today doesn’t just point out the problem, which is very, very bad. Getting worse, no end in sight. But 

I hope that we can coalesce around some actual options and solutions. 

Several weeks ago, I called on the President to call up the National Guard. Clearly, this is a National emergency. I don’t think 

individual States like Texas or Arizona would have to pay—foot the 

bill if they had their own National Guard come up. Because this 

is a National problem. 

A number of Members of Congress have subsequently joined me, 

and I appreciate that, in calling up the National Guard. Last week, 

both Governor Rick Perry and Speaker Boehner, as well, asked the 

President to call to Guard. 

I have also called on the administration—several weeks—almost 

a month ago—to begin a very aggressive public relations campaign, 

in the centrals, telling parents not to put their children in danger 

by paying Mexican drug cartels up to $8,000 a head to smuggle 

their children into the United States. I am glad to see that this was 

actually No. 11 on the Secretary’s list, of his action list that he testified to today in our hearing. 

Regarding Mexico, which is our neighbor and in fact, one of our 

largest trading partners, they are behaving so badly and so dishonorably, they are complicit, complicit in human smuggling coming 

up from the centrals. I think we need to take some steps, additional steps now to protect America by getting our neighbors’ attention. 

Instead of increasing funding hundreds of millions of dollars as 

the President called for, I think we need to stop foreign aid to the 

centrals immediately. 

I am just going to give you a couple of examples of what some 

of our USAID is being used for in the centrals: Developing civil society programs, climate change, addressing the gender gap in education and workforce. I mean, we would be better off spending this 

money in the inner cities of America. We can start with Detroit. 

I would say no more money from America until they step up to 

their own responsibilities and stop their citizens from illegally migrating to the United States. 

Again, regarding Mexico, how can we continue to have free and 

fair trade with a country that not only takes our money but is actually profiting from these drug cartels, from human smuggling of 

children? It is sickening to watch these children on the top of the 
51 

train, ‘‘the beast,’’ as they call it—sitting on the top of these trains 

coming up thousands of miles through Mexico and the Mexican 

government is doing nothing. 

Well, I think we need to act decisively. We need to act now. I 

would say no more financial assistance either to—from the United 

States either to the centrals that are shipping up their children to 

Mexico, through Mexico and to the United States. 

I also think in regards to trading with Mexico, we need to reopen, reexamine, and perhaps repeal both NAFTA, which is the 

North American Free Trade Agreement. I think we need to do the 

same with CAFTA, which is the Central America Free Trade 

Agreement. 

We need to whack them, our neighbors, to understand that they 

are just not going to keep taking our money and we are just going 

to be sitting here like this—we are not the ATM machine—while 

this humanitarian crisis is happening with these innocent, innocent 

children. 

I would just ask the witnesses what you think of these additional 

options. The Secretary asked for some options. 

In my opinion, we are not going to enforce our way out of this. 

We are not going to enforce our way out of this situation. We need 

to have some policy change and here are some suggested options. 

Do any of the witnesses have a comment? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congresswoman, I agree with you that a key 

to solving this problem is Mexico and Central America, which is 

why we, I personally am in dialogue with them. 

I believe that in a number of respects, we have a very valuable 

relationship with the government of Mexico in a number of respects 

that promotes the economies of our countries and this continent. 

But I do believe that we have to engage with them on our shared 

border security interest. I intend to have that conversation with 

them. Our President has had that conversation with their president. 

We need to stress the situation that exists in south Texas as a 

result of the migration that passes through their country from Central America and we are doing that. I believe the discussions had 

been ratcheted up, if you will, over the last several months as a 

result of the situation we face. So I agree with you with respect to 

that. 

With respect to DACA, we have to keep reemphasizing as I did 

in the letter I sent, which I believe was probably read by millions 

of people by now, at least I hope it was, DACA is for kids who have 

been in this country for 7 years, not for somebody who crosses the 

border today or tomorrow or yesterday. It is for somebody who has 

been in this country 7 years. 

The smuggling organizations have a motive to distort and to pass 

out disinformation to encourage parents to pay them $3,000 or 

$4,000 a person to bring their kid into this country and that is 

what they are doing. They have launched a misinformation campaign, which we have to correct. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Ms. Sanchez, from 

California. 
52 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, gentlemen, again, for being before us today. 

I just want to make a couple comments to some of the things 

that I have heard here, and I then I do want to ask you a question. 

First of all, you know, people are slamming Mexico because they 

are—they have got these drug cartels, et cetera. The reality is the 

demand is coming from the United States. 

I mean, what are we—where are we? Where are we? Why 

haven’t we done something about this demand for drugs? I mean, 

it is a supply-and-demand issue. People, Americans are putting 

cash on the barrelhead to get these drugs. 

So we can’t just look at a country that is transiting drugs or a 

country that is sending drugs. We have got to say what are we 

doing about the demand here in the United States? Because that 

is where, you know—that is where this money comes from. 

Second, I just want to address—and I agree on so many things 

with Mrs. Miller, especially when it comes to borders. But I would 

have to respectfully disagree on a couple of things that I heard 

from her about not working with Central American countries or 

Mexico. 

First of all, we know—this has been proven time after time after 

time—that the education of a mother—around the world, the education of a mother is central to the nucleus of the family, the stability of the family and the economics of the family. So this is a 

long-term investment that we make when we have USAID in so 

many countries working to educate young ladies because they will 

be the mothers of the future. 

With respect to working with institutions or working to make institutions in countries, we also do that all over the world. If you 

have a place, a country and you can’t trust the judicial system, you 

can’t think you are going to get a fair shake if you get picked up 

off the street or if you have got a business saying you can’t get a 

contract enforced, that is what makes America so great is that we 

have these incredible institutions, these democratic institutions, 

with a small ‘‘d’’ by the way, guys, and these judicial institutions 

that we work on every day to make great America and we try to 

put that and help other countries to do. 

So I think these types of things that we are working on in other 

countries are incredibly important to give hope—to give hope to 

people who live in those countries and to have them have an ability 

to stay in those countries and not leave them and come up to an 

America that we know right now when we see the border is being 

taxed. 

I would like to ask you about this whole issue because some have 

said that gang members or individuals with criminal records are 

the ones that are accompanying these children who are coming up 

and being apprehended. 

So my first question is: How does the Border Patrol screen these 

individuals for these issues and what are your findings so far? 

Chief VITIELLO. Each of the individuals who are arrested are 

interviewed by law enforcement professionals. So their observations 

plus the biometric capture of their fingerprints are checked against 

the databases of the holdings of the United States Government. So 

everybody over 14 gets all ten fingerprints taken and sent against 
53 

the NCIC database to check their prior criminal record in the 

United States. 

We have not reports from RGV where this problem is the most 

acute, reports of people who are recognized as being gang members 

as part of the population that is under 17. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. My last question because I am running out of 

time: Given the influx of these unaccompanied minors that are 

coming into the country, mostly across the Texan border, you are 

putting Border Patrol there. Where are these personnel and resources coming from to handle this influx? 

What about the other areas? If you are pulling them from other 

areas, what are we seeing happen there? 

Chief VITIELLO. We have looked carefully and taken a handful of 

folks from along the Southwest Border from areas that are not as 

active as what we are seeing in the RGV. Those people are dedicated for more boots on the ground, for the Border Patrol function 

as well as post-arrest interviews to gather intelligence to find leads 

for investigative follow-up to hand over to ICE to attack the networks that are responsible for the alien-smuggling in that area. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. My time is up and I thank you. I will submit the 

rest of my questions for the record. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am very grateful for your leadership of this 

agency at this particularly difficult time. You know my respect for 

you. 

I do respectfully disagree with you on this issue with regard to 

the—you know, the deferred action on child arrivals. 

I have been, as you know, a prosecutor and we have been fighting violence and drugs for the last decade or more. The one 

changed factor has been the new permissive policy of this administration on deferred action for child arrivals. 

I also want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues both here and on the other side. I hope every college kid 

who is sitting here with their visions of the important world they 

are playing with social activism and, you know, looking at investments for colleges or global warming will appreciate that when 

they are sitting in their dorm smoking dope purchased from these 

drug gangs, this is the implication, and maybe there is a little time 

for social activism there, too. 

But, regardless, let me ask you a question about—you are apprehending children at the border with adults and you are gonna hold 

them and send them back, and I appreciate that policy. 

But let me understand what is the distinction if you take an 

adult with their children, who arguably are more responsible because they are with their children, and yet if the child comes without their adult, we are going to take the child at the border and 

reunify with an adult who is probably here not under legal status. 

So what is the difference? Why aren’t we obtaining this child, reunifying and returning both of them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. [Inaudible.] Thank you. 
54 

If an adult is apprehended at the border and they brought their 

children with them, they are a priority for removal. We are building additional space to hold them so they can be returned quickly. 

We need to do that. I believe that is important to do. 

Mr. MEEHAN. But what is the difference? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If you are in the—the difference, is if you 

are talking about reuniting a child with a parent who is in the interior, first of all, the law requires that if it is in the best interest 

of the child to do that, we will do that. 

There is a deportation proceeding pending against the child at 

that point. With respect to the parent, if the parent is a convicted 

criminal, has a criminal record or is in some respect a priority for 

removal under our existing policies, then they should be removed. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, with all due respect, what percentage right 

now of children are appearing for these hearings? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do know that unaccompanied children in 

removal proceedings are, in fact, removed. 

Mr. MEEHAN. What percentage, once reunited, are returning for 

these status hearings? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t have that percentage. But I do know 

that they are—— 

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. Probably not very high. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t have the number off-hand. I do 

know—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. That is something we should know, if this is so 

fundamental to the policy. But I would suspect not very high. 

This is a part of a concern, and I don’t know the answer, but I 

also want to be very honest with the American people. This idea 

that somehow we are going to institute legal proceedings and 

take—you know, process—we have got 65,000 children that have 

come over the line. 

Now, you know and I know, when—suppose we go through a 

legal process and find that that child has—is now subject to a judicial order for return. You know and I know, when I was a prosecutor, it took two agents to accompany that child back to his country. We used to fly an individual back—65,000 children. How are 

we gonna return them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, I will say two things. First of 

all, we are talking about children as young as 5 and 7 years old. 

This is a humanitarian issue. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I know that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. So, when you are talking about somebody 

who is desperate to be reunited with her mother or her father in 

the United States, I think as Americans, we need to be careful 

about how we treat these kids. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I—let me just—— 

My time is—we all get it. This is what is so difficult about this. 

This is—we are dealing with children, and we get it, but we ought 

not be leaving the American people with the false impression that 

somehow the system is going to work and is actually going to lead 

to removals. Once those children are here, they are staying here. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the other point I would make, if I 

could, is that we have to stay focused through this situation on 

public safety, National security, and border security. So there are 
55 

a number of people who are in this country who still need to be 

removed, to whom we need to continue to apply resources. So I 

have got to keep my eye on that ball, as well. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Vela, from 

Texas. 

Mr. VELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by respectfully disagreeing with my colleague 

from Michigan in terms of the comments related to trade with Mexico. The state of—the total trade volume between the State of 

Michigan and the country of Mexico is $52 billion. Michigan exports $12 billion in products to Mexico and 175,000 jobs in Michigan depend upon trade with Mexico. 

Over the past few weeks, as I have tried to wrap my arms 

around this situation, as you have, what it has boiled down to, in 

my view, is I view it as three separate crises. We have the crisis 

in Central America, and tomorrow the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will be addressing that. We know that the White 

House has initiated a response in that regard, and so we will save 

that for another day. 

The second crisis I see is a logistical crisis with respect to this 

sudden influx. You have addressed well the detention aspect of 

that. But one thing I am wondering about from the adjudicative 

standpoint, what are your thoughts on what we need to do in order 

to make our adjudicative process more efficient? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, in the short term, Congressman, we 

are surging ICE and DOJ resources into the region to deal with removal proceedings, to deal with asylum claims. We have had that 

conversation with Department of Justice, and they are definitely 

supporting the effort. 

We need more lawyers and judges down there and we need more 

video teleconferencing, where it is appropriate, to expedite in a better way the run-of-the-mill removal proceeding, which, as I am sure 

you know, can take a very, very long time. 

We have got resources all around the country that we think we 

can devote to this so that everybody is doing a fair share of the 

work here. So, we would like to see the process move more expeditiously when it involves removal, involves asylum claims. We are 

doing that; we have a plan to do that. 

Mr. VELA. Now, is the administration request, in terms of dollars, does it include this part of the process? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe it does. 

Mr. VELA. Okay. 

The third crisis I see, and I have some figures here that suggest 

that, in the last fiscal cycle, that 85 percent of the unaccompanied 

children that were being detained were being reunited with family. 

Do you know if that is an accurate reflection of what we are seeing 

to date in this fiscal cycle? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know that just over 50 percent of those unaccompanied children that HHS is placing it is placing with a parent. I have seen the number 85 percent, to suggest that 85 percent 

are being placed with a family member, but I don’t know that to 

be—I have seen it, but I don’t know that to be accurate. I have 

seen it in various places. 
56 

Mr. VELA. That sounds like the statistics that I have looked at 

in terms of the last fiscal cycle. 

My point, I suppose, is that that is the third crisis I see, is which 

is addressing the immigration reform crisis, because, in my view, 

that those parents and those family members that these children 

are being reunited with, are the people that are working in our hotels and our restaurants and our construction sites. Certainly it is 

something we need to address very quickly. 

I—just yesterday, in McAllen, Texas, local leaders met and they 

did address one thing that we are seeing in terms of the 72-hour 

detention. 

Some of the folks have been taken to buses so that they can be 

sent to the other facilities. But the numbers are so overwhelming 

that the bus stations are closing because there are not enough 

buses. So some of the local nonprofits are having to take care of 

some of those families. 

My question is: What Federal grant programs are there that we 

can tap into on an urgent basis, so that these nonprofits that are 

working alongside CBP and DHS down there can work with? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know we have had a terrific volunteer effort. I know the Red Cross has really stepped up to this, as well 

as a number of Texas-based volunteer organizations have done a 

heroic job. 

In terms of grant-making, I would have to take a closer look at 

that, to see what might be available. Perhaps Administrator 

Fugate has some thoughts, but I would have to take a closer look 

at it. 

Mr. VELA. We can work with your offices on those two points. I 

do want to close by thanking you, Mr. Vitiello, and the agents at 

Customs and Border Patrol. I have witnessed first-hand on plane 

rides up to the capital from Brownsville your agents caring for 

some of these unaccompanied minors. I know how hard they are 

working, and I just want to thank you and your agency on behalf 

of all of the people that I represent. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman now recognizes the gentleman 

from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say for the record, thank you gentlemen for your 

service to our country. Secretary Johnson, I am a big fan. I think 

you are the right man at the right time in this job. But you have 

got an immense challenge ahead of you. As I mentioned before, all 

of the different hats that you have to wear to protect our country. 

But we are in a crisis situation in this country, and if my comments today show frustration, let me tell you that I am frustrated. 

I am frustrated by the crisis on the border. I am frustrated that 

last night, we saw the IRS commissioner continue to obstruct 

Congress’s investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative 

groups by a crashed hard drive and lost e-mails. I am frustrated 

that Brian Terry’s death hadn’t been vindicated through the ‘‘Fast 

and Furious’’ investigation. I am frustrated when we see the release of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and not informing Congress. A lot of lawlessness in this country. 

I think about and I am reminded of John Adams, who, regardless 

of the mood in Boston, defended the British soldiers in the Boston 
57 

Massacre. Regardless of how we feel about immigration reform in 

this country, how can we sit by and watch our country’s National 

sovereignty, my country’s National sovereignty violated over and 

over and over on our Southern Border? Not just this situation with 

children, but for a long time we have seen a increase in illegal immigrants coming into this country. We are calling the Guatemalans 

and Hondurans and El Salvadorans, OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, 

the term of CBP. 

But I am concerned about the Middle Eastern, the Asian, the Africans that are also coming into the country not to take the job, not 

to bring their children in so that they can have a better life, but 

possibly to do harm to this great Nation. That is a concern that we 

ought to have. 

If children can come across because CBP Agents are changing 

diapers or warming formula or doing other things other than securing the border, then I am sure that elements that want to do harm 

to this country can exploit our poor Southern Border also. 

Let the record show that since 2006, there has been an increase 

of over 9,000 CBP Agents in this country since 2006 to now. Over 

9,000 more agents to secure our border, and our border is less secure today, I think, than it ever has been. 

I want to read a portion of a leaked draft memo from Deputy 

Chief Vitiello, dated May 30. It reads, ‘‘the large quantity of DHS 

interdiction intelligence investigation process and detention removal of resources currently dedicated to address unaccompanied 

alien children is compromising DHS capabilities to address other 

transborder criminal areas, such as human smuggling and trafficking, illicit drug, weapons, commercial and financial operations. 

If the U.S. Government fails to deliver adequate consequences to 

deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the United States, 

the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism 

and first time illicit entries. 

‘‘To stem the flow an adequate consequences must be delivered 

for illegal entry into the United States and for facilitating human 

smuggling either as a direct member of an illicit alien smuggling 

organization or as a private facilitator. These consequences must be 

delivered both at the border and within the interior of the United 

States—United States—e.g. through expanded ICE homeland security investigations to target individuals facilitating unaccompanied 

alien children and family unit travel to the United States.’’ 

I agree with those words completely. This administration’s mishandling of this situation just encourages more lawlessness. It encourages more folks to come here. If you talk about utilizing the 

resources of the United States, everything that is at your disposal 

we heard earlier. The National Guard should be called out. Article 

IV section 4 guarantees every State that joins this union protection 

against this. Protection against this, Article IV, Section 4. Look it 

up. 

Every resource. How about Voice of America? Are we directing a 

Spanish-speaking Voice of America into Central America saying, 

‘‘You cannot come into this country illegally, you will not get citizenship. In fact, you are going to be deported back to your home 

country.’’ That is a resource that can be used? Are we doing that? 
58 

Maybe we are. But I say we should, just like we should have the 

National Guard on the border. 

So, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned in your statement that we 

should do everything consistent with the laws and values of this 

country. We have laws on the books. The 2006 Secure Fence Act. 

We have got a very porous Southern Border. We don’t have a Secure Fence Act. There are numerous laws that say if you enter into 

this country illegally, you will be deported. That is against the sovereignty of this Nation, that you cannot enter this country illegally. 

Are we enforcing that? No, we seem to be looking the other way. 

So, would you agree with me, and are you willing to say that if 

you enter the United States illegally of any age, you will be deported back to your home country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, as you well know, we have to 

prioritize removals in accordance with the resources that Congress 

gives us. So, I have a finite amount of enforcement resources, border security resources, and so for the sake of homeland security, 

what we need to do is go after the worst of the worst first, which 

is what I believe we are doing. I think we could do a more effective 

job of that, but I believe that we need to prioritize and go after 

those who represent threats to public safety. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have increased your CBP Officers almost 9,000 

in 10 years or less. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is right. I am sure that deputy chief 

definitely thanks you for that. I support it too. 

So, in terms of your question about border security, let me say 

this. I continually inquire, in this current situation, are we taking 

our eye off the ball? I want to know that in the RGV sector in particular, that our Border Patrol Agents are focused on border security as well as dealing with the volume of the kids that are coming 

in. 

Over the last month-and-a-half or so, we have surged a lot of resources into that part of the country, FEMA, HHS, and others, 

Coast Guard is down there, to support CBP in their effort. As recently as I think yesterday, the chief and the deputy chief and I 

have discussed this, and I will let the deputy chief answer for himself, but I believe it is the case that our Border Patrol Agents on 

the border are on the job, they continue to do their job. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Secretary, I am out of time, whatever the 

Chairman will allow, but let the record reflect that the President 

asked for an additional $1.4 billion to assist this effort, and we are 

$18 trillion in debt. With that, Mr. Chairman, if the deputy secretary would like to answer and you will allow that? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. 

Chief VITIELLO. Just to reiterate, we have been surging the resources that the Border Patrol has, CBP, the Department into RGV 

for the last several years. So they are better-resourced now than 

they were last year. This particular issue is a challenge for us. 

There in fact are more people focused on moving the flow and booking in and processing both aliens and adult—family units and adult 

males, all the people that come across. But they are betterresourced than they have been previously. 
59 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, for that. For the record, I would like 

to include the article that has his memo that was leaked, thank 

you. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY HON. JEFF DUNCAN

INTERNAL MEMO: ‘‘DREAM ACT’’ DELUGE ‘‘COMPROMISING’’ BORDER SECURITY

by Caroline May, 6 Jun 2014. 

The deluge of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally is ‘‘compromising’’ the government’s ability to combat other border threats and has been 

incentivized by government policies, according to a leaked internal draft memo from 

Deputy Chief of Border Patrol Ronald D. Vitiello. 

‘‘Specifically, the large quantity of DHS interdiction, intelligence, investigation, 

processing, detention and removal resources currently being dedicated to address 

[unaccompanied alien children] is compromising DHS capabilities to address other 

transborder criminal areas, such as human smuggling and trafficking, and illicit 

drug, weapons, commercial and financial operations,’’ Vitiello’s memo, obtained by 

the Center for Immigration Studies and viewed by Breitbart News, reads. 

‘‘Insufficient attention to these mission areas will have immediate and potentially 

long lasting impacts on criminal enterprise operations within the Rio Grande Valley 

and across the country,’’ it adds. 

The document is dated May 30, titled ‘‘Unaccompanied Alien Children Transfer 

Process Bottleneck,’’ and reveals that DHS expects the number of UAC apprehensions this fiscal year to be greater than 90,100 and next fiscal year to be 142,000. 

Vitiello writes that the ‘‘urgency’’ to deal with the overcrowding in detention facilities is causing the level of enforcement and repercussions for illegal entry to deteriorate. 

‘‘The current urgency to alleviate dangerous overcrowding in DBP detention facilities is resulting in the necessary delivery of suboptimal consequences for illegal 

entry,’’ he wrote. ‘‘If the US government fails to deliver adequate consequences to 

deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the US, the result will be an even 

greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first time illicit entries.’’ 

Vitiello further noted that certain government policies are serving as additional 

incentives for illegal entry. 

‘‘Releasing other than Mexican family units, credible fear claims, and low-threat 

aliens on their own recognizance, along with facilitating family reunification of UAC 

in lieu of repatriation to their country of citizenship, serve as incentives for additional individuals to follow the same path,’’ Vitiello wrote. 

‘‘To stem the flow, adequate consequences must be delivered for illegal entry into 

the US and for facilitating human smuggling, either as a direct member of an illicit 

alien smuggling organization or as a private facilitator. These consequences must 

be delivered both at the border and within the interior US, e.g. through expanded 

ICE Homeland Security Investigations to target individuals facilitating UAC and 

family unit travel to the US,’’ the memo reads. 

In a statement CBP told Breitbart News that ‘‘the draft memo appears to be an 

internal, incomplete working document, neither signed nor made official.’’ 

CBP’s statement noted that while apprehensions of Mexicans have slightly increased over last year the number of apprehensions from countries other than Mexico, specifically Central America has increased by 50 percent. Vitiello’s memo notes 

that currently just 3 percent of apprehensions from countries other than Mexico, 

predominantly Central American countries, are being repatriated to their countries 

of origin, as there are limited flights back. 

‘‘Significant border-wide investments in additional enforcement resources and enhanced operational tactics and strategy have enabled CBP to address the changing 

composition of attempted border crossers, but the rising flow of unaccompanied children and family units into the Rio Grande Valley present unique operational and 

resource challenges for CBP and HHS,’’ the CBP statement contined, going to note 

President Obama’s interagency Unified Coordination Group led by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate to deal with the influx. 

In announcing the interagency Unified Coordination Group this week, President 

Obama declared the surge of UACs an ‘‘urgent humanitarian situation.’’ 

Meanwhile Obama’s immigration critics have pointed the finger of blame for the 

deluge at Obama himself. 
60 

‘‘This is a direct result of the President’s statements that he was not going to enforce the law with regard to people who entered the country as youngsters. It’s an 

open invitation for others to come. What he has done in the last months, aided by 

members of Congress, is to create the impression that no one is going to be deported, and especially young people who come into the country are not going to be 

deported. So they are focusing way too much on attempting to cope with the flood 

of young people coming into the country and not nearly enough on reducing the 

flow,’’ Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions said this week. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/06/Border-Patrol-MemoPoints-To-Gov-t-Policies-As-Force-For-More-Illegal-Immigration 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your attention and your agency’s 

hard work on this crisis. 

I just want to go through a few questions. First, would you agree 

Mr. Secretary that we have a broken immigration system in the 

United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would you agree that because we have a broken 

immigration system, because there is great uncertainty about our 

immigration system, that in this chaos, this crisis with unaccompanied minor children has occurred? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I wouldn’t put it exactly that way, but I do 

believe that uncertainty in the law and uncertainty that I believe 

the smuggling organizations are creating is a reason for the recent 

influx. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Secretary, you would agree that this crisis 

and the attention that your Border Patrol Agents has had to give 

to these children has diverted away from their attention to securing the rest of our Southern Border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. As I mentioned a moment ago, that is an 

issue that I am constantly focused on, to make sure that that 

doesn’t happen. As I think the deputy chief’s comments reflect, we 

have surged a lot of resources into the Rio Grande Valley sector to 

make sure that everybody remains focused on their job in addition 

to dealing with the recent increase, to process people through the 

system as well as maintaining our presence on the border, and I 

believe we are continuing to do that. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mrs. Miller, my colleague from Michigan, placed 

this crisis and its blame squarely at the feet of President Obama’s 

DACA program, the deferred action program, and that was implemented in 2012. Is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. DACA was implemented in June 2012. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Here we are, where the peak levels of unaccompanied children migration is occurring in 2014. Is that right? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, and DACA is intended for kids who 

came into this country 7 or more years ago. 

Mr. SWALWELL. If Mrs. Miller is, indeed, right that this is 

squarely the President’s fault because of DACA, wouldn’t you have 

expected to see these peak levels of children coming across the border perhaps in 2012 or 2013, rather than now? So, I guess I am 

asking, is it fair to solely place this on DACA? Or this something 

much more complicated? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me be clear. I believe first and foremost—and I believe most people believe first and foremost—from 
61 

everything I have heard, everything I have seen, and from my own 

conversations with these children, that the principle reason they 

are leaving their countries is the conditions in those countries. 

They are really bad. It has to be really bad for a parent to want 

to part company with his or her own 7-year-old. That is the principle reason we are seeing this. 

I do also believe that the smuggling organizations are creating 

a misinformation campaign about the legal situation in this country. It is in their interest to create that misinformation, and I believe they are. I believe, therefore, it is imperative for us to correct 

the record about what is available and what is not to somebody 

who crosses the border today. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Secretary, you would agree, there are some 

short-term and long-term solutions to what we can do? A shortterm solution—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL [continuing]. Would be something that you have 

already done, which is writing an open letter to the parents of children crossing our Southwest Border to dispel the myths about what 

it means to come here and the dangers that the children will go 

through in their path? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If it were—you know, if this administration’s 

policies were the principle reason they were coming here, then you 

would see kids from a whole bunch of other countries, too. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would you agree, another short-term solution 

would be working, as the President and the Vice President have 

been doing so, to work with Mexico and Guatemala on that much 

smaller border between Mexico and Guatemala in addition to working on our much more vast border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Secretary, would you agree that a long-term 

solution would be putting certainty in our immigration policy so 

that there are not misconceptions as to what it means to children 

anywhere across the world? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Palazzo. 

Oh. Palazzo is on my left. 

Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I do believe that DACA and our failure of enforcing 

our immigration laws are the cause of this. The number of unaccompanied children has grown since 2012. Last year was a record 

of 5,000. Now, we have 65,000. But I don’t blame just the President 

for not enforcing our immigration laws. I know many do. It is not 

just that. It is even Members of Congress. Congress has to share 

in the blame, as well. Any Member of Congress that starts talking 

about a pathway to amnesty—and that is what it is—lays out the 

welcome mat for people around the world that want to come into 

the United States illegally while our borders are not secured. 

It is irresponsible to talk about what we will do before we can 

stop the flow into the country. This is not a surprise, what has happened. It is everyone. We need to secure our borders and make 
62 

sure people cannot get into the country illegally. We need to make 

sure people can’t overstay their visas. 

But I have two questions—the first one, if I could get a quick answer, because I want to get to the second one, is—Secretary Johnson—my constituents are frequently on flood alert. We prepare for 

emergencies, invest in mitigation. We are still dealing with the 

aftermaths of Sandy of Irene and Lee. My understanding is that 

the President’s March budget request did not ask for additional 

funding to pay for this crisis at the border. 

We know that we knew about it as far back as January. 

Here is my question—how can you guarantee me and my constituents that the money to address the crisis at the border won’t 

come from the same pots that helped Pennsylvanians back home 

deal with floods? By putting FEMA in charge, you have kind of signaled a disaster declaration is coming. I am concerned that our 

flood disaster funding will be constantly drained by the situation. 

If you could quickly answer that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I can assure you, Congressman, that 

if your constituents, or anybody else faces a major disaster, we will 

support a response. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But is it coming out of those same pots of money? 

Are we draining the money that will be used for flood disasters by 

using FEMA? Is it coming out of that same pot? 

Secretary JOHNSON. FEMA’s coordinated role doesn’t mean that 

FEMA is undertaking to support all these agencies. All these agencies are paying for this out of their own—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yes. I am just worried about where the money is 

coming from and does that mean that that pot gets drained a little 

more? 

If we could, quickly because—— 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. Congressman, the funds being used for this 

were already funds that were expended under current authority to 

deal with these issues. 

Funding that is being directed is done through interagency 

agreements. Money is not coming out of the DRF to pay for those 

functions, which are primarily responsible and funded by Congress 

through other appropriations. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Okay. 

If I could go back to the—you know, if it is not our lack of enforcing immigration laws, why don’t they stop somewhere in Mexico? 

Why come all the way to the United States? Why put these children a thousand miles and risk their lives to get to the United 

States? 

There is nowhere in Mexico that is better than Honduras or Guatemala? I don’t buy that, and I don’t think the American people do 

either. 

The Department of Homeland Security was created to stop bad 

things from happening before they happen. Here is a copy of the 

ad that DHS put out in January 29. In fact, we wanted an answer 

from the contractors by February 19. It said there will be approximately 65,000 children in total. 

My question is: Who knew that there was going to be 65,000? 

The largest amount that ever came was 5,000. Somewhere we pull 

out this number of 65,000. It happens to be correct. 
63 

Why was the administration surprised? Why are we acting surprised now if in January, we expected this to happen? Why weren’t 

we prepared, if we expected 65,000? 

Why didn’t we do anything to stop this in advance? You talked 

in your testimony that the President talked to the president of 

Mexico last week and Vice President Biden just recently—why then 

if back in January 29 we anticipated this happening? 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, I don’t know where that estimate comes from. Given the—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. It is in our own—it is in DHS’s ad. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know where the estimate comes from. 

I don’t know who created the 65,000 estimate. In all likelihood, we 

will probably exceed that in the rate we are going. 

We have known this has been a problem since I took office 6 

months ago. I have been hearing about this issue going back to my 

confirmation hearing. 

So—and we have known we have had a problem in the Rio 

Grande Valley sector, which is why in April, I asked my staff to 

create a campaign plan for the Rio Grande Valley sector, in particular for the Southwest Border, to bring to bear all the resources 

of DHS on this issue. 

We have known we have had an issue with third-country nationals, children and adults. I issued the campaign plan in early May. 

The numbers very clearly have spiked more recently in April, May, 

which has required us to bring to bear the resources of the entire 

Federal Government. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But we shouldn’t be surprised because we saw it 

coming as far back as January. Somebody did in DHS. I would like 

to know who it is. If you could find out—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not disagreeing with you. We have 

known this was an issue since I took office, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But it went from 5,000 to 65,000. Something happened. When the largest amount that ever came of unaccompanied 

children was 5,000, which was last year, something happened that 

65,000 showed up and somebody knew about it. And surprise? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think it was more like 38,000 last year. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, from 5,000 to 38 to 65. So since DACA, we 

have gone from 5,000 to 38 to 65—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. Sir, you want to somehow put it on the 

doorstep of DACA. I keep saying that—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. No, no, no. I am blaming Congress as—I am 

blaming Congress as well and our lack of immigration enforcement. 

There is nothing wrong with our immigration laws. We just don’t 

enforce them. We have released 36,000 criminal aliens back onto 

the streets—160 of them committed murder. If we could release 

people who have committed murder, I am sure has something to 

do with it. 

Thank you. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Richmond, from Louisiana. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming today. 

Let me just go back to some basic questions because I have heard 

today a number of times that we should just send the kids back. 
64 

Do many of the kids actually not make it and die along the long 

route to make it to our border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The route is definitely treacherous. I can’t 

tell you with any degree of certainty who doesn’t make it because 

I am just not in a position to know that. 

I have heard in a number of different places that these kids are 

exploited by the smuggling organizations. They travel over a thousand miles up the coast of Mexico on trains and trucks. It is getting 

hot. It is exceedingly dangerous. 

Mr. RICHMOND. What happens to them if we just turn them 

around? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if we just turn them around, they just 

go back to the conditions that they were motivated to leave from. 

Mr. RICHMOND. If they make it back. If they make the long journey back. 

Besides the humanitarian reasons and reasons of conscience and 

morals, the William Wilberforce Act would keep you from turning 

them around, wouldn’t it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the 2008 law is not in conflict with 

commencing a deportation proceeding against the child. It is my 

understanding that the law would not permit an expedited removal 

of an unaccompanied child. That is my understanding of the law. 

We do expedited removals. Let’s say a Mexican crosses the border. They are apprehended by one of the Chief’s Border Patrol 

Agents. We can do an expedited removal of the Mexican right back 

into the country of Mexico. We can do expedited removals of adults 

into Central America where there is no immigration judge involved. 

But in terms of an expedited removal for an unaccompanied 

child, my understanding of the law is that that is not available. 

Mr. RICHMOND. As much as you heard today that we should just 

either turn them around or expeditiously remove them, do you 

know of any legislation introduced that someone put their name on 

to repeal the William Wilberforce Act? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. RICHMOND. We also talked a little bit about—and I heard 

you mention a little bit about Mexico and the fact that you have— 

the Vice President has met and the President has had telephone 

conversations. Has the government of Mexico started taking any 

steps, any affirmative steps to help us with this issue? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have over the last several years been in 

discussions with them about our shared border security interest 

and we have increased that engagement in light of this current situation. I believe we will continue to have productive conversations. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, specifically on this issue and the fact that 

you just mentioned that we are looking at probably over 60,000 unaccompanied minors this year, have they taken any steps to help 

us with this issue right now besides just conversations? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sure that they will help us with the 

public affairs campaign. Excuse me. We will continue our discussions about our shared border security interest. I have had those 

discussions beginning in February, and I believe they will be productive. 
65 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Secretary has to 

leave so I will yield back so that my colleagues can ask some questions. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you for that. 

To get through all the Members in the time we have, I am going 

to strictly enforce a 5-minute rule. 

Mr. Perry, from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

If it hasn’t already been done, I would like to submit a copy of 

the advertisement that has been referenced under unanimous consent into the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 
66 

ADVERTISEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HON. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Alright. I would also like to just reject categorically 

any claims made by Members of this committee that somehow 

America or American citizens are at fault for this crisis, this situation on the border. 

With that having been said, gentlemen, thank you very much for 

your service in these difficult times. We are very appreciative. 

I would like to turn to Mr. Vitiello. Is that correct? 

Chief VITIELLO. Vitiello. 

Mr. PERRY. Vitiello? Thank you, sir. 

How long have criminals been smuggling people across the border to your knowledge? 

Chief VITIELLO. My entire career, 29 years. 
67 

Mr. PERRY. So at least 29 years. Have smugglers lied to people 

south of the border that might be interested in seeking to cross the 

border about the conditions or what they might encounter or their 

status when they come here? Have smugglers lied to people in the 

past? 

Chief VITIELLO. That is the experience of the Border Patrol. 

Mr. PERRY. So in your opinion, in your estimation, what has 

changed recently in the last 2 or 3 years that has fostered this immense increase in traffic, especially of people that are young, 17 

and below, coming—what has changed? 

Are there any metrics at all that you know of to support the 

claim that you might make shortly? 

Chief VITIELLO. I think lots of things have changed. 

I think the conditions—I mean, we have talked about all of the 

push factors. I have seen these reports. People are fleeing, you 

know, difficult conditions, they are reuniting with family in the 

United States, they are fleeing economic uncertainty and failed 

governments both locally and nationally. 

Mr. PERRY. So the conditions that you are talking about, the 

crime, the uncertain conditions, the poor conditions economically, 

what has changed dramatically, because would you admit that the 

numbers have increased dramatically? 

Chief VITIELLO. There is no doubt about that. 

Mr. PERRY. So is there a corresponding increase dramatically in 

poorness of conditions in these countries south of the border to correlate? 

Chief VITIELLO. I just don’t know. I mean, I think it has been a 

while that those conditions have existed. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, it has been a while, right? 

So my concern is there is some narrative here that seems to be 

perpetrated among—upon the American citizens that somehow 

things have exponentially decreased south of the border and that 

is counterpart to this exodus south of the border into the United 

States. That is what is causing it. I am not sure it is true. You 

don’t know at this time of any metric that would support that. 

Chief VITIELLO. I don’t—not in metrics. 

Mr. PERRY. So do you think that there is any difference in our 

policy? I would agree with the remarks of Mr. Barletta that a Congress that has implied that wholesale amnesty might be in order 

if you make it across the border. 

But are there any other policies from the administration or otherwise that might be contributing to this circumstance currently on 

the border? 

Chief VITIELLO. I think that we are addressing in the broad spectrum all of the things that I believe will help make this better. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand. But is there any particular policy that 

might be—you know, whatever the numbers are, 5,000 to 38,000 to 

65,000, is there anything that you can think of that support it? 

Chief VITIELLO. I am not sure I would categorize it as policy. I 

think that we have struggled not to have a sufficient level of, you 

know, in this case, detention for people who bring their children 

across the border. 
68 

Then, as it relates to the unaccompanied children, the law dictates how they are processed, both in the initial for book-in and deportation proceedings, and then turning over to HHS—— 

Mr. PERRY. I understand that, but what has changed to drive so 

many to come recently? What has changed? 

Chief VITIELLO. I am not sure. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. I am not sure. I am not sure either, but I think 

our policy has changed. The public perception that you can come 

here and stay has changed. 

Chief VITIELLO. I have seen those reports. 

Those are reflected in the intelligence we have collected. It is in 

the open—— 

Mr. PERRY. It is not reflected? It is not reflected? 

Chief VITIELLO. No, it is reflected. 

Mr. PERRY. It is reflected. 

Chief VITIELLO. It is in the open-source reports. 

Mr. PERRY. So has human trafficking also gone up as a result of 

these increased numbers? 

Chief VITIELLO. I am not sure it has gone up. Populations have 

gone—have increased, which leads me to believe that smuggling 

has increased as well. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. Mr. Secretary, I have got to move on. I appreciate your answers. 

Regarding the 29 January advertisement for escort services, I 

understand you were on the job for about a month. So, you are 

somewhat unaware. Do you know what drove that policy decision? 

Do you have any idea? To advertise. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I haven’t seen the document. 

Mr. PERRY. All right, I am gonna provide it and have it—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe it is a recruitment document. 

Mr. PERRY. There are a couple points of contact, Mr. Tony Ross 

and Rachel Ali. If you could in writing respond to me about what 

the policy decisions were that drove the advertisement. 

Do you know if this is unprecedented? Have we advertised for 

these escorts in the past? If not, why not? If now, why now? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would have to see the—— 

Mr. PERRY. All right. I yield back, but I would like those answers 

in writing. Can I get a commitment to get them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I always believe in being responsive to Congress. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes the gentlelady 

from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Mr. Secretary, Honorable Fugate, Mr. Vitiello for 

your testimony here today. It has been very enlightening. I want 

to thank you for your thoughtful approach to really handling a 

multifaceted, multidimensional, very complex crisis. 

There are a lot of moving parts here, and it is clearly something 

that we have to work with in terms of as a work in progress. 

I was glad to hear about the diplomatic component to what you 

are doing in terms of reaching out to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala. 
69 

My question is a logistical one, similar to the one Mr. Vela 

raised, which is: What, exactly, do you anticipate in terms of the 

logistical challenge of reuniting children who don’t have any relatives in the United States? How do we work with embassies, consulates to reunite children from various countries with their parents back home? How do we identify that? Have you given thought 

to that as of yet? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, once the child is identified as an unaccompanied child, the law requires that DHS turn the child over to 

HHS. So your question really goes to HHS—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. And their process, which I am 

not fully equipped to answer. But they have a process of identifying 

a family member and acting in the best interest of the child. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. I just wanted to get a sense, because I 

can imagine it is a daunting task. 

I did want to comment for the basis of this hearing, that I find 

it troubling that we would want to move a military operation, such 

as the National Guard, to our borders to address unaccompanied 

minors. 

I just want to put that on the record, because we can’t say it is 

a humanitarian crisis on the one hand—and I think just about 

every colleague has acknowledged that—and then want to put 

arms on the border to meet children who are fleeing clearly untenable situations in their homelands. 

Do you have a sense of the average amount of children coming 

in daily and which nations, what percentage are coming from what 

nations? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In the Rio Grande Valley sector, where almost all of this is occurring, we are encountering about—the number varies, but we are encountering lately about 350 a day. 

Ms. CLARKE. Do you have a sense—are they—I mean, do you get 

a sense that they are being—for instance, if they are being smuggled, are they children from varying countries, or are they typically 

grouped by country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. 

Ms. CLARKE. So you could conceivably run into children traveling 

together, but from different countries? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure about that. I am not sure 

about the—how they configure themselves in these groups. I do 

know that something like three-quarters of them are from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala. 

Ms. CLARKE. Okay. I would be interested, Mr. Secretary, if we 

could drill down at some point to get a better sense of, you know, 

which countries seem to have larger percentages of children coming 

in. 

If, Mr. Vitiello, if you could get a sense of, are these children 

meeting in the desert? Are they meeting on railway cars? Because 

at least what we are seeing from the press is that the children tend 

to gravitate and come across together, so you are not seeing, like, 

individual kids, necessarily, but children traveling together? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, they very clearly come in groups. They 

are herded, shepherded by a civilian guide, by a guide, at various 

points along the journey, that is part of the smuggling organiza-
70 

tion. It starts at the point of origin in Central America and it goes 

through Mexico. So they are clearly traveling in groups. They are 

not traveling alone. 

The numbers are roughly equivalent among the three countries. 

Honduras might be slightly larger than the other two, but they are 

roughly equivalent. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I thank you once again. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Palazzo is recognized. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As an active member of the National Guard, I see first-hand the 

importance of the National Guard supporting our armed forces as 

we protect our country. As Guard members return from overseas, 

many of them stand ready and willing for their next mission. 

As many of my colleagues have pointed out today, the National 

Guard can play a pivotal role in securing America’s borders. We 

have seen successful Guard missions in the past with Operations 

Jump Start, Phoenix, and Nimbus. 

Last year I called on the Department to use the National Guard 

to help secure the border. In May 2013, I offered an amendment 

in this committee to the Border Security Results Act, which would 

ensure that DHS considers lessons learned from past National 

Guard missions on the border. Both the current and previous administrations have used the National Guard on more of a shortterm, ad hoc basis rather than on any long-term, strategic plan. 

Secretary Johnson, wouldn’t it be beneficial for the Department 

to partner with the National Guard and develop a long-term strategy for the Guard to assist along the borders? Wouldn’t it be the 

borders would be more secure if we had a well-planned, budgeted 

strategy that consistently uses the Guard members rather than 

just using them sporadically? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, first of all, I want to consider 

every option to deal with this circumstance. I take no lawful option 

off the table. 

As I am sure you know, the Guard has limitations, including 

Posse Comitatus: A Guard can’t be involved directly in law enforcement. There are some exceptions to that. The Department of Defense obviously has a lot to say about this, too. It is their resource. 

It comes out of their budget. There are a lot of demands on the 

Guard, particularly in this season. You know, we are dealing with 

hurricane season. There may be different crises they respond to. 

But, I have heard the calls from some that we put the Guard on 

the border. I would want to understand better what the options are 

for the use of the Guard depending on the direction of this situation takes. But I don’t take any option off the table. But there are 

definitely some limitations on the use of the Guard in this respect, 

I think, and we have to be mindful of those. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Vitiello, I mean, you have been with the border 

protection for awhile, were you a part of any of these Guard missions in the past? Can you comment on whether there are pros and 

cons? 

Chief VITIELLO. So, yes, we have had a great relationship over 

the years with the National Guard in Operation Jumpstart and the 
71 

on-going Operation Phalanx Now, in where we use National Guard 

resources to do things like surveillance and sensor response, or sensor monitoring for us. It is not without its challenges. 

We were blessed to have the Guard when we were building the 

new 6,000 agents, and it gave us a bridge to more capability on the 

ground. We learned from them in the resources that we are reusing 

from DOD as they come back from theater and are pressed into 

service for border security. So, we have learned a lot from them in 

all manner, with regard to plans, strategic deployments, et cetera. 

But having the Guard on the border has some limitations, and 

this work is best done by law enforcement agents. In my opinion, 

learning from the Guard, there are some things that they can do. 

I think the Secretary is right to keep our options open. But as it 

relates to this particular problem, where it is most acute in the Rio 

Grande valley, it is not a challenge to arrest people who come as 

children or families with children. The other zones along the Southwest Border and in south Texas are well-patrolled and are either 

better equipped than they were last year or just as well-equipped 

as they were last year. 

Mr. PALAZZO. All right. Well, I think originally, when I—last 

year, it was suggesting the amendment was to ask DHS to study 

the lessons learned. It was to look in it. Don’t take any option off 

the table. But the Guard has been basically sustaining combat missions, humanitarian assistance missions, disaster relief for the past 

12 years. They have proven that they can multi-task and do numerous things. I still believe it is much more cost-effective and efficient to surge the Guard to the border, get the operational control, 

and work them into your plan. 

They are going to train somewhere every year, and you can rotate them in, you can rotate them out. Fix the issues. Figure out 

what they could do. To Congressman Clarke’s issue, yes, we don’t 

want kids walking across the border and being met with guns, but 

I don’t think they would be met with guns. There are probably 

other agencies, non-profit or Federal groups that could be out 

there. 

But you know, our borders are dangerous. People are—because 

we don’t have control over our borders, we don’t know what is coming across. But we do know there are drug cartels, there is gun 

running, there are drugs, and you know, that would be an other 

mission. It could be an escort mission. It could be a rove-and-patrol. 

It could be a communications. It could be providing the necessary 

assistance. Because I don’t think it would be wise to expand the 

full-time employees of the Border Protection Agency. I don’t think 

the American people want to see more Federal law enforcement 

agencies when they have this tool, this cost-effective tool at its fingertips. 

So, I would just want to urge Mr. Secretary to really consider 

this. I know every member of the National Guard that I served 

with would love the opportunity to secure our borders. The American people want to know that our borders are secured and that we 

are safe and sound. So, thank you for being here today. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Barber, 

from Arizona. 
72 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

for convening this hearing on this very important issue, this crisis 

that we are facing on our borders, particularly in Texas and Arizona, and thank you, Mr. Secretary and the other witnesses for 

being with us this morning. 

My State is directly affected by the influx of these children from 

Central America. We have the Nogales Border Patrol station, 

which is in my neighboring district, but nevertheless, the impact 

is felt throughout southern Arizona. I share the concern of many 

of my colleagues, virtually all of us have either children, young 

children, or grandchildren, and we can imagine what it must be 

like for these children to be in a strange environment without their 

family members. I just want to say that I have seen what our Border Patrol Agents are doing, and they are doing a noble job trying 

to keep up with a very difficult situation. 

The cartels are exploiting the situation in many ways. I want to 

get to a question about that in a moment. I am very concerned 

about the influx and what implications it has, Mr. Secretary, for 

the security of the border. I represent one of nine border districts, 

83 miles of border. The people who I represent, particularly those 

who live and work along the border, are really concerned about 

their safety. The concern that they have expressed to me is that 

as Border Patrol Agents have been pulled into the Nogales station 

in particular to care for these children, we have compromised their 

ability to secure the border and to keep people safe. 

Right now, we have about 1,200 kids, I believe, at the Nogales— 

in the Nogales community. They have been moved from the Border 

Patrol station into a warehouse where they are trying to accommodate the need. We have estimated that maybe 60,000 unaccompanied minors will be coming and be apprehended this year. As I 

said before, the Border Patrol Agents, many of whom are family 

members, have children, have been bringing in books, have been 

bringing in toys, bringing in diapers, caring for these children. 

Clearly this is not their job, but this is what they are doing. 

So, Mr. Secretary, three questions: First of all, how many unaccompanied minors are still in CBP custody as we speak, and how 

many of them are in custody in the Tuscon sector? Let me start 

with that question, and then I will move on to two others. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, I am going to Nogales tomorrow to inspect the situation there. One of the things I will be 

asking is the question you asked. Are we having to divert Border 

Patrol personnel from their Border Patrol duties? That is very important to me that we minimize the circumstances of that. The capacity at Nogales, I think is about 1,200. It is near capacity, with 

unaccompanied children. We were at one point sending family 

units there. We are not. We are just sending the unaccompanied 

children there. From that point, they go to HHS custody. 

Overall, children apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley sector, 

I don’t have the—that are in-custody right now, I don’t have the 

number off-hand. It is probably—I don’t have the number off-hand. 

I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess, but I can get that to you. 

Mr. BARBER. Very good. Well, I appreciate the fact that you are 

going to be asking about the impact that the agents being asked 

to come to Nogales to staff up for these children, what effect that 
73 

is having on border security. I have been in touch with people who 

live and work along the border of ranchers and in fact have heard 

from some agents about the fact that they have been pulled off 

shifts, that we have less agents on the ground that are helping to 

secure the border, so Mr. Secretary, if you could get back to us with 

some information about how many have been pulled and what the 

impact is. 

Let me just close with this one question. It is a comment and a 

question. I have been particularly discouraged by the fact that virtually nobody in Arizona knew that these children were coming. I 

found out about it through the newspaper. The local sheriff found 

out about it the same way. Even the sector chief found out about 

it as the children were arriving. What steps is the Department taking to make sure that if we have any additional transfers like this, 

that local authorities and officials are properly identified? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, it shouldn’t have happened 

that way. The Congressional delegation, local officials, should have 

gotten notice that this situation necessitated that we extend our 

processing to Nogales, and I have instructed my staff that when we 

have to go to these places, we give the Congressional delegation 

and local officials advance information about that. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for what you 

are doing to keep up with this terrible situation. I particularly 

want to thank our Border Patrol Agents for what they are doing 

every day. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman recognizes Mrs. Brooks, from Indiana. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this very important hearing, and thank you all for your 

service. 

My question I want to follow up on the smuggling questions and 

actually, to Chief Vitiello, could you please talk with us a little bit 

about additional resources that are being provided to you all to 

prosecute the smugglers, and has there been an increase in prosecutions of smugglers in the last 6 months? 

Chief VITIELLO. I would have to get back to you for specifics on, 

you know, prosecution cases in the last 6 months. But we have 

surged our own resources to develop leads for case work to understand what we know or what we can know more about alien smuggling networks. 

ICE has also—ICE, the Homeland Security Investigations group, 

has also surged resources at this problem for the same purpose, for 

them to increase their level of case work looking at smuggling networks. 

Just to the point on—as it relates to Border Patrol resources, the 

Nogales Placement Center is being conducted on agent overtime. 

We have added overtime in all of the locations that have helped us 

process folks whether it be Nogales or El Paso and certainly in the 

Rio Grande Valley. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So smuggling operations have been going on for 

years and years. This is not new. I am a former U.S. attorney in 

the Bush administration. We did smuggling cases. 

But this is at unprecedented levels is what it seems, particularly 

obviously with children. 
74 

What are the smuggling operations? What is your intelligence 

telling you? What kind of groups? 

Is it MS–13? Is it Barrio 18? Is it the gangs that have developed 

smuggling organizations and is that really what is bringing these 

groups in? 

Chief VITIELLO. I think that over the years, over the last several 

years, the sophistication of smuggling networks and their 

connectivity to cartels has been a concern for quite some time. 

The work that we have from the field intelligence reports that 

have been generated to our office suggest that people contract 

smugglers both in the point of origin. Sometimes they wait until 

they are in, you know, the—Mexico. Sometimes they wait until 

they are at the border. 

But that is the kind of thing that we recognize. Post-arrest interviews give us information. We look for indications for intelligence 

in things like pocket trash, develop phone numbers and then pass 

those leads in the local sense to the interagency and then certainly 

to Homeland Security Investigations to follow up and try to attack 

those networks as they bring folks in. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Do you have any idea from the young people that 

you have interviewed how many kids have died? 

Chief VITIELLO. I don’t have any direct information about that. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Do we have any information about any children 

who have died or are missing? 

Chief VITIELLO. Not specifically. 

I mean, I think that, you know, we recognize that this journey 

is a very difficult one. Certainly at the border over the years, we 

have seen people fail in their attempt by succumbing to the elements and I don’t think it would be different for this population. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Mr. Secretary, as you have indicated, there is a 

public relations campaign that you initiated. 

Are we talking about increasing prosecutions or—of smugglers in 

Central America so that we can create that deterrent effect and let 

people know that they are being prosecuted, what the penalties are 

and that we are actually catching any of the smugglers if we are? 

Maybe we, in our law enforcement resources or working with the 

Mexican authorities, are not being successful in our smuggling 

prosecutions; I am curious whether or not we are talking about 

that at all. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The answer is yes. 

I would like to add to what the deputy chief said. Homeland Security Investigations, which is part of ICE, has been surging resources to deal with the smuggling organizations. In the month of 

May, they made something like 163 arrests of so-called smugglers 

and I have directed that we add resources to that. The Department 

of Justice is also adding resources to this effort. 

I think the key is the money trail because the money trail often 

originates in the United States. So if we can track the money, we 

can stop the flow of money that goes to pay these organizations to 

smuggle the kids, we go a long way to dealing with this problem. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Are you publicizing the prosecution of 160 individuals, which I would commend you for the month of May in Central 

America, you know, letting everybody know who has been arrested 

and what has happened? 
75 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is in our interest to do that, yes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. With respect—and I have grave concern that the 

groups like MS–13, which are growing in this country, are bringing 

these kids in who now owe MS–13. Would that be correct? They 

owe them a bit of debt for bringing them into this country. 

Is that fair to say, Chief Vitiello? 

Chief VITIELLO. It is often the case that people contract with 

smugglers without a payment up-front. So that is a concern. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So now these young people are coming into our 

communities owing the gangs some debt. Would that be correct? 

Chief VITIELLO. It is important for us to know who is responsible 

for the smuggling and recognize where the networks are in all 

three countries. 

Mrs. BROOKS. I certainly hope we keep track of them in our 

country. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Let me say to the gentlelady’s point, this 

committee will be introducing an anti-smuggling bill in the near future. 

Mr. Sanford is recognized. 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Vitiello, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Fugate, you have been incredibly patient during this testimony because a lot of questions haven’t been oriented towards you. 

But given the fact we are in hurricane season and I am from the 

coast, I will be calling. 

To you, Mr. Secretary, I am a huge fan. You know, the things 

you have done in the United States military, I think, just incredible. 

I have been watching you over the last couple hours during testimony. I wrote down bearing of a military officer, verbal dexterity 

of a Philadelphia lawyer, and decisiveness of a CEO. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know where you get Philadelphia 

lawyer—— 

Mr. SANFORD. So I am a big fan. 

But in the few minutes I have, I am going to ask a couple of fairly pointed questions. I would ask that you answer them as quickly 

as possible so I can run through my quick 5 minutes, all with the 

caveat of I am a big fan. Fair enough? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Okay. Yes, sir. Here it comes. 

Mr. SANFORD. Okay. You know, going back to being a pup lieutenant way back when, it just strikes me that, you know, as you 

guys set up a perimeter in the military, it is not a conditional perimeter. It is not contingent on what Mexico might do or Pakistan 

might do; it is an absolute perimeter. 

I think one of the things that the American public is thirsting 

for is the same kind of decisiveness and reality they see in the military in a perimeter that isn’t breached on the Southern Border. 

Why can’t we have that in short form? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, you have to realize these 

kids probably want to get caught. In some cases, as—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Well, not want to. I am mean, they are running 

to officers. 
76 

Secretary JOHNSON. They will run to the nearest officer and say, 

‘‘Here I am.’’ 

Mr. SANFORD. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. So you have to ask, you know, will an increased border presence deter that? 

Mr. SANFORD. I guess let me phrase again because I only have 

a couple minutes. 

Should we have a border that is in essence conditional? Because 

part of the testimony was based on what we might get Mexico to 

do, what we might not get Mexico to do, or what we might get Guatemala to do. 

Shouldn’t it be as at least a goalpost, an absolute rather than a 

conditional border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We need to have secure borders, absolutely, 

if that is your question. We need secure borders. 

So one of the things that I have tried to do here in my testimony 

is lay out all the things we are doing to deal with this situation, 

which not only involves processing the kids but turning the tide 

around. 

Mr. SANFORD. But I mean, part of what we are doing now, I 

mean—because I think that there is a real difference between 

words and actions and a lot of our actions have been absolute. 

I mean, I think that our words have been absolute. I mean, the 

words that you used were, ‘‘We are going to bring to bear all assets 

of the Federal Government.’’ 

I think that most people don’t believe that. They believe that if 

we brought to bear all assets of the Federal Government, we could 

have a secure border. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me say this. I am going to say what 

I said before. I want to know every option, and I want to consider 

every option. I am prepared to seriously consider every lawful option—— 

Mr. SANFORD. No. We have been here a couple hours so I understand. 

But I guess going to the point though of as a strategy—I mean, 

you are an able, fit guy, military guy. As a strategy, if you loved 

your kid and wanted to get him in America, wouldn’t you send the 

kid first and given our present policy of nondeportation and sending them to a family somewhere domestic in the United States, get 

them secure? 

Then you would be able to evade and move and maybe get into 

the border on your own and then get reunited with your family. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have to tell you, I—the conditions for me 

to—my kids are 18 and 19. But the conditions for me to part with 

them when they were 8 or 9 and say, ‘‘Go have this thousand-mile 

journey and I will see you later,’’ would have to be pretty dire before I would give up the responsibility for—— 

Mr. SANFORD. If I am not mistaken, I think a billion people 

around the earth live on like a dollar a day or some astoundingly 

low number. I don’t remember the exact statistic. 

But I mean, I think there are a number of dire circumstances 

around the globe, which goes back to conditional versus an absolute 

border. 
77 

One last question since I am out of time. I think that, you know, 

there was frequent reference to ‘‘I don’t think the law allows me 

to send an unaccompanied minor home.’’ My question to you would 

be which comes first, the law or the Constitution? Because as I 

read through the 14th amendment, I think the Constitution is fairly clear on what citizenship entails. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me be clear. I don’t believe that the 

law would allow us to send an unaccompanied child home in an expedited removal proceeding. 

They are given notices to appear. Deportation proceedings are 

begun when they are apprehended. 

Mr. SANFORD. But for practical purposes, as the testimony with 

you on the other hand suggested once they are here, they are here? 

You didn’t refute that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the law requires that once a child is 

identified as unaccompanied, CBP has to give them to HHS, and 

they do what is in the best interest of the child. That is what the 

law passed by the Congress requires. 

Mr. SANFORD. Understood, and I am out of time unfortunately. 

I know you have to go, but thank you very much for your testimony, sir. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. Let me thank the witnesses for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Secretary, let me personally thank you for showing up on 

such a short notice on such a very important issue. I know you 

didn’t create this. You inherited this. I know you are working hard 

to resolve it, and I pledge the support of this committee to work 

with you towards that effort. With that—Members may have additional questions in writing. 

Without objection, this committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(78) 

CRISIS ON THE TEXAS BORDER: SURGE OF 

UNACCOMPANIED MINORS 

Thursday, July 3, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, McAllen, TX. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., at South 

Texas College, Technology Campus, Room 193, Building B Auditorium, Hon. Michael T. McCaul [Chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul [presiding], Broun, and Jackson 

Lee. 

Also present: Representatives Granger, Green, Olson, 

Farenthold, Ellmers, Salmon, Barletta, Swalwell, and Vela. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

The committee is meeting today in McAllen, Texas to examine 

the crisis on the Texas-Mexican border regarding unaccompanied 

children. 

First I would like to thank everybody, including the witnesses 

and Governor Perry, for being here today. 

I also would like to thank South Texas College for their hospitality in hosting us here today, and Dean Mario Reyna as well. 

I appreciate the effort taken on behalf of all those involved to 

have this important field hearing. 

This is an official Congressional hearing, as opposed to a town 

hall meeting, and as such, we must abide by certain rules of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and the House of Representatives. I kindly wish to remind our guests today that demonstrations 

from the audience, including applause and verbal outbursts, as well 

as the use of signs or placards, are a violation of the rules of the 

House of Representatives. It is important that we respect the decorum and the rules of the committee. 

I have also been requested to state that photography and cameras are limited to accredited press only. 

Before I recognize myself for an opening statement, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Granger; the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green; the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Olson; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold—it is good 

to have a lot of Texans here today—the gentlewoman from North 

Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers; and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Salmon, be permitted to sit on the dais and participate in today’s 

hearing; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta, as 

well. 
79 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that a written statement from 

Texas Border Coalition be included into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE TEXAS BORDER COALITION

JULY 3, 2014 

Chairman McCaul and Members: Thank you for this opportunity to submit my 

statement on behalf of the Texas Border Coalition. Our concern is the urgent need 

for collaboration with local community leaders who understand this region, as Federal and State officials respond to the current humanitarian and security situation 

here on the border. Only by working closely with border communities can any Stateor Federal-level response hope to be successful. 

The Texas Border Coalition is made up of elected and business leaders who strive 

to speak on behalf of 2.1 million Americans in 17 border counties of the 1,250-mile 

Texas-Mexico border. Ours is a region of contrasts, exhibiting differences and similarities of language, culture, tradition, and economy. The multi-national, multi-cultural nature of our communities on both sides of the international boundary gives 

our region a distinct sense of place. 

The Texas Border Coalition welcomes your committee to the border region today, 

even for the solemn purpose of this hearing. Those of us who live, work, and raise 

our families here experience daily the tremendous vitality of our border communities, and we welcome each of you to experience a little of the region we call home. 

However, all too often the attention of State and Federal officials only turns our way 

in times of real or perceived crisis. And so it is today. 

There is a humanitarian and security crisis in progress here, and although it has 

only recently captured the attention of the National media, this situation has been 

unfolding for over a year. In recent months, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors, some heartbreakingly young, have entered the United States illegally. Most 

of them have travelled here from Central America. They are lured by the mistaken 

belief, partly spread by criminals who profit from their journey, that they will be 

allowed to remain in the United States. Some of the youngest are with their mothers and some have relatives in the United States, but most of these children are 

totally alone. 

There are those who argue that the influx of illegal child immigrants proves the 

failure of border security, but that argument misses the point. Unlike other undocumented immigrants, these children are not trying to hide. As soon as these children 

enter U.S. territory, they are eager to turn themselves in to the authorities, because 

they believe what the traffickers have told them; they believe the Government will 

let them stay. 

To the contrary, many of them are housed in deplorable conditions in our summer 

heat or dropped off at a bus station to find their way to relatives, in preparation 

for legal proceedings to determine whether they can be deported back to their home 

countries. 

So now they’re here, and you’re here. The Rio Grande Valley, which is my home 

and has been all of my life, is probably just about as foreign to many of you as it 

is to the Central American children. But to our local business and community leaders, this is home. Leaders like my neighbor and fellow TBC member Mayor Jim 

Darling of McAllen, whose community has responded swiftly and generously to the 

needs of these Central American children and families. Our local and county leaders 

know our border region like you know your home towns, and we can and should 

play a crucial role in the State and Federal response to this situation. 

I urge you to form a partnership with local and county elected leaders, local law 

enforcement agencies, business leaders and our faith community to find real solutions to the influx of immigrant children. This does not need to be, and should not 

be, a formal, bureaucratic process that takes months to convene. The problems are 

too pressing. We need a straightforward collaborative process that gets local leaders 

to the table with State and Federal decision makers to develop practical, real-world 

solutions to these problems. And we need to figure out a way to fairly compensate 

the communities that shouldered the burden. 

Texas Border Coalition is on the record in many different forums about the dire 

need for more investments at the border crossings to increase manpower, upgrade 

technology, and modernize infrastructure. We welcome Congressional interest in expenditures on border security in response to the flood of children from Central 
80 

America. However, without immediate and on-going collaboration with local border 

communities, the proposed billions in Federal tax dollars for ‘‘aggressive deterrence,’’ and State and Federal law enforcement resources require local collaboration 

and local knowledge of the needs of border communities to be successful. 

We suggest dealing immediately with the crisis that confronts the children trekking here from Central America. Our communities have been working closely with 

other local governments, law enforcement agencies, community groups, and faith 

partners to make sure we can continue to aid the humanitarian effort. I am proud 

of these efforts and the contributions of many of our citizen volunteers and donors. 

Congress needs to craft solutions that deal with the long-term problems that underpin this situation. For example, U.S. efforts to partner with the Mexican government to help improve their economy have helped reduce the numbers of Mexicans 

seeking illegal entry into our country. We should do the same with Central American nations to improve their economy and security situations. 

Congress also needs to deal with a failed immigration system that fosters lawlessness. TBC recognizes the difficulty of the task, both in term of policy and politics. 

However, the reality remains that until you tackle immigration reform, no amount 

of security spending is going to achieve your desired ends. 

Thank you again for travelling to our border home and for your interest in finding 

solutions for the current situation. The Texas Border Coalition stands ready to partner with State and Federal officials to craft practical solutions that fit border communities and relieve human suffering, while making smart, effective improvements 

to border security. We look forward to working alongside you to resolve this crisis. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Here in Texas, we are facing an escalating refugee and National 

security crisis. Since October, more than 50,000 unaccompanied minors have crossed our Southern Border into the United States. 

Nearly two-thirds of those crossed here, right here in the Rio 

Grande Valley Sector. CBP estimates that next year more than 

150,000 unaccompanied children may attempt to cross the U.S.- 

Mexico border. 

These children are being exploited by the drug cartels who are 

turning a profit by smuggling these kids into the United States at 

a cost of $5,000 to $8,000 per child. Many are under the age of 10, 

traveling thousands of miles along through Mexico from Central 

America on buses or so-called ‘‘death trains.’’ These children are 

often subjected to beatings, starvation, sexual assault, and are at 

risk of being trafficked. As a father of five, I cannot fathom handing my child over to a criminal element and setting them out on 

this long and dangerous passage. 

When they arrive in the United States, they are told to turn 

themselves in to the nearest Border Patrol Agent. Border Patrol 

stations like the one we saw here today in McAllen become holding 

facilities until these minors can be moved to Lackland Air Force 

Base in San Antonio or another appropriate shelter. But the point 

is our military bases are turning into refugee camps. I never 

thought I would see this in the United States of America. 

We saw three children younger than my kids—7, 8, and 9—with 

their grandmother, mothers in Pennsylvania, all in tears, crying. I 

have to say on a personal level what an impact that had for me 

to see that just as a human, and the human, compassionate element to this. But I believe it is our policies driving this migration 

into the United States. 

It is obvious that the Department of Homeland Security is currently not adequately prepared to deal with this influx of unaccompanied children. This has left State and local officials to fill the 
81 

void, and it takes the Border Patrol away from their main mission, 

and that is securing the border. 

This week, the White House started a process to request additional funding and measures to address this crisis, including the 

additional authority to remove these Central American children as 

well. In addition, the White House wants to enhance penalties for 

smuggling children, similar to legislation that I introduced last 

week. I look forward to reviewing the details of the President’s request. 

To fix this crisis, the administration must first recognize that its 

failed immigration and border policies are the source of this problem. At the hearing I held in Washington last week, the committee 

heard repeatedly that the horrible economic conditions and violence 

in Central America were the only reason why these children are 

coming. No one questions the fact that the circumstances in these 

countries are terrible, but these conditions are not new and they 

have not suddenly gotten worse. 

What is new is a series of Executive Actions by the administration to grant immigration benefits to children outside the purview 

of the law, a relaxed enforcement posture, along with talk of comprehensive immigration reform. Just this week, the President defiantly vowed to take more administrative actions on immigration 

very soon. Such unilateral actions and failed policies, in my judgment, are what caused this dire situation here in Texas in the first 

place, and could cause it to be worse. The message these policies 

are sending is that if you come, you can stay. This makes its way 

back to Central America, and more children are being put in the 

arms of the cartels. In fact, newspapers there seem to be encouraging illegal immigration based on these policies, and recent internal DHS surveys of these children reveal that more than 70 percent believe they are going to remain here in the United States. 

In some ways, this is true. While these kids and families are 

given notices to appear, the reality is that it will take years to 

work through the immigration system. To break this cycle, we need 

to send a message of deterrence: First, mandatory detention; and 

then we should explore ways to properly return those who come 

here illegally. Not doing so puts more young lives at risk of exploitation, like the children we saw here today. 

In addition, we should also better engage with the government 

of Mexico to step up their efforts to secure their southern border. 

We appropriate millions of dollars to Mexico for this purpose. The 

problem begins with Mexican officials who turn a blind eye to Central Americans who cross the porous Mexican border, and I urge 

the president of Mexico at this hearing, and his interior minister, 

to get serious about securing their southern border as well. 

Securing the border is the obligation of the Federal Government. 

States should not be required to protect what is the Federal Government’s responsibility under our Constitution. But in spite of 

that, Governor Perry has boldly recently announced that he will 

surge border security operations along the border to make up for 

the administration’s failures. The President needs to immediately 

send the National Guard to the Southwest Border to free up Border 

Patrol Agents so they can perform their primary mission, and that 

is securing the border. 
82 

Drug cartels and other criminals have and will continue to exploit any weakness in our border security efforts. We must stem 

the flow and stop children from being subjected to this dangerous 

and sometimes fatal journey. 

I look forward to hearing from Governor Perry and our other witnesses here today about the situation on the ground and what more 

DHS and the administration and the Congress can and should be 

doing to address this problem. The details from today’s hearing will 

be incorporated into the findings of the Speaker’s Working Group 

chaired by Congresswoman Kay Granger and established to investigate and make recommendations in a solution-oriented way to address this crisis. 

Finally, we saw the heroic actions of our Border Patrol here 

today. I have seen them over my countless years of dealing with 

this issue, trying to resolve this issue, and I just want to thank 

them for their efforts day in and day out in what is oftentimes a 

thankless job for what I would consider to be the heroes that we 

have alongside our Southwest Border, and also for the compassion 

and the care that they provide these children crossing. I can only 

imagine, as a father and as a human, what runs through their 

minds on a daily basis dealing with children and oftentimes babies 

that we are finding at these detention centers. 

So thank you not only for myself, but I know I speak on behalf 

of this entire delegation. We thank you for your heroic efforts. 

[Applause.] 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

JULY 3, 2014 

Here in Texas we are facing an escalating refugee and National security crisis. 

Since October, more than 50,000 unaccompanied minors have crossed our Southern 

Border into the United States—nearly two-thirds of those crossed here in the Rio 

Grande Valley. CBP estimates that next year more than 150,000 unaccompanied 

children may attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. 

These children are being exploited by the drug cartels who are turning a profit by smuggling these kids to the United States at a cost of $5,000 to $8,000 per child. 

Many are under the age of 10, traveling thousands of miles alone through Mexico 

from Central America on buses or so called ‘‘death trains.’’ These children are often 

subjected to beatings, starvation, sexual assault, and are at risk of being trafficked. 

As a father of five, I cannot fathom handing my child over to a criminal and setting 

them out on this long and dangerous passage. 

When they arrive in the United States, they are told to turn themselves into the 

nearest Border Patrol Agent. Border Patrol stations, like the one we saw here in 

McAllen today, become holding facilities until these minors can be moved to 

Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio or another shelter. Our military bases are 

turning into refugee camps—I never thought I would see this in America. 

It is obvious that Department of Homeland Security is not adequately prepared 

to deal with this influx of unaccompanied children. This has left State and local officials to fill the void and takes the Border Patrol away from securing the border. 

This week, the White House started the process to request additional funding and 

measures to address this crisis, including the additional authority to remove these 

Central American children. In addition, the White House wants to enhance penalties for smuggling children, similar to legislation I already have introduced. I look 

forward to reviewing the details of these requests. 

To fix this crisis, the administration must first recognize its failed immigration 

and border policies are the source of the problem. At the hearing I held in Washington last week, the committee heard repeatedly that the horrible economic conditions and violence in Central America were the only reason these kids are coming. 

No one questions the fact that the circumstances in these countries are terrible, but 

these conditions are not new, and they have not suddenly gotten worse. 
83 

What is new is a series of Executive Actions by the administration to grant immigration benefits to children outside the purview of the law—a relaxed enforcement 

posture—along with talk of comprehensive immigration reform. Just this week, the 

President defiantly vowed to take more administrative actions on immigration very 

soon—such unilateral actions and failed policies are what caused this dire situation 

here in Texas in the first place. 

The message these policies are sending is ‘‘if you come, you can stay.’’ This makes 

its way back to Central America, and more children are put in the arms of the cartels. In fact, newspapers there seem to be encouraging illegal immigration based on 

these policies. And recent internal DHS surveys of these children reveal that more 

than 70% believe they are going to remain here. 

In some ways, this is true. While these kids and families are given ‘‘notices to 

appear,’’ the reality is that it will take years to work through the immigration system. 

To break this cycle we need to add in some real deterrence—first, mandatory detention and then we should explore ways to promptly return those who come here 

illegally. Not doing so puts more young lives at risk of exploitation. 

In addition, we should also better engage with the government of Mexico to step 

up their efforts to secure their southern border. The problem begins with Mexican 

officials who turn a blind eye to Central Americans who cross the porous Mexican 

border. I urge the president of Mexico and his interior minister, to get serious about 

securing their borders as well. 

Securing the border is the obligation of the Federal Government. States should 

not be required to protect what is the Federal Government’s responsibility under 

our Constitution. However, Governor Perry recently announced that he would surge 

border security operations along the border to make up for the administration’s failures. 

The President needs to immediately send the National Guard to the Southwest 

Border to free up Border Patrol Agents so that they can perform their primary mission—securing our border. Drug cartels and other criminals have and will continue 

to exploit any weakness in our border security efforts. 

We must stem the flow and stop children from being subjected to this dangerous, 

and sometimes fatal, journey. I look forward to hearing from Governor Perry and 

our other witnesses here today about the situation on the ground and what more 

DHS and the administration can and should be doing to address this problem. Details from today’s hearing will be incorporated into the findings of the Speaker’s 

Working Group established to investigate and make recommendations to address 

this crisis. 

Finally, I want to recognize the tireless efforts of our Border Patrol for their compassion and care they provide to these children. Thank you from myself and all the 

Members here with us today. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the active 

Ranking Member, the gentle lady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson 

Lee, for an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much for 

your courtesies of extending me the time as the Ranking Member 

of this subcommittee, and I give you greetings from the Ranking 

Member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. 

You ended just as I would like to begin, and that is, Governor, 

to thank all of you here in the State of Texas that have always 

risen to accept the challenge, and it is my personal commitment, 

along with my colleagues, that as the President has put forward 

the $2 billion to address this humanitarian crisis, that Texas will 

stand in the very noble position to receive the funding necessary 

for reimbursement but to continue some of the hard work that you 

have already engaged in. 

We thank your Department of Health that has been absolutely 

unending; your DPS, Texas Rangers. I am very grateful that you 

have offered your commitment. You know that we worked together 

during Hurricane Katrina, and again Texas opened her heart to receive those who were in great need. 
84 

So let me acknowledge that the Federal Government is doing its 

work—I think that is going to be my role today—but that we can 

always do a better job. So I do want to take note of the Border Patrol and thank them for the work they have done in 207,000 arrests from fiscal year October 2013 and on-going. They have not diminished in the assignment that we have given them. ICE, on the 

other hand, likewise. Last year, 107,000 deportations in this region, now 115,000. 

I think it is a failing concept to suggest that the Federal Government is not doing its job. But we have a humanitarian crisis, and 

let me just for a moment acknowledge State Representative Tony 

Dale here in Texas, State Representative Allen Fletcher, and let 

me acknowledge the chairman of the board of South Texas. I know 

these are all constituents of Congressman Rose Benavidez. I also 

want to acknowledge Mr. Swalwell of the San Francisco Bay area. 

Thank you for being here. Mr. Gene Green of Houston, thank you. 

Our own Congressman Filemon Vela, who has been here throughout this time frame, and he has been working in his district. He 

represents all throughout the Rio Grande Valley. We want to acknowledge Senator Hinojosa, who is here as well. Let me thank you 

so very much for all that you all have done. 

So I believe that this is a humanitarian crisis, and I know in 

Washington we use the term ‘‘humanitarian,’’ and I think we need 

to continue to use that terminology because if we look and do our 

homework, we will find out that, according to the United Nations— 

we don’t have to make it up—these children have been forcibly displaced. Anyone, as my Chairman has indicated, that has spent 

time loving and hugging and seeing these children, listening to the 

Border Patrol Agents, as I have done, going from McAllen and 

Brownsville, going out on the Rio Grande and going up and down, 

seeing the hard work the Border Patrol is doing, but they will tell 

you these are the most orderly, behaved children who simply want 

an opportunity to be free from the murderous conditions from 

which they flee. 

I ask the question: Is not America that great? As we are on the 

edge of the Fourth of July, a time that reflects all of us fleeing from 

those of—our ancestors fleeing from persecution, and then announcing the greatness of this Nation, are we not able to address 

a humanitarian crisis? I think we are. 

So let me offer to you something that cannot be refuted. The 

three Central American countries have among the highest per capita homicide rates in the world, with Honduras topping the list and 

the other two nations in the top five. 

When the Bishop testified in Washington, DC, Governor, he indicated that he has spoken to individuals who had, in fact, said to 

them that their children would be killed dead on the spot if they 

did not join a gang. What would any of us do as parents? We would 

take them and we would flee. 

Now, let me make it very clear, the South Texas region needs our 

help, and they have done an enormous job. The Baptist Center, the 

Catholic Charities and Sacred Heart that we were able to visit, and 

even the volunteers that have been able to come into the detention 

centers, they have done a magnificent job. 
85 

But it is very important to know that a massive deportation policy for children and a mandatory detaining for children is not a humane thing to do. We must find a way to follow the law. Republicans voted for the law in 2008, and that is the law that transfers 

these children to Health and Human Services. 

Now, maybe we need added help. We are all across America looking for facilities, and I might add that there are people raising 

their hand. I spoke to people in Dallas. I have spoken to people in 

Houston. I imagine there are people beyond our boundaries ready 

to offer these facilities so these children can go through the normal 

court proceedings. 

I am ready to provide funding for more ICE officers, more resources for the Border Patrol, more help for the State, but in particular the Border Patrol that gives them more technology, that 

gives them more resources down here on the border, that adds 

more ICE officers for transport and other necessary ERO responsibilities. More immigration judges and more infrastructure work is 

what we are prepared to do. 

But I do believe that we should be cautious; cautious in rushing 

to judgment on any form that would detain children. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am here to listen. I am very delighted to 

have the opportunity to hear from very distinguished Members, as 

well as our Governor, and as well as Bishop Seitz who was there 

before. 

But I do want to end on this note. I do want to end on this note. 

I always like to take things when I visit people who are detained 

for reasons that are not of a criminal nature, whether it is to visit 

with those in Darfur or to be able to engage in Afghanistan, or to 

be able to talk to children wherever they are, homeless children. 

These are lollipops. I took lollipops, along with my colleagues, 

into those detention centers where children were. I wasn’t armed. 

I wasn’t fearful for my life. This is not a National security crisis. 

This is a humanitarian crisis. So the question is how can we, as 

good Americans and Republicans and Democrats, do what the 

Chairman has said, be able to have in place an orderly process that 

people will know that crooks and criminals and thieves and smugglers and traffickers who are lying to them in Central America cannot be coddled? That is who we should go after. But the children 

should be given the basic coverage of the law that is in existence 

today that will allow us to treat them in a humane way. 

I hope this hearing will give us the additional insight to be able 

to do this. I do believe that the United States is doing and following the law, but we need to do better, and I look forward to 

doing so as we proceed in this hearing. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Hon. Jackson Lee follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

JULY 3, 2014 

I thank Chairman McCaul for holding today’s hearing on unaccompanied children 

crossing our Southern Border. 

I am pleased to join Members from the Committee on Homeland Security and welcome my Congressional colleagues who have traveled to Texas. 
86 

I would like to specifically acknowledge the presence of Rep. Filemon Vela, who 

represents a district here in the Rio Grande Valley, and who has been very engaged 

on the issue before us today. 

This year, the Border Patrol has apprehended over 50,000 unaccompanied children crossing our Southern Border. 

My colleagues and I had the opportunity to visit the local U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities where many of these unaccompanied children, along 

with family units and others, are being processed by the Border Patrol. 

To look at the faces of the children, many of whom are very young, is to understand that this situation is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis. 

I am troubled by testimony submitted today that speaks to cartels and crime, 

which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. 

I hope we can keep that distinction in mind in our discussion today. 

These children are not perpetrators or criminals—they are, in many cases, victims. 

They are fleeing persistent violence and dire economic circumstances in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and are seeking a safe haven in the United 

States, as so many people before them have done. 

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, these three Central 

American countries have among the highest per capita homicide rates in the world, 

with Honduras topping the list and the other two nations in the top five. 

Many of these children are also likely undertaking the dangerous journey to reunite with family members in the United States, in the absence of action on comprehensive immigration reform. 

As a parent, I can only imagine what kind of desperation prompts mothers and 

fathers to hand their children over to smugglers or send then on a perilous journey 

to the United States in the hope of a better life. 

I also would like to commend the men and women of the Border Patrol for their 

hard work responding to this situation and express my sincere appreciation for their 

professionalism under the most difficult circumstances. 

Despite these challenges, and due to the additional resources in the area, Border 

Patrol’s effectiveness rate has actually increased—from 67 percent at this time last 

year to 78 percent this year. 

Also, it is my understanding that Border Patrol is meeting its goal of processing 

unaccompanied children within 24 hours. 

Unfortunately, the process appears to break down after that point. 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed into law by President Bush in 2008 and its language was supported by many Members of this Committee, both Democrat and Republican. 

The law requires that unaccompanied children taken into custody, screened, and 

transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours. 

However, unaccompanied children are currently in CBP custody for an average of 

5 days, apparently due to a lack of bed space. 

Last night in Brownsville, we saw an unaccompanied 3-year-old child who had 

been in CBP custody for days and days. 

Despite Border Patrol’s best efforts, the Department of Health and Human Services had not yet taken custody of the little girl. 

So the older girls in CBP custody with her were keeping watch over the child, 

passing her care to others as they were transferred elsewhere. 

This is unconscionable. 

We will be asking the Department of Health and Human Services about this delay 

and what can be done to address it. 

All Federal agencies, not just DHS, must do their part. 

Today, I hope to hear from our Border Patrol witness, Chief Oaks, about the current situation at the border, how his agents are managing the influx of unaccompanied children, and what additional resources he may need. 

I also hope to hear from the Hidalgo County Judge, Mr. Garcia, about any local 

impacts this situation is having on his community. 

And finally, I hope to hear from Bishop Seitz about the ‘‘push factors’’ driving 

families to send their children to the United States, as well as what Catholic Charities and other similar organizations are doing to assist these children and families 

in the Rio Grande Valley and across the Southern Border. 

In closing, I hope we can use today’s hearing to engage in constructive dialogue 

and avoid political grandstanding. 

Sensationalizing or politicizing the situation does nothing to fix the problem. 

Protesting buses of innocent children being transported for processing is not indicative of who we are as Americans. 
87 

We must be better than that as a committee, as a Congress, and as a Nation. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to a productive 

hearing. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Ranking Member. I would like 

to associate myself with your remarks with respect to thanking our 

Department of Public Safety. Members are reminded that statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statements of Hon. O’Rourke and Hon. Hinojosa follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE BETO O’ROURKE

JULY 3, 2013 

Chairman McCaul, thank you for holding today’s field hearing. On June 24, 2014, 

the Committee on Homeland Security held its first hearing on this subject and I 

appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to continue this important conversation. I 

would also like to acknowledge and thank Bishop Mark Seitz from the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for testifying at today’s field 

hearing. Bishop Seitz brings a unique perspective to this subject and the findings 

from his January 2014 report titled ‘‘USCCB: Mission to Central America: Flight of 

the Unaccompanied Immigrant Children to the United States’’ provides great insight into the current situation our country is facing today. 

With the increasing numbers of unaccompanied children and families arriving at 

the U.S.-Mexico border, we must understand who these individuals are, what is propelling them to travel on a very dangerous journey, and what can be done to best 

address their welfare. I am especially proud of my district of El Paso, Texas, which 

has stepped up in recent weeks and responded in a coordinated effort to address 

this current crisis and provide relief to migrants in need. The El Paso Border Patrol 

(BP), led by Chief Patrol Agent Scott Luck and Assistant Chief Patrol Agent Robert 

Boatwright, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Field Office Director 

Adrian Macias, and Assistant Director Jesus Placencia, and Ruben Garcia, Director 

of Annunciation House that has provided the needed social services to migrants and 

their families transferred to El Paso, each deserve special recognition for their work. 

The many other front-line personnel from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 

ICE also deserve thanks for their tireless work over the past months and weeks. 

I will also continue working with CBP to ensure that El Paso is treated equitably 

with other Border Patrol sectors for transfers of families from the Rio Grande Valley. 

The dramatic flow of children and families across the Southwest Border is a 

symptom of a humanitarian crisis, not a security one. While I agree to a certain extent that more can be done in Mexico, for example, to help secure their border, we 

must address push-factor issues in the countries of origin if we hope to stem the 

flow of unaccompanied children and families to the United States. I commend the 

administration’s plan to increase foreign aid to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and 

Honduras, with a focus on strengthening citizen security, gang prevention, youth development, public policy campaigns, and reintegration and repatriation programs. 

However, for this to be successful, metrics must also be developed to ensure that 

this money is being spent wisely and achieving its intended goals. Further, Mexico 

must work with its Central American neighbors to strengthen institutions sustaining the rule of law and protect human rights. 

Lastly, I would like to comment on President Obama’s June 30, 2014 letter to 

House and Senate leadership. While President Obama will be submitting a formal 

detailed request for an emergency appropriation when Congress returns from recess, 

I want to ensure that any request Congress considers maintains a balanced approach between deterrence of migration and the protection of children and families 

seeking safety. Protections afforded through current laws, such as the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, are essential and should 

not be sidestepped for the sake of rapidly deporting individuals back to their home 

country. Additional resources should be for the purpose of ensuring fair and humane 

treatment of migrant children and families fleeing violence and persecution and addressing the root cause of migration in their home countries. 

I hope that the Homeland Security Committee, and other Members in Congress, 

can continue to have a balanced discussion about the causes and solutions to the 

crisis we are currently facing along our border. 
88 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA

JULY 3, 2014 

As the Representative for the 15th Congressional District of Texas, I must express 

my views regarding the humanitarian crisis we currently have along the U.S.-Mexico border. To be clear, this is not just a border crisis. In fact, we have several crises 

that our Nation must resolve if it intends to fully address the issue of migration 

and the thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America who are entering the United States through our Southern Border. The majority of these unaccompanied children are classified as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and have traveled from 

El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. 

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which 

cares for the children post-apprehension by the Border Patrol, approximately 3,100 

unaccompanied children remain in Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) custody in the 

Rı ́o Grande Valley. So far, 60 percent of the children are being reunited with a parent and 20 percent are reunited with a family member. HHS reports about 340 children are apprehended daily along the South Texas border. 

Just last week, several of my Congressional colleagues and I were able to tour 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s facilities in South Texas and visit some 

of the unaccompanied children who have fled their countries due to unprecedented 

levels of crime and violence. During our tour, I was able to witness first-hand all 

that is being done by our Federal agencies and charities to help these refugees. 

Touring the facilities, however, was not easy. There were young children without 

mothers or fathers and young boys and girls with just the clothes on their backs. 

As a father and grandfather, I can’t begin to imagine the pain and emotional toll 

that these children have experienced in the past several weeks. 

I was also saddened to hear that the body of a young boy from Guatemala was 

found in the desert, just a few miles from our Southern Border. According to news 

accounts, this boy was found with the rosary still around his neck and his brother’s 

Chicago phone number scribbled on the inside of his belt buckle. This child had 

hoped to reunite with his brother in Chicago. 

To be sure, the Federal Government must protect and care for these refugees in 

the most humane way possible, ensuring that they receive the appropriate housing, 

medical services, and education they need while they are in our care. Some of the 

conditions that these children and mothers have to endure are deplorable, and we 

must correct this immediately. 

Along the same lines, the Federal Government must do more to mitigate the 

death of migrants on our Southern Border. According to the Texas Civil Rights 

Project, from 2011–2013, there were approximately 278 unidentified bodies found in 

Falfurrias, Texas, Brooks County alone. This is clearly unacceptable. It is also worth 

noting that Brooks County is one of many Deep South Texas counties that continue 

to incur the cost of burial services for unidentified migrants. There is no doubt in 

my mind that we must do more to end the prevalence of migrant deaths on our 

Southern Border as well as offer assistance to rural communities. 

In the short term, there are steps that Congress can take to address these crises. 

Congress can help by providing Federal funds to local governments, charities, and 

nonprofit organizations that are assisting these refugees with basic necessities. For 

example, the city of McAllen has already provided much-needed assistance to these 

refugees. Congress can also reimburse local governments and nonprofit organizations to cover cost of burial services for unidentified migrants and for the work they 

are doing to help families on both sides of the border identify the human remains 

of loved ones. 

With regard to comprehensive immigration reform, there is a great deal that Congress can do now in the 113th Congress. While my Republican colleagues may simply call for increased border security, I believe that we in Congress have a responsibility to tackle these issues in a holistic manner. Simply put, comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue, and Congress must work to fix our broken immigration system now. 

Finally, while I applaud the President’s request of Congress to approve and move 

Federal emergency funds to be used to address the humanitarian crisis and to send 

much-needed resources to the Southern Border, I strongly believe that Congress and 

the administration can do more to support our Central American neighbors in tackling some of the economic, security, and social challenges that have led to increased 

levels of crime and violence in their nations. To this end, I support increasing Federal funding for the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Central American 

Regional Security Initiative to assist Central American nations in strengthening 

their judicial, security, and educational systems and in promoting sustained eco-
89 

nomic growth and poverty reduction. By working more closely with our Central 

American neighbors, I am confident that we can solve some of these complex problems. 

In closing, I simply want to underscore the urgency of the issues I have outlined 

above and the need to take positive and constructive steps to resolve them. With 

this in mind, I urge my colleagues to work in a bipartisan manner to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the 113th Congress and to work to address the 

humanitarian crisis on our Southern Border. 

I also ask for unanimous consent to enter the attached letter from Ambassador 

Rube ́n Zamora of El Salvador into the hearing record. 

Thank you. 

ATTACHMENT.—LETTER FROM AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES RUBE ́ N ZAMORA, EMBASSY OF EL SALVADOR

JUNE 30, 2014. 

The Honorable RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, 

Chairman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, U.S. House of Representatives. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HINOJOSA: I would like to refer to the meeting held on June 

18th, 2014 and convey to you and to the Members of the Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus our appreciation for convening such an important discussion to address the 

significant surge in the number of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC’s) migrating 

to the United States. Also, I would like to thank you for the letter dated June 27th, 

2014 that you sent to me and to the Ambassadors of the Republics of Guatemala 

and Honduras regarding the same topic. 

As pointed out in the discussion, this situation needs to be handled in a comprehensive way considering not only the pull factors, but also the push factors that 

motivate the departure of our nationals from their local communities. It has been 

widely stated that those factors include not only the citizen insecurity in the region 

but also the economic challenges that are holding back the creation of better opportunities for our youth and for our citizens in general. 

As the president of El Salvador, Mr. Salvador Sanchez Cere ́n, mentioned to U.S. 

Vice President Joseph Biden during his visit to Guatemala last June 2011, a humanitarian approach to the current crisis at the U.S. Southwest Border is a proper 

way of dealing with this unfortunate circumstance that is affecting our children and 

their families. However, President Sanchez Cere ́n also reiterated the necessity that 

all incumbent parties at all levels be committed to solving this crisis in order to provide an adequate, timely, and coordinated response that is sustainable in the long 

term. 

As you are aware, one of the efforts that the Government of El Salvador has been 

implementing with the government of the United States since 2011 is the Partnership for Growth (PFG). This initiative was conceived to cope with two major challenges identified as key elements to address some of the root causes of the adult 

and youth immigration flows. Those challenges identified are citizen insecurity and 

the lack of economic opportunities which have been cited as causes of UAC’s coming 

into the U.S. 

Additionally, after a successful completion of the First Compact of the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation (MCC), El Salvador submitted a Second Compact proposal 

aimed at developing the coastal maritime zone of the country. The above-mentioned 

Compact was approved by the MCC but its implementation has since been delayed. 

Nonetheless, under the current conditions, the prompt execution of said Second 

Compact is an imperative as it was entirely envisioned to improve the business climate, to trigger new domestic and foreign investments, and to further develop a 

skilled human capital in El Salvador. 

These are some of the efforts that the Government of El Salvador has clearly projected to create in-country job opportunities for Salvadorans, in the understanding 

of our role as key catalyst for the promotion of fair living conditions and motivation 

for their local development. Moreover is also crucial to provide viable options to our 

citizen’s aspirations in helping the Central American countries remain competitive 

at a regional ground. 

Finally, El Salvador has been making great strides in implementing outreach 

campaigns focusing in Municipalities that are lenient toward migration, such as the 

one titled ‘‘Si esta ́s pensando en migrar, el primer paso es informarte’’ or ‘‘If you 

are thinking of migrating, the first step is to inform yourself.’’ This Embassy will 

be glad to provide you with additional information about this campaign should you 

require further details. 

Therefore, it is our hope that jointly we can find common ways to address not only 

the heartbreaking situation faced by our kids at the border, but also the above-re-
90 

ferred motivational causes that ultimately generated such unsafe and perilous journey to the United States. The Government of El Salvador stands ready to enhance 

our cooperation with the United States around these and other issues of mutual concern in order to improve the lives of the citizens of our nations. 

Chairman Hijonosa, we recognize your longstanding leadership in this and other 

regional issues and truly value your reiterated gestures of solidarity with our country. We look forward to continued conversations with you and the United States 

Congress, and avail ourselves of this opportunity to reiterate our respect and esteem. 

RUBE ́ N ZAMORA, 

Ambassador. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Steve McCraw, thank you for your efforts; 

our border sheriffs; the Catholic Church. I had a good visit with the 

Bishop last night about their role in terms of deterring these children from making the journey in the first place. 

I will end with this. The three little girls that I talked to with 

their grandmother this morning on the river, on the raft, literally 

got turned over and fell into the water and almost drowned. These 

girls were traumatized. They were crying, and they wanted to go 

back home to Guatemala. We don’t know what future lies ahead of 

them, but I think the better route is to stop it in the first place. 

With that, I would like to introduce Governor Perry, longest-serving Governor in the State of Texas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF TEXAS 

Governor PERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. To each of you, 

thank you for coming. This is an historic moment, and many of you 

I have had the privilege to work with for a long time. 

Gene, you and I in the House of Representatives back some 20- 

plus, almost 30 years ago. 

Sheila, 20 years’ worth of working with you. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of an individual who I would rather have sitting in the Chair of Homeland Security than yourself because of your background, because of who you are, your passion. 

Kay, I want to say to you in particular, thank you for leading the 

Speaker’s Working Group on Humanitarian Crisis on the Southern 

Border. 

Sometimes the public doesn’t think we work together too well. I 

might have been critical of Washington a time or two. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor PERRY. But the fact is, this is an opportunity for us as 

Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans, to 

deal with an issue that the world is watching. 

Again, I just want to say thank you in a very heartfelt way for 

coming to the border of Texas not only to see this humanitarian 

crisis that faces us but also to find the solutions. 

Senator Hinojosa and I have had the privilege to work together 

for some 30-plus years and to find solutions. We play on a different 

team on the political side of things, but we have worked together 

so many times to find solutions to challenges that face us as a 

State, and that is how I look at this one, as working with you as 

our Federal partners and finding ways and solutions. 

Let’s make no mistake about it, there is more than one crisis 

happening on the U.S. border. The first, as has been very elo-
91 

quently on display here in just the first two speakers, is a humanitarian crisis. 

Michael, as you and Sheila and you all have seen yourselves, the 

power of what is going on, of this growing number of individuals 

who are crossing our border illegally, and so many of them are children. Last week I, too, was here at the McAllen facility, and Kevin 

took us through, and we saw these children being housed as they 

await action by Washington. 

Whether it is the right decision from my perspective to immediately deport them or the short-sighted and tragic decision to essentially turn them loose in the United States, some may think by 

allowing them to stay here that it is a more humane option, and 

I assure you, it is not. Let me assure you and share with you why 

I think that. Nobody is doing any of these children the slightest 

favor by delaying the rapid return to their countries of origin, 

which in many cases is not Mexico. 

Allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group 

of individuals to undertake this very, very dangerous and lifethreatening journey. Those who come must be sent back to demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that risking your lives on the top 

of those trains and the ways that they are coming here, it is not 

worth that. Even those who have survived this very treacherous 

journey are still at risk. We have already had one confirmed case 

of H1N1. David Lakey, Dr. Lakey can address that if you need 

some more information about that. 

We have been informed by our Federal partners of two additional 

cases of Type A influenza that are likely to be H1N1, in addition 

to reports of other illnesses and diseases that you all have read 

about. 

The second crisis that is going on on the border is one of National security. The rapid influx of illegal immigration has strained 

the Border Patrol and the resources that they have and that we 

have put on ourselves as a State; and, frankly, they are already insufficient for the task at hand. Officials who should be guarding 

the border are dealing with the overflow instead of fulfilling their 

primary task. 

So as a result, the border between the United States and Mexico 

is less secure today than at any time in the recent past, which is 

exactly the reason that the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker and 

I, and members of the Legislature ordered this additional surge 

that Director McCraw is overseeing, as well as John Nichols with 

the National Guard. 

We know that the drug cartels and these transnational gangs are 

already seeking to take advantage of the situation. They are attempting to circumvent security and spread this pain and suffering 

on both sides of the border through their criminal activities. 

We are also in danger at the hands of those who might be slipping through from countries who have known terrorist ties, a wide 

range of potential threats that are facing us from abroad. This is 

not the time to be distracted by something else. That is why Texas 

has taken steps to supplement its law enforcement operations 

along the border. 

Currently, we are directing an additional $1.3 million over and 

above what we have already put into place. I might add, this is in 
92 

addition to a half-a-billion dollars that the State of Texas has already expended on border security since 2005. This is not a new 

issue for us. Our current operations include increased DPS aircraft 

patrols, maritime operations, utilization of the Ranger recon teams. 

These are folks who are very quickly able to respond to areas 

where suspected activity is taking place. 

Madam Jackson Lee, I readily welcome the funding President 

Obama has publicly announced. But I also ask the following things 

of the Federal Government. First, increase the Texas National 

Guard units that are involved in border security operations. That 

includes—and, Kay, you and I worked together to keep some aviation assets here in the State because we know how important those 

are. But to keep those Lakota UH–72 aircraft in Texas in this operation. 

Second, if the U.S. Border Patrol is going to release illegal immigrants into our communities to await a court date, every one of 

them needs to be medically screened to ensure their health, and 

also the health of our citizens as well. 

Third, Texas needs to be reimbursed for the $500 million-plus 

that we have spent securing the border over the past decade. We 

have been fulfilling a Federal responsibility, and the hard-working 

people of the State of Texas shouldn’t have to shoulder that cost 

by themselves. 

Finally, my message to President Obama is to secure this border, 

Mr. President, finally address this issue and secure this border. Invest sufficient resources to put an adequate number of Border Patrol Agents on the ground permanently, utilize existing technology, 

including drones and other assets that we know—we know how to 

do this. Steve McCraw can share with you how to secure that border. We have done it before. 

So again, I want to say thank you to each of you for loving your 

country and your respective States and your service in the United 

States Congress. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Perry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK PERRY

JULY 3, 2014 

Good afternoon. I’d like to open my remarks by thanking and commending the 

Members of this committee who made the trip down here. Chairman McCaul is 

demonstrating true leadership in elevating the visibility of what’s happening along 

the border. 

I would also like to recognize Chairwoman Granger, who is leading the Speaker’s 

Working Group on the Humanitarian Crisis at the Southern Border, and other 

Members of Congress who are here today in response to these on-going crises. 

And make no mistake, there is more than one crisis happening along the U.S. border. 

The first is a humanitarian crisis, suffered by a growing number of individuals 

crossing our border illegally... many of them just children. 

Last week, I witnessed the difficult conditions these children are being housed in 

while they await action by Washington, whether it’s the right decision to immediately deport them, or the shortsighted and tragic decision to essentially turn them 

loose in the United States. 

Some might think allowing them to stay is a more humane option, I assure you, 

it is not. 

Nobody is doing any of these children the slightest favor by delaying a rapid return to their countries of origin, which in many cases is not Mexico. 

Allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group of individuals 

to undertake the same life-threatening journey. 
93 

Those who have come must be sent back to demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, 

that risking their lives to cross Mexico and enter our country simply isn’t worth it. 

Even those who have survived the treacherous journey are still at risk. 

We’ve already had one confirmed case of H1N1 in Texas, and have been informed 

by our Federal partners of two additional cases of Type A influenza that are likely 

to be H1N1, in addition to reports of other illnesses at other detention facilities. 

The second crisis is a crisis of National security. 

The rapid influx of illegal immigrants has strained border resources that were already insufficient to the task at hand. Officials who should be guarding the border 

are dealing with the overflow instead of fulfilling their primary tasks. 

As a result, the border between the United States and Mexico is less secure today 

than at any time in the recent past, which is why we ordered the new surge. 

We know that drug cartels and transnational gangs are already seeking to take 

advantage of the situation, attempting to circumvent security and spread pain and 

suffering on both sides of the border through their criminal activities. 

We’re also in danger at the hands of those who might be slipping through from 

countries with known terrorist ties. With a range of potential threats facing us from 

abroad, this is not the time to turn our attention elsewhere. 

That’s why Texas has taken steps to supplement its law enforcement operations 

along the border. 

Currently, we’re directing $1.3 million in additional funding per week to increase 

our law enforcement efforts through at least the end of the calendar year. This is 

in addition to the more than $500 million we’ve committed to border security since 

2005. 

Our current operations include increased DPS aircraft patrols, maritime operations, and the utilization of Ranger Recon teams, who are able to quickly respond 

to remote areas where suspected activity is taking place. 

I welcome the funding President Obama has publically announced, but also ask 

the Federal Government for the following: 

First, increase the Texas National Guard units involved in border security 

operations... That includes keeping the fleet of UH–72 Lakota aircraft in Texas 

to continue its vital missions. 

Second, if the U.S. Border Patrol is going to release illegal immigrants into our 

communities to await a court date, every one should be medically screened to ensure 

their health and the health of our citizens. 

Third, Texas should be reimbursed for the $500 million we’ve spent securing the 

border over the past decade. We’ve been fulfilling a Federal responsibility, and the 

hardworking people of Texas shouldn’t have to shoulder that cost on their own. 

And finally, secure this border once and for all. Invest sufficient resources to put 

an adequate number of Border Patrol Agents on the ground permanently, and utilize existing technology, including drones, to help plug the gaps in security operations currently being filled by Texans. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I am happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY/ROLE BY TEXAS AGENCY

Dept. of State Health Services (DSHS) 

DSHS, its health service regions, and local health departments in the Rio Grande 

Valley are monitoring the situation to evaluate the impact on public health in 

Texas. DSHS officials have visited U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shelters and ports of entry that hold UACs until they can be processed for placement 

with the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). A sampling of conditions observed at CBP facilities includes: Overcrowding; potential for infectious disease outbreak; lack of medical screening; lack of separation area; and extreme heat. These 

visits have informed the suggestions made to the Federal Government about what 

standard public health precautions need to be considered in CBP temporary detainment facilities. CBP has been provided with information about infectious disease, 

hygiene issues, and Texas communicable disease law. Texas has also offered its expertise to Federal entities as they establish standard operating procedures and contingency plans for hurricanes and disease outbreaks. 

• Costs Incurred.—$23,000 for 1,915 flu vaccines that were State-purchased. 

Texas will be reimbursed the full amount. 

• DSHS could incur future costs if there is an infectious disease outbreak. 

• Anticipated Action if Border Crisis Continues.—Texas has recommended the 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) partner with DSHS to conduct inspections 
94 

of facilities where children are being held to ensure mass shelter standards are 

applied. There will also be continued cooperation with locals to monitor health 

resource needs and direct calls offering volunteer medical services to locals. 

Dept. of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) 

DFPS’ Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL) division licenses, monitors, and 

investigates any allegations of abuse/neglect at private facilities who contract with 

ORR to provide placements for UAC. 

• Costs Incurred.—At this time, DFPS has not incurred any additional costs. The 

State has received requests for the agency to waive requirements from the 

State’s minimum standards of care, on a short-term basis, for currently-licensed 

facilities who house minors. These requests have been absorbed into each region’s normal workload. Examples of approved requests include allowing more 

than four children per room or allowing facilities to use cots instead of beds. 

• Anticipated Action/Costs if Border Crisis Continues.—RCCL—If ORR expands 

permanent capacity in Texas, the State will have an increased number of facilities to license, monitor, and investigate. CPS—The process for vetting the caregivers to whom these children are being released is unclear. If abuse/neglect 

does occur, these children or families could have contact with Child Protective 

Services. 

Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHSC)/Office of Immigration & Refugee Affairs (OIRA) 

OIRA does not play a current role in the current border crisis because: (1) State 

statute only authorizes OIRA to assist refugees and legal immigrants; and (2) the 

OIRA Program at HHSC is designated by the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to oversee services to refugees in Texas. OIRA is 100 percent Federallyfunded by the ORR and funds are designated for refugee services. 

• Costs Incurred.—None. 

• Anticipated Action/Cost if Border Crisis Continues.—There is no anticipated action by OIRA in the future because in order to assist in the current border crisis 

OIRA would require a change in State statute to authorize OIRA to assist illegal immigrants and there would also need to be new State and/or Federal funding to support any new services to illegal immigrants. 

Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) 

Texas has directed DPS to immediately begin law enforcement surge operations 

on the border to combat criminal elements taking advantage of our porous border 

and overwhelmed Federal resources (due to Border Patrol being diverted from its 

security mission to process and care for the influx in illegal immigrants). Current 

operations include: Trooper Strike Teams, Ranger Reconnaissance Teams, aircraft 

patrols to identify criminal and suspicious activity, maritime patrols using shallow 

water interceptors equipped with automatic weapons, and additional resources. 

• Costs Incurred.—$1.3 million per week for border surge operations beginning 

June 18, 2014. 

• Anticipated Action/Costs if Border Crisis Continues.—Continue with enhanced 

DPS operations; $36.4 million for a 28-week surge (June 18–December 31); or 

$67.6 million for a year. 

Texas National Guard 

Lacking arrest authority, the Texas Military Department supports the border mission through target identification, personnel tracking, and counter-drug operations. 

The National Guard and State Guard forces work closely with DPS and USBP, 

bringing expertise and equipment to the theater otherwise unavailable to law enforcement. Air assets have proven a critical capability for the National Guard on the 

border. There are currently 239 National and State Guard troops conducting border 

operations. Current operations, since 2012, air-centric operations—heavily reliant on 

UH–72 Lakota aircraft—have resulted in an almost 70% increase in detection & 

interdiction compared to ground-based operations. 

• Costs Incurred.— 

• There are six UH–72 Lakota aircraft in the Texas National Guard operated 

by Counter Drug for mission support on the border. The total cost to operate 

is $8.3 million annually. 

• Task Force Liberty operates eight UH–72 Lakota aircraft stationed at the 

border. The total cost to operate is $15.5 million annually. 

• The 42 Texas State Guard stationed on the border cost $2.3 million per year, 

paid for with a contract with DPS. 

• Anticipated Action/Costs if Border Crisis Continues.— 
95 

• Mission costs will continue to accrue as long as the National Guard has the 

funding and a relevant mission on the border. 

• As pressure at the border has increased, the Guard has had to limit its number of flight days due to inadequate funding and limited numbers of pilots. 

Operational safety requirements limit the number of hours per month a pilot 

may fly. Pilots are maxing out their flight hours earlier and earlier in the 

month because there is such high demand for their support. 

• Texas has requested the use of drone technology capabilities of the National 

Guard, which could be significantly expanded. Drones have longer loiter 

times, lower fuel and personnel costs, and allow for expanded border surveillance, better target observation, and improved apprehension support. 

Border Sheriff’s Coalition 

Texas Border Sheriffs have responded to the need for increased patrols to assure 

public safety, have coordinated with Customs and Border Protection as illegal immigrants turn themselves in to local law enforcement, and have participated in the humanitarian effort. 

• Costs Incurred.—None yet calculated. 

• Anticipated Action/Costs if Border Crisis Continues.—Border Sheriffs will need 

more resources and manpower to ensure public safety if the surge of illegal immigration continues. 

Texas Education Agency (TEA) 

TEA is currently not playing a role within the current border emergency because 

of the end of the school year. Come the start of the 2014–2015 school year TEA is 

anticipating impact from a continued border crisis, but cannot fully estimate impact 

until schools enroll students. A school district is required to educate any child enrolled in the school district. But the responsibility of enrolling is placed on the parent/guardian of that child. Any incarcerated child (previously this included Federally-detained children) is excluded from being required to attend school unless the 

facility makes accommodations with a local school district to enroll their children. 

• Costs Incurred.—None yet calculated. 

• Anticipated Action/Costs if Border Crisis Continues.— 

• State funding is reactionary and based on the number of students enrolled 

within a school. The Average Daily Attendance funding of approximately 

$7,500 per student will be required from the State by the local school districts. Should a significant number of these children remain in Texas, and enroll in school, the State will face significant costs. Federal funding is based 

on the previous year’s students served. There is little ability for the Federal 

Government to provide additional dollars quickly. 

• All students must be immunized before attending school, but homeless students are exempted. Again how these students are classified will weigh heavily on the requirements for their enrollment and DSHS would need to weigh 

in on this requirement. 

HOW MUCH TEXAS HAS SPENT ON BORDER SECURITY

Texas has had to fill in the gaps left by the Federal Government—allocating over 

$500 million since 2005 for border security through new technology, improved communications equipment, law enforcement personnel, and other resources. 

Breakdown by biennium: 

• 2006–2007.—$2.4 million (border security operations center and technology). 

• 2008–2009.—$110,274,772 (helicopters, new technology, increased State law enforcement officers on the border, & overtime for local law enforcement). 

• 2010–2011.—$94,092,579 (boots on the ground, Texas Rangers, Texas Task 

Force II, narcotics enforcement, aircraft operations, border operations center, 

technology training, & crime lab). 

• 2012–2013.—$153,689,712 (boots on the ground, vehicles, tools to identify cartels & gangs, surveillance aircraft, video link technology from helicopters to mobile command posts & patrol boats, operating costs for patrol boats, & joint operations & intelligence centers). 

• 2014–2015.—$108,943,963 (boots on the ground, vehicles, computers, joint operations & intelligence centers, & marine unit tools). 

*Note that the biennium figures do not reflect total increases in salaries and benefits for State law enforcement officers stationed along the border. In addition, the 

figures do not include certain other State-wide funded items of which a portion goes 

to the border. 

**Note that Texas has not been reimbursed for any costs. 
96 

SUMMARY—IMPACT THE CURRENT BORDER CRISIS HAS HAD ON TEXAS

• Diverted Border Patrol from its security mission to processing and caring for 

the increased number of illegal immigrants apprehended, which has left our 

border even more exposed to criminal elements. 

• Strained resources available to the State if a disaster were to occur, such as 

a hurricane. Contractors the State uses for disaster response are being contracted with by the Feds to assist in the UAC border crisis. 

• Anticipated.—DFPS. Continued loss of foster care capacity. ORR pays on a perbed basis and at a higher rate than the State. Residential Treatment Centers 

and Child Placing Agencies will turn their beds over to ORR, reducing the number available for children/youth in State foster care. 

• Anticipated.—DFPS—CPS. The process for vetting the caregivers to whom these 

children are being released is unclear and may suffer abuse/neglect by these 

caregivers. If abuse/neglect does occur, they will have contact with Child Protective Services. 

• Anticipated.—Public Ed. Increased enrollment in schools because the UACs will 

be enrolled in local schools districts when they are placed with family or friends 

waiting for their immigration court date. 

Border Apprehension Data 

• From 2010 to 2013.—91% increase in apprehensions along the TX-Mexico border; 158% increase in apprehensions in the RGV sector. 

• In the first 9 months of this fiscal year, U.S. Border Patrol has apprehended 

over 160,000 illegal immigrants in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV), surpassing the 

154,453 apprehensions made in the preceding fiscal year in the RGV. 

• In Federal fiscal year 2013, 52% of those apprehended along the TX-Mexico border were from countries other than Mexico (OTM). 

• This year, record high numbers of OTMs are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border: 

• So far this Federal fiscal year, 181,724 OTMs have been apprehended along 

the entire U.S.-Mexico border, surpassing the 148,988 OTM apprehensions 

last fiscal year. 

• So far this Federal fiscal year, 137,181 of these OTM apprehensions occurred 

in Texas, compared with 125,883 last fiscal year. 

• Since May, Border Patrol has been apprehending over 1,100 illegal immigrants 

a day in the RGV—with over 200 a day being UAC (UACs are only 18% of those 

illegally crossing). 

• UAC apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have increased 99% from this 

same time last year (over 52,000 UAC apprehensions so far in fiscal year 2014 

compared to over 26,000 UAC apprehensions this same time last year). 

• UAC apprehensions in the RGV border sector have increased 178% from this 

same time last year (over 37,000 UAC apprehensions so far in fiscal year 2014 

compared to over 13,000 UAC apprehensions this same time last year). 

• U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) projects total UAC apprehensions along 

the U.S.-Mexico border this fiscal year will be a 132% increase from those in 

fiscal year 2013 (90,000 UAC apprehensions this year vs. 38,759 last year); 

142,000 projected for fiscal year 2015. 

Additional Border Security Data 

• In 2013, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) documented illegal border crossings by persons from countries with ties to terrorism, such as Bangladesh, Albania, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 

• TX border sectors, combined, have 7 Border Patrol Agents per border mile, 

while the other Southwestern Border sectors have 17 Border Patrol Agents per 

border mile. 

• Federal resources are overwhelmed as UACs and families fill Federal detention 

facilities, requiring the diversion of a large number of USBP agents from their 

mission of securing our border to care for these people. 

ATTACHMENT

THE HUMAN COST OF FAILED BORDER POLICIES

TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY (OP-ED)

June 25, 2014 

The first thing I saw was a boy crying. Terrified and sobbing against the window 

of the holding cell, he couldn’t have been more than 12 or 13. The room was full 
97 

of other young boys, their curious eyes peering out at us as we walked by. These 

were the ones who made the trip alone. 

The room next door was filled to overflowing with mothers and children, some covered in foil blankets, lying on the cement floor. The next room over, empty, except 

for the garbage that was being swept away in preparation for its next wave of occupants. 

When we stepped outside, I heard a baby wailing over the hum of the industrial 

fans and the steady words of the Federal official giving the tour. The sheer number 

of people in such a small space made it difficult to quickly pinpoint the source, but 

I finally spotted the baby being held by a young mother in the quarantine area 

taped off in the back. The otherwise quiet crowd simply stared back at us. The very 

real human consequences of our country’s lax border security and muddled immigration policies huddled right there, under an open shelter in the stifling Texas heat. 

This is the McAllen Border Patrol detention facility, where men, women, and children of all ages who have illegally entered the United States are detained and processed. Some are caught attempting to cross the border, while some give themselves 

over willingly. Many are children from Central America traveling alone, who have 

paid coyotes to smuggle them through Mexico or made the trip on the tops of freight 

trains. All have quite literally risked their lives to set foot in our country. 

It’s impossible to see these children without wondering how many more were lost 

somewhere along the way. The desert’s a dangerous place to begin with, even before 

the worst of summer’s brutal heat arrives, and the border is trafficked by treacherous individuals who see fellow humans as an expendable means to turn a dollar. 

What’s happening along our Southern Border is a mounting tragedy, its root 

cause Washington’s failure, diplomatically and strategically, to address our border 

security and illegal immigration problem. 

To be clear, the Federal officials who operate these facilities daily are doing the 

best they can with what they have, trying desperately to keep up with a seemingly 

unending tide of immigrants coming to our border because they’ve heard current 

U.S. policy will quickly reunite them with loved ones in our country. 

This is a complex situation and a growing humanitarian crisis that will require 

a multifaceted solution. But it’s a situation I fear our President will continue to 

brush off until he has seen it first-hand. 

The United States needs to act decisively. First off, the Federal Government needs 

to make it crystal clear that attempting to cross our border illegally simply isn’t 

worth the considerable risk. People in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and elsewhere who are considering making the trip need to know that they will be immediately sent back to their country of origin when they’re detained, not sent to various locations across the United States or placed in the care of loved ones. 

Secondly, the United States Government needs to send more resources to finally, 

once and for all, secure the border. Federal engagement was insufficient to begin 

with, and the crush of illegal entrants is draining what resources they had in the 

area. These gaping holes are just waiting to be exploited by drug cartels and 

transnational gangs, and create a National security issue as they could be used by 

people from countries with known terrorist affiliations. 

That’s why Texas has directed the State’s Department of Public Safety to amplify 

its law enforcement operations along the border, targeting the criminals seeking to 

take advantage of this humanitarian crisis. 

This is a problem, however, beyond the scope of just one State. We’ll do what we 

can, but it’s up to Washington to move quickly to ease the suffering I witnessed 

Monday afternoon, suffering that is mirrored in Federal facilities across the border 

States. 

Until they step up to the task, that suffering will continue, as will the tragedies 

we don’t even know about taking place on both sides of this unsecured border. 

ATTACHMENT

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY GOVERNOR RICK PERRY

AUGUST 21, 2009. 

The Honorable BARACK OBAMA, 

President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20500. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As violence in northern Mexico continues, it is paramount 

that our international borders be secured to ensure the safety of our citizens and 

the security of our homeland. To reiterate my standing request with your administration, I respectfully ask that you authorize the use of 1,000 Title 32 National 
98 

Guard personnel in support of civilian law enforcement along the Texas-Mexico border. This is the most viable solution to provide an immediate improvement to U.S. 

public safety and increased patrol presence along our border. 

I am deeply troubled by news reports about disagreements between federal agencies preventing Guard personnel from being deployed to the border region. Please 

use the authority of your office to quickly fix this situation and get the 1,000 troops 

we need to Texas. 

The security situation in the border region remains a serious one. Last year, 

Mexican organized crime cartels, which dominate the lucrative drug and human 

smuggling market, were responsible for 6,290 organized crime murders in Mexico, 

including 1,600 across the river from El Paso in Ciudad Jua ́ rez. Drug cartels have 

resorted to using terroristic tactics, employing former military commandos and 

transnational gangs such as the Barrio Azteca, Texas Syndicate, MS–13, and the 

Mexican Mafia. Last month, Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas was shot and killed 

on U.S. soil while responding to a report of a border incursion. He is one of 50 Border Patrol officers targeted by gunfire since 2008. 

Cartels are also recruiting American teenagers to conduct cartel operations on 

both sides of the border. Laredo teens and Los Zetas members Gabriel Cardona and 

Rosalio Reta are currently serving sentences of life and 70 years, respectively, for 

seven murders carried out on the U.S. side of the border. 

U.S. border security must be improved in the interest of safety and economic opportunity in the United States and Mexico. I have spoken with former border governor and current DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano a number of times, and have 

requested the following National Guard security plan for the Texas border region: • 600 personnel to be deployed with 24 Border Reconnaissance Platoons, with 25 

personnel each, to cover 20 locations; • 125 personnel to support Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) maritime operations; 

• 175 personnel to support air operations, command and control, and military personnel support functions; and 

• 100 personnel to support TPWD and Texas Ranger Tracking Teams. 

Since my original request in January 2009, I have received no indication that 

Texas will be getting the boost in personnel needed to fill in the gaps along our border and protect our communities. 

As you and your administration consider deploying Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, please ensure sufficient deployment duration and authorize Title 32 status. Title 32 will maximize the efficacy and capabilities of these additional personnel 

by allowing them to be seamlessly integrated into our state’s proven and successful 

multi-agency border security strategy. Texas has unique border security challenges 

and threats, with which we are keenly familiar on the state level. 

While helpful, the additional investigative resources recently authorized for the 

southwest border do not diminish the need for additional uniformed patrol resources 

to significantly increase the visible presence along the border, which would detect 

and deter cartel and transnational gang operations. 

I hope you will approve Texas’ request for 1,000 Title 32 National Guard troops, 

under the control of the governor, to be deployed to the Texas-Mexico border. Enhanced border security is critical to our collective homeland security, and an improved law enforcement effort along the border will help families and employers on 

both sides live safer, more secure and more prosperous lives. 

Sincerely, 

RICK PERRY, 

Governor. 

ATTACHMENT

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY GOVERNOR RICK PERRY

MAY 4, 2012. 

The Honorable BARACK OBAMA, 

President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20500. 

DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA: There are many consequences of having an unsecure 

border. Not only are drug seizures up and cartels infiltrating our communities, but, 

as your administration is fully aware, there is a surge of unaccompanied illegal minors entering the United States. Aside from being part of an obvious humanitarian 

crisis, these unaccompanied illegal minors have left the federal government scrambling to triage the results of its failed border security and immigration policies. 
99 

This is precisely what happens when the federal government refuses to recognize 

its responsibility for our nation’s immigration and border security, and fails to immediately work with the countries of origin to return these unaccompanied illegal 

minors to their homes. On a recent conference call, a member of your own administration indicated that fewer than 10 percent are deported. 

To be clear, Texas has been working diligently to protect the immediate health 

and safety of our citizens and the unaccompanied minors now in our state. However, 

by failing to take immediate action to return these minors to their countries of origin and prevent and discourage others from coming here, the federal government 

is perpetuating the problem. 

Inaction encourages other minors to place themselves in extremely dangerous situations. The vast majority of these unaccompanied illegal minors come from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, as well as Mexico. In the first six months of this 

fiscal year, reports indicate more than 5,200 unaccompanied minors have crossed 

the border illegally into the United States, with more than 1,300 arriving in March 

alone. This represents an increase of more than 90 percent over the same period 

last year. On their journey, they are exposed to violent and ruthless criminal organizations and many are robbed, assaulted, kidnapped, seriously injured or even killed. 

But the dangers don’t end there for them, or for our citizens. Recently, dozens of 

these minors have had to be quarantined due to a measles scare and an outbreak 

of chicken pox, providing a warning of the additional risks this situation poses. 

These unaccompanied illegal minors should be cared for in their home countries, 

rather than burdening our already unsustainable entitlement systems. Projections 

indicate the number of illegal crossings will continue to increase. With no long-term 

plan to address this situation, the federal government is simply ignoring the fiscal, 

health and social interests of our own citizens. We cannot and should not be held 

responsible for the citizens of other nations. 

Every day of delay risks more lives. Every child allowed to remain encourages 

hundreds more to attempt the journey. Our country can no longer provide the temptation for these unaccompanied minors to engage in this tragic and illegal migration. To end it, the federal government must stop new arrivals at the border, repatriate those already here and prevent and discourage others. 

I have asked my staff to further work with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to determine the extent of this situation and seek answers to questions your 

administration has thus far been either unwilling or unable to answer. 

I urge you to begin immediate consultation with governments of the countries of 

origin. These nations must assume responsibility for their own citizens, recognizing 

that they have the power and ability to prevent this dangerous situation. 

This must stop, Mr. President, and it is your responsibility to make that happen. 

Sincerely, 

RICK PERRY, 

Governor. 

ATTACHMENT

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY GOVERNOR RICK PERRY

JUNE 20, 2014. 

The Honorable BARACK OBAMA, 

President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20500. 

DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA: I write to invite you to visit Texas to see firsthand the 

humanitarian crisis unfolding as a result of the massive influx of unaccompanied 

alien children (UAC) crossing our border with Mexico. There is no doubt that I have 

disagreed with you and your administration on many policies over the years. This 

crisis, however, transcends any political differences we may have. The safety and 

security of our border communities is being threatened by this flood of illegal immigration, and the crisis worsens by the day. 

While I am encouraged by your recently announced initiatives to more aggressively repatriate illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin, and provide additional aid to those countries to combat violence and security issues that prompt 

many of their citizens to flee to the United States, these steps only address symptoms of the problem. 

The problem remains our porous border and federal policies encourage, rather 

than discourage, illegal immigration. The federal government must commit the resources necessary to truly secure our border and adopt policies that won’t reward 

those who come here by releasing them on their own recognizance with a Notice to 
100 

Appear (NTA) in federal court. In the current system, these notices effectively 

amount to a ‘‘free pass’’ into our country with little to no consequences for failure 

to comply. 

All of these problems and solutions are the responsibility of the federal government, but Texas cannot sit idly by waiting for a resolution while our communities 

become overwhelmed by illegal immigrants and their need for the basic necessities 

of food, shelter and sanitation. That’s why, in an effort to stem the tide, we have 

authorized the Texas Department of Public Safety to conduct law enforcement surge 

operations combatting criminal activity associated with illegal immigration and drug 

trafficking. This effort will cost our taxpayers approximately $1.3 million per week. 

Therefore, I respectfully request the following immediate actions from your administration: 

Under Title 32, deploy an additional 1,000 National Guard troops to the TexasMexico border, including additional Lakota helicopters, and give the National Guard 

arrest powers to support Border Patrol operations until sufficient Border Patrol resources can be hired, trained and deployed to the border. 

Direct the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the National Guard to utilize 

Predator drones along the Texas-Mexico border for identifying and tracking human 

and drug trafficking. 

Direct the Centers for Disease Control or another appropriate federal agency outside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct, in conjunction with 

the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), inspections of facilities in 

which illegal immigrants, including UACs, are being housed to ensure accepted 

international and national emergency sheltering standards are met. Preliminary reports from DSHS officials who have visited such facilities indicate insufficient bathroom facilities, lack of adequate water supplies and other conditions that could result in epidemics of pertussis, tuberculosis and other diseases. The conditions affect 

not only the UACs but also employees working there and the community at large 

when those detained are released. 

Modify or rescind policies that serve as a magnet to encourage illegal immigration, including: 

• DHS Catch and Release policies by which DHS issues an illegal immigrant an 

NTA before an immigration judge and releases them. The U.S. Department of 

Justice reports that 33 percent of those released on their own recognizance 

failed to appear in FY 2013. 

• DHS policies specifically regarding UACs from countries other than Mexico 

(OTM) that prohibit the agency from immediately deporting UACs back to their 

country of origin. After DHS processes OTM UACs, DHS issues an NTA, locates 

a relative in the United States, and delivers the OTM UAC to a relative, regardless of the relative’s immigration status. 

Mr. President, the complex situation along the border is deteriorating, and it requires a multifaceted approach to resolve, and must begin with border security. On 

behalf of Texas’ 26 million residents, I request you take immediate and decisive action. 

Sincerely, 

RICK PERRY, 

Governor. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Governor. We appreciate your efforts, your leadership. The State of Texas has stood up where I 

think the Federal Government has failed in this border security effort. 

I do think with a crisis comes a call to action. So I agree with 

you, now is the time. Now is the time to finally secure the border. 

We have been talking about this, Steve McCraw and I, for many, 

many years. It is time to get it done, and I can’t think of a better 

reason to do it. 

I want to go back to a letter, Governor, you wrote in 2012 to the 

President of the United States, Barack Obama. I think you recognized before anyone, early on, what was getting ready to happen, 

a very prescient letter where you stated, ‘‘Every day of delay risks 

more lives,’’ and you are talking about the unaccompanied children 

issue. 
101 

At that time, 5,000 minors had crossed. You said, ‘‘Every child 

allowed to remain encourages hundreds more to attempt the journey. Our country can no longer provide the temptation for these 

unaccompanied minors to engage in this tragic and illegal migration. To end it, the Federal Government must stop new arrivals at 

the border, repatriate those already here, and prevent and discourage others to prevent this tragic and illegal migration.’’ 

This letter was sent in May of 2012. 

Governor PERRY. May, a little over 2 years ago. 

Chairman MCCAUL. What response did you receive from the 

President of the United States? 

Governor PERRY. We haven’t yet. This is a bigger issue than just 

the UAC issue. Partly because we live with this every day here, 

those of us who spend time in the State, particularly those individuals who live on the border, we had a Border Affairs Committee 

in 1999 that we put together because we realized that this was an 

area of the State that had, frankly, been overlooked for way too 

many years from Austin, Texas. 

Julia and Eddie and others who have been just champions of 

supporting the El Paso to Brownsville, the entire border region of 

Texas. So bringing to the attention of Washington, and not just this 

administration but previous administrations as well, some of the 

challenges that we have here, particularly with border security. 

But this issue of the children, the first time it was brought to our 

attention was over 2 years ago. 

Again, hindsight is always a lot clearer. But had we addressed 

this diplomatically, had we addressed in El Salvador and Honduras 

and Guatemala and in Mexico, as well as on the border with the 

securitization of this border, we would most likely not be here 

today with the tragic events at hand with these children who are 

now coming in massive numbers because they think, they have 

been told, they have been manipulated, they have been threatened 

that if you will come here, you can stay in America. 

We are a country of laws. We have to respect those laws. If we 

do not today clearly send the message of you cannot come into the 

United States just because somebody is handing out a flyer, then 

this is only going to get worse, and a humanitarian crisis will turn 

into a monumental tragedy for those children and, I would suggest 

to you, for citizens along this border, because these great men and 

women of the Border Patrol are being distracted from their primary responsibility of defending and securing this border from 

some pretty evil people, and we cannot afford that. They have to 

have some relief. They have to have some support. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Governor. I would submit that 

had these warnings been heeded 2 years ago, then perhaps we 

wouldn’t be having this conversation here today. 

As a father, as a former Federal prosecutor, deterrence works. A 

message of deterrence does work. As you said, if the message is we 

are open for business, you can come in and can stay, they will continue to come until we send a different message. 

I would like to pivot to, going back to, again, a crisis and a call 

to action, securing the border. You called for the deployment of the 

National Guard. I agree with you, sir. I know you sent a letter to 

the President. So have I. I have had extensive discussions with the 
102 

Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. We are fortunate to 

have the Adjutant General of the National Guard sitting behind 

you. 

We need to do that, but we need to do it in a way where the National Guard can do their job, what they are trained to do. I think 

what the frustration has been, whether it was Operation Jump 

Start or Phalanx, even though it is under Title 32 authority of the 

Governor and the State, they have been relegated to essentially 

pushing paper behind desks. What I am concerned with in this situation, they will be processing children rather than doing what I 

think they can do best, and that is get the border secure, and working with Border Patrol in a law enforcement capacity as well. 

I know you have called for that in a letter. I know you can activate them under Title 32. There is a Department of Defense policy, 

unfortunately, out there that states that they cannot be used in 

what is called an operational role but rather a supportive role, 

which would be, again, pushing paper behind a desk and processing children. 

My question to you is: We can change the policy if we really get 

the administration’s attention that we need to change that policy. 

People in this State want the National Guard down there to do the 

job they can do. Can you tell me what your position is with respect 

to that DOD policy? 

Governor PERRY. Obviously, we have requested, I think since 

2009, 1,000 National Guard troops to be temporarily on the border 

until 3,000 Border Patrol Agents could be trained to take their positions in a permanent way under Title 32, which obviously the 

State of Texas would not have to be picking up the cost of that, and 

appropriately so from my perspective. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I would say, and I think General Nichols 

would share with you this in detail, as well as Director McCraw, 

but the Border Patrol has been—excuse me, the National Guard 

has been actively engaged here. They have been doing substantive 

operations here. We just don’t have the numbers that we need. 

I mean, I think this goes back to the entire conversation that we 

need to have, finding solutions, which is what I hope we are really 

all about here today as we go forward, boots on the ground. Both 

Steve McCraw and John Nichols will share with you that you can 

secure the border, because we have done it in sectors. We have not 

had the resources and the manpower for a 1,200-mile-plus border, 

which we are dealing with here. 

But we have those resources in this country. I mean, we can do 

this. I know we can do this. It is just a matter of having the wherewithal, the courage, and the desire, because I know we have the 

resources. 

So I think this is really not that difficult a task from the standpoint of how to do it. Do we have the will to do it I think is the 

bigger issue here that we face as a country. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think the will is there, certainly now. I will 

argue that they have been operational in a very limited role in 

counter-drug operations, but not in terms of border security across 

the border. 

Governor PERRY. That is correct. 
103 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think you would share my feelings and position that we need to expand that use. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. If we are going to deploy the National 

Guard, let’s let them do their job. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. We do not need to have them have one 

arm tied behind their back in this process. I mean, if we really 

care, if we really care about this border that we know today is, in 

fact, being penetrated by individuals from countries that have 

strong terrorist ties, if we really care about protecting our citizens, 

we need to use all of the personnel that we have available to do 

that. I don’t think any of us, if we knew that there were bad people 

coming into our neighborhood, that we would not want the police 

to use every resource that they have to keep our citizens safe, and 

that is really what this is about. 

I mean, the unaccompanied children issue is a humanitarian crisis, and we know that. But they are being used. They are being 

used by very vile individuals to detract from the role of our Border 

Patrol and our other law enforcement. When your enemy changes 

tactics, then you are going to be forced to change your tactics too, 

or you are going to be defeated. 

So this is a tactical issue that the drug cartels, from my perspective, are engaged in, and we have known about it for a couple of 

years. I will be honest, I don’t think we have been quite nimble 

enough from a National security standpoint to deal with it. 

Yes, it is a humanitarian crisis that is growing every day. But 

it is being driven by National security penetration by drug cartels. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Governor, thank you for your leadership. 

The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Governor, thank you so very much for your 

testimony, and thank you for your concern. 

All of us as representatives are always interested in our constituents. You happen to have all of us in the entire State of Texas, and 

that means that you have the families and friends and local government officials that are here in this region. My colleague, Congressman Filemon Vela, is the only one here at the table besides 

my good friend Congressman Farenthold that are in the region, as 

I understand it. Some of us are in other places in Houston. 

So I have taken the opportunity to listen to some of those voices 

over the years as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, 

and they are very jealous, if you will, about the richness of their 

community. They have some challenges. Some of them are not for 

fences. Some of them have a great deal of confidence in the Border 

Patrol. Some of them are in agriculture. In fact, as we were on the 

Rio Grande, in the area there, we saw sugar cane coming up almost to the edge of the water. Those are challenges that the Border 

Patrol has, but that is private land. 

Governor PERRY. Indeed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So I would just ask a simple question. Should 

we respect and engage with the citizens in this region about how 

we approach the safety and security of the border even though it 

is a Government responsibility, a Federal Government responsibility? You have been kind enough to join it. But isn’t that, that 

we should take note of the different terrain in this area? 
104 

Governor PERRY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for bringing up the agricultural aspect of this area of the State. For 8 years I had the 

great privilege to be the Agriculture Commissioner. As a matter of 

fact, Sheriff J.E. Guerra was one of my mentors, and there were 

some extraordinary individuals who I had the opportunity to work 

with. 

As we have discussed how you deal with Mexico, which is our 

No. 1 trading partner, and the agricultural aspect of that, as this 

debate raged through the years that we are going to build a fence 

from Brownsville to El Paso, and people who don’t know Texas, 

people don’t understand the massive amount of land, the private 

property that would be impeded upon, if you will, from the standpoint of their privacy. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So we should take that into consideration. 

Governor PERRY. Oh, absolutely, you should take it into consideration. It is the reason that I would suggest that so many of the private landowners have been very, very open about allowing the Border Patrol to come on their land. Actually, as a side note I wanted 

to share with you, one of the problems that we have here is some 

of these private preserves, these private preserves that are environmental preserves that have been put into place over the course of 

the last few years; and, Mr. Chairman, it is something that I think 

the committee should take a look at because they are not being allowed access, it is my understanding, by the Border Patrol and by 

the law enforcement, and they have become somewhat havens. 

Listen, the drug cartels know these things very quickly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I might, Governor, I have a short period of 

time, so I will let you finish that sentence. I appreciate it. I have 

some other questions for you. 

Governor PERRY. Right. But my point is that I am sure that we 

could go up and down the Rio Grande and find folks on both sides 

of this issue. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My point is, the point I am trying to make is 

that sometimes we offer suggestions from the Federal Government 

or the State government and we are not engaging the local community. 

I want to get to the point of maybe taking issue with whether 

we are as safe as we were pre-9/11, or pre-ramping up the Border 

Patrol. I have been on Homeland Security now since the very beginning. Border Patrol Agents were 4,000; they are now 21,000. We 

get intelligence reports, and for a period of time we heard a lot 

about OTNs and the intrusion of individuals coming from the Mideast. I frankly believe the Border Patrol has control of that. Every 

Border Patrol Agent that I spoke to, and leadership, over these 3 

days indicated that they are decidedly safer today than we were before. 

So let me get to these children and ask the Chairman, can I ask 

unanimous consent to put into the record H.R. 3887 that passed in 

the 110th Congress, I believe, and the words are for the Homeland 

Security Act, ‘‘An unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed 

in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the 

child.’’ It gives discretion if the child is a danger to themselves, a 

danger to the community, or risks flight. 
105 

* The information has been retained in committee files. 

All that I have heard over the past 3 days—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered.* 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

None of these children were a danger to themselves. I also have 

information that indicates that there is a 712 percent asylum application for El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, and not 

the same amount from those from Mexico. It has been steady. Panama, Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua. The assumption is that they 

are coming from these countries because there is horrific violence, 

that there is a humanitarian crisis. 

So the question I would have, Governor, is: Can we not balance 

our desire for security with the recognition that we have passed a 

law that is not a law that undermines National security? It is simply to provide for this possible influx of children that have come 

over a period of time, and it is not going to encourage more children to come if these innocent children who are 5-year-olds—I can’t 

believe they are calculating enough to think ‘‘I am going to go here 

so I can inspire my other fellow classmates or babies to come,’’ like 

the 2-year-old who was in a diaper who was totally without anyone, 

who are trying to get placed as we speak today. That child could 

not be used as an example to encourage others. 

Can we not find the kind of balance and humanitarian needs, 

and also to provide the extra funding in this supplemental to help 

our Border Patrol? I just take issue—and I respect all of the thinking on this, but I take issue with the idea that our Border Patrol 

team is not well placed with resources to do their jobs. 

Governor PERRY. That is a good question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, and I respect the National Guard, but I 

would—— 

Governor PERRY. You ask a very good question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would argue that the National Guard militarizes. If you want them to do their military assignments, it militarizes the border, and I don’t know whether we have asked or that 

is an answer to children and whether or not it responds to what 

is not yet determined as to whether this border is so porous that 

we have terrorists coming through. I think that we have that under 

control. 

Governor PERRY. I think if we ask—I think if we stay focused on 

the only issue at hand that I am hearing you talk about, which is 

the children, which is a humanitarian crisis, we have multiple crises here. Speaking of balance, I totally agree with you. I would love 

to have a balanced approach when it comes to the Border Patrol, 

because when you look at the United States border from El Paso 

to California, there are 17 Border Patrol Agents per mile dedicated 

to that region of the United States. From El Paso to Brownsville, 

it is 7 Border Patrol Agents per mile. 

I am all for balance. Let’s get Texas balanced when it comes to 

the number of Border Patrol Agents relative to the rest of the country; 4,000 to 21,000. That is a good step in the right direction, but 

they are in the wrong place, I would suggest to you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentle lady’s time has expired. 

Dr. Broun from Georgia. 
106 

Mr. BROUN. Governor Perry, in your recent op ed, you stated, 

‘‘The root cause is Washington’s failure diplomatically and strategically to address our border security and illegal immigration problem.’’ This failure to develop a comprehensive strategy has resulted 

in border security which simply squeezes the balloon from one area 

of the border to another, while also failing to focus on the diplomatic efforts that are necessary which would have an equal impact 

about addressing the problem prior to these individuals reaching 

our porous borders. 

Frankly, Governor, I blame four administrations, two Republican 

and two Democrat, for not addressing these issues. 

As Governor, do you see this as a leadership problem on the part 

of the administration? Is it just this administration, or is it previous administrations as well, as I believe it is? 

Governor PERRY. Well, this issue has been going on for a long 

time. I am tired of pointing fingers and blaming people. I hope 

what we can do is come up with some solutions here, because we 

know how. The fact is, we know how to secure the border. I mean, 

I can have Steve McCraw up here and probably in 15 minutes lay 

it out so clear to anyone, here is how you secure the border. 

The question is this: Do we, as the United States of America, believe in our rule of law, and do we believe that we need to have 

a secure border between the United States and Mexico? I do. I 

think that is one of the Constitutional enumerated responsibilities 

of the Federal Government, to secure the border. 

I won’t get off onto my Tenth Amendment speech about getting 

out of our hair and a whole bunch of other stuff. You already all 

know that already. 

But my point is that we just need to have a discussion in this 

country, do we need to have a secure border that will stop illegal 

activity or bring it to astoundingly low levels as we have done in 

Texas when we have surged into those areas with our law enforcement working with our Border Patrol and our Federal counterparts. We know how to do this. We just need the resolve, the resources of the Federal Government to do their Constitutional duty. 

Mr. BROUN. Governor, I agree with you, securing the border is 

absolutely the first and foremost thing that we need to do to deal 

with this humanitarian crisis, as well as the National security 

issue that we face as a Nation, and I disagree with my colleague 

from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, in that it is still a very real problem 

that this porous, open border is also a very real National security 

risk. 

But going back to your op ed, you talked about the diplomatic solutions. Of course, with these kids, diplomatic solutions are going 

to have to play a part, not just securing the border, but we are 

going to have to work with the Mexican government, the governments of the other Central American countries where these kids 

are coming from to try to help stop this flood, this so-called tsunami, to use a trite phrase, of kids flowing into this country. 

But in terms of the diplomatic efforts to strengthen our own border security, as you mentioned in your op ed, where would you 

focus to have the greatest impact to stop this? 

Governor PERRY. Obviously, we had a great working relationship 

in a lot of areas with Mexico. We probably have some areas that 
107 

we can improve upon. Again, I haven’t seen the focus on the North 

American region from a diplomatic standpoint. 

I know I am going to get a little bit off the subject here, Mr. 

Chairman, but when I look at Canada and the XL Pipeline, when 

I see Mexico and the opportunities on the energy industry with 

Mexico and the lack of engagement and, frankly, the lack of trust 

that we should be building up with two neighbors that ought to be 

our strongest partners, it causes me some concern. So I don’t know 

if the trust level between Canada and the United States, Mexico 

and the United States is where it could be, or certainly where it 

should be. 

So again, diplomatic relationships and using the leverage, but 

also using the personal relationships, and both of those are lacking 

from my perspective. I don’t know, again, what is going on behind 

the scenes, but I haven’t publicly seen the outreach that we have 

had in previous administrations with those, both Canada and Mexico in particular. I hope that we can see an outreach and both leverage and, well, let’s say a carrot and a stick may be needed here 

to deal with this, because you cannot allow that many young people 

across your country on the back of trains and in buses and not 

know about it. A Marine can’t go to Tijuana and be apprehended, 

yet thousands of young people are crossing the border with Mexico. 

There is some disconnect there, and we diplomatically have not engaged in that to the level at which I am comfortable we could be 

if we really cared about that. Matter of fact, both of those issues. 

Mr. BROUN. Governor, I agree with you on that. I hope that our 

administration will start dealing with the Mexican government to 

get them to secure their southern border to prevent the flood 

through their country, as well as stop turning a blind eye towards 

the transit of these kids through the country of Mexico. I think it 

is absolutely critical that this administration start focusing those 

diplomatic efforts to do that. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Governor, and I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Vela from 

Texas. 

Mr. VELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, I want to begin by thanking you for your 16 years of 

service to the State, and also take this opportunity to thank you, 

Senators Hinojosa and Lucio and the rest of the Texas State Senate and our House of Representatives—Representative Geda was 

here earlier; I think he might have stepped out—for all you have 

done for South Texas, especially with respect to—we have 1.2 million people living here. We are a great American community, and 

with what you all have done with respect to the merger of the University of Texas Pan American and Brownsville Edinburgh and the 

new medical school and the feasibility of a SpaceX launching pad, 

that is something you deserve thanks for. 

With respect to our presence here today, it seems to me that with 

respect to the National Guard, what I am wondering is: How do 

you think that would have prevented the influx? We have 1,000 

National Guard at our borders, you would propose. How would that 

have prevented the influx of these unaccompanied children who, for 

all practical purposes, are surrendering themselves? 
108 

Governor PERRY. The power of boots on the ground I don’t think 

can be overstated. The message needs to be sent very clearly. It is 

not a matter of once you come into the United States you are going 

to be deported. This is you are not going to be coming into the 

United States. Had, in 2009 and in 2010, those 1,000 National 

Guard troops been upon the border, I would suggest to you their 

presence here, and then the ensuing training of the 3,000 Border 

Patrol Agents to permanently take those individuals’ place because 

that was a temporary fix, if you will, 2012 would not have seen this 

great influx of young people coming in, the beginning of this great 

influx in 2012 that we saw. It would not have happened. 

I would ask you at the appropriate time to have either—and particularly Director McCraw share with you what we have seen from 

the standpoint of our ability to substantially lower the criminal activities along the border when we have surged into those places. It 

is just like a Neighborhood Watch, if you will. I mean, it is really 

some pretty common sense. When you have a substantial law enforcement presence in a particular site, you are not going to have 

the activities, criminal activity or, for that matter, I don’t think you 

are going to have this great influx of young people coming up here, 

because I truly believe this is manufactured to some degree by the 

drug cartels, because not only is it the drug cartel violence that is 

going on there and their intimidation and what have you, but it is 

also them organizing and pushing this caravan, if you will, into 

this area of the State. 

Mr. VELA. We could probably debate those points all day long, so 

let me ask you this. In your op ed, you mentioned—this is what 

you said: ‘‘What is happening along our Southern Border is a 

mounting tragedy, its root cause being Washington’s failure diplomatically and strategically to address our border security and illegal immigration problem.’’ Right? 

Governor PERRY. I am agreeing with you so far. 

Mr. VELA. So would you agree that the humanitarian or the socioeconomic conditions and conditions of violence in Central America are also one of the root causes of the crisis that we are experiencing? 

Governor PERRY. I don’t argue that. As a matter of fact, I think 

that is what I said there, either directly or obliquely. But the fact 

is we are wanting to draw this line and say here is where we are 

and we are going to have to continue doing what we have been 

doing and address the result of it. I would suggest to you that if 

you send a clear message that you are not coming into the United 

States, and if you are here you are going to be cared for and get 

you back into traveling condition and you are going to be sent back 

to where you are from, substantially stymie the flow that we have 

seen because we know what was happening in 2012, and I want 

to say it is like 5,000, and then the projection for 2015 is 160,000. 

I am just going to tell you that unless the United States clearly 

sends the message of we are not going to allow for this unimpeded 

flow of individuals into our country, and you get here and you can 

stay here, then it will be a deluge. After El Salvador and Honduras, what is the next group of people to decide to come here? I 

mean, do they start shipping people from other places in the world? 

I mean, there has to be a point in time where we stand up and say 
109 

we are going to secure the border of our country, we are going to 

be a rule of law. If we don’t do that, I will suggest to you that the 

American people will address this in a number of different ways, 

electorally and otherwise. 

Mr. VELA. May I have one more, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Very quickly. 

Mr. VELA. Would you also agree at least that one of the root 

causes of the crisis that we are currently experiencing is also the 

fact that 85 percent of these children are coming here to be reunited with their parents? Would you agree with that, that the reunification factor is one of the root causes of what we are seeing? 

Governor PERRY. I don’t know whether those numbers are correct 

or not. But the issue at hand is not if we are going to address this 

flood of individuals who are coming to this country, whatever reason they are coming for. We cannot, as a country that respects the 

rule of law, allow for basically the turning away from the legal system that we have in this country. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Barletta from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are trying to deal with this on a Federal level. But, Mr. Governor, as the mayor of Hazelton for 11 years, I saw first-hand what 

a burden illegal immigration has on local government. When I saw 

our population grow by 50 percent but our tax revenue stay the 

same, realizing we had an illegal immigration problem, the quality 

of services suffered. 

On Monday, I helped sound the alarm to help stop potential relocation of unaccompanied minors to a property in my hometown in 

downtown Hazelton, Pennsylvania which had been identified as a 

potential housing facility. The United States Committee on Refugees and Immigrants has now stated that they are not looking at 

locations in Hazelton but will continue to look for potential places 

across the country. 

Governor PERRY. Have you been told where those are? 

Mr. BARLETTA. No. I am getting to that. But I am worried for a 

number of issues, not only for Hazelton, which is now not a problem, but for other cities. 

What are the health risks, in your opinion, to these children and 

to the community that they are going to be sent to? Do you know, 

are background checks being conducted not only on the unaccompanied minors but on the adults who will take custody of them? Do 

we know if they are predators? Do we know anything about them, 

if they are gang members, associated with, anything about their 

background? How long will the minors remain in the United 

States, and what impacts will there be on our public schools and 

on other public services, including our health care providers? These 

are all local issues, real issues that small governments have to deal 

with. Can you speak on that based on your experience? 

Governor PERRY. I think those are all very legitimate and appropriate questions for people in the other 49 States as well, and the 

reason I ask you that, Congressman, is because I don’t think our 

Government is being forthright, being transparent in the process 

that is going on. I think we have seen the reaction in Georgia and 

California and Pennsylvania, and I think you are going to see that 

in a lot of places across the country. 
110 

Again, we are either going to be a country that respects our rule 

of law, or we are not. We are going to be a country that is going 

to secure its border, or we are not. If we are not going to be either 

one of those, then the Federal Government needs to stand up and 

say here is the way it is going to be. 

My instincts are that the American people are not going to be 

particularly happy about that. They do want this to be addressed. 

They want it to be addressed thoughtfully. But securing this border, until that is done, all of these other conversations that folks 

want to have about immigration reform or what have you, they are 

going to fall on deaf ears with this country. That is my perspective 

when I go and talk to people across the United States. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I agree with you. The problem starts in Washington and ends up on the border, then ends up in Hazelton, Pennsylvania and across the country for everyone to try to deal with it. 

What always stops me when someone wants to talk about immigration reform, I always go to the background checks because as a 

mayor, I know what is involved in doing a proper background 

check. 

How do we find information on this? Because I saw the human 

side today, these three beautiful little girls with their grandmother 

who risked their lives to come here. I saw that, and it broke my 

heart. But there is also the realist in me who also saw others that 

again could be here not for good reasons, and that is the ones I am 

concerned about because there will be innocent Americans every 

time who pay that price. If we don’t do the due diligence to make 

sure that we are not allowing people into this country that will 

harm Americans, which I believe is our first priority of Government, is to protect the American people, then we are not doing our 

job. 

That is where it stops for me, and I am not convinced that we 

know enough about the children that are here. We talked about 

what are the causes. I do believe that most are here because there 

is somebody in the country already here illegally, which is the 

cause of not enforcing our immigration laws. We have created another crisis now with the children. 

So I want to thank you for coming with your perspective. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. This crisis I think will literally impact every 

district across the Nation eventually. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Governor. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SWALWELL. I came here not looking for placing blame but 

looking for solutions, and at that facility this morning I saw children, and I saw mothers holding their children. I talked to a young 

El Salvadoran boy and asked him why he came here. He said he 

traveled alone, and he said he came here for a better life. He 

wasn’t holding an invitation in his hand from President Obama. He 

didn’t know what DACA meant. He didn’t know what the Traveler 

Protection Act was. 
111 

So I understand in your op ed, you said that the root cause was 

a belief that they would be allowed to stay here. So I just wanted 

to walk through some figures with you. 

You would agree that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was 

passed in 2008. Is that right? In 2008 it was passed? 

Governor PERRY. I will let your statement stand as fact. 

Mr. SWALWELL. You would agree that in 2008, only 7,500 unaccompanied minors came across our border? 

Governor PERRY. That is factual. 

Mr. SWALWELL. In 2012, the President took Executive Action 

with the Deferred Action Children Act. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. If where you are going with this is 

where I think you are going with it, here is what you need to understand. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor—— 

Governor PERRY. I have been the Governor here for 14 years. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, if you don’t mind—— 

Governor PERRY. But here is—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you agree that in 2012—— 

Governor PERRY. Here is what I agree to. The reason people are 

coming is because—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. If I may, Governor—— 

Governor PERRY [continuing]. The border has not been—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. I will ask the questions, Governor. 

Governor PERRY [continuing]. Secured. And until we—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, may I ask the questions? 

Governor PERRY. Until we get the border secure, you are not 

going to see a stop to any people. As a matter of fact, you are going 

to see a flood, more than this. I hope you will agree that the responsibility to secure the border is the Federal Government’s, not 

the State of Texas’, not the County of Hidalgo—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, I would agree. But would you agree 

that after the Deferred Action Executive Action was taken, 25,000 

or fewer? That was 2 years ago. 

Now today, in 2014, we are at 50,000, probably 80,000 by the end 

of the fiscal year. 

So is it your position that it has taken 2 years for the word of 

DACA to travel to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, and 4 

years for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to travel to them, 

and that is the reason they are all coming here? 

Governor PERRY. I think what has happened is the abject failure 

of the Federal Government to do its responsibility, and what you 

have seen is a catalyst that has been growing year by year, and 

people understanding that if you will get from wherever you are to 

the border of the United States, you can cross and the Federal Government is not going to impede you from coming into this country 

and staying here, and that is why Americans are upset. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, you are calling for—— 

Governor PERRY. That is why Americans are upset. 

Mr. SWALWELL [continuing]. Additional Border Patrol Agents. 

But during our briefing this morning, we were told this is not a 

matter of catching them, that these children are running into open 

arms. So wouldn’t additional Border Patrol Agents only increase 

the number of open arms that these children are running into? 
112 

Governor PERRY. I think I addressed that earlier when I said 

that when you have the National Guard, when you have a law enforcement effort—and, frankly, it gets back to the issue of whether 

or not we are going to have a diplomatic relationship with Mexico 

to the point of where they trust us, we trust them, and they secure 

their southern border. I mean, if it is going to come down to we 

are going to put enough people on the border and put them on the 

border—I am not talking about 40 miles back and apprehend, and 

that has been our objective when we surged into the border region, 

is put them on the border, have that law enforcement presence 

there. 

Again, if the point is we are going to continue with the same old 

policies that we have had and we don’t apprehend at this particular point in time and send those individuals back to where they 

are from—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, you mentioned several times send 

them back to where they are from—— 

Governor PERRY [continuing]. 160,000, and then 320,000—yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. I appreciate that because I—— 

Governor PERRY. Do you not agree that they need to be sent back 

to where they are from? 

Mr. SWALWELL. I do agree on a case-by-case basis. We do not 

want them to come here. 

Governor PERRY. Okay. Do you agree that they need to be sent 

back to where they are from? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would you agree, Governor, that the challenge, 

though, is that where they are from doesn’t necessarily cooperate 

with us? We need to put pressure on Guatemala and Honduras and 

El Salvador—— 

Governor PERRY. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. SWALWELL [continuing]. To receive them. 

Governor PERRY. Absolutely, I agree with you on the diplomatic 

side. But you agree—I want you on the record here, in front of God 

and everybody—you agree that they need to be sent back to the 

country that they are from? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, I agree we can, on a case-by-case 

basis—I am not saying all of these—— 

Governor PERRY. But I heard you say earlier that you agree that 

they need to be sent back to where they are from. 

Mr. SWALWELL. But I hope you understand that it is not as easy 

as catching a child from Guatemala and then just dropping them 

on the corner in Guatemala. 

Governor PERRY. I didn’t say it was going to be easy. This has 

never been easy. I have written the President since 2005 about the 

difficulties that we face along this border. The citizens of this region deserve to be able to live in a safe and secure area. Our responsibility as citizens, both as a State governor in my case and 

you as a Congressman, is to secure this country. Sending young 

people back, if that is what we have to do to send a message, because if we don’t, then the only alternative I see is instead of 5,000, 

then 8,000—I mean, the flow is not going to stop. 

If we are going to be a country that respects the rule of law, and 

if we are ever going to have a conversation about immigration re-
113 

form, which my bet is that you and I would probably like to see 

that happen, it will never happen until you secure the border. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Governor, I appreciate that, and I thank the 

Chairman. My point is that this is something more complicated 

than these children are coming because of President Obama invited 

them. 

Governor PERRY. It is an incredibly complicated issue, Congressman. It is an incredibly complicated issue. But I really believe that 

we can find a solution, and that is the important thing for me. 

Thank you again for being here. We can find the solution to this. 

I mean, we are smart enough, we are big enough, we are wealthy 

enough to find the solution to this. But we first must secure that 

border, because that is what Americans want us, demand that we 

do. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Kay Granger from Texas. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Governor, for being here and for all you have done 

over all these years about this issue. This is the second time I have 

been to McAllen this week. I traveled here just to personally 

see—— 

Governor PERRY. They would like you back in 2 days. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor PERRY. For tomorrow would be good, the 4th of July. 

Ms. GRANGER. Yes. I wanted to see what was being done here 

and what needed to be done, and we all did that way. I saw things 

I didn’t want to see. I saw children that were kept in places that— 

on dirty floors and sleeping without blankets and things that we 

expect in Beirut, we don’t expect here in McAllen, Texas. 

At Lockheed—sorry. At Lackland, there were 1,200 children 

being taken care of. They were being taken care of very well, 600 

boys on one floor, 600 girls on the other floor, 30 to a room, given 

good health care and checks. 

But I was traveling with the First Lady of Honduras, and she became very, very emotional. I said to her, I said if it were my country, I would hate to see the loss of the children from my country 

and all their futures and what they believed and what they were 

going to add, their talents, and she said that was exactly what she 

was thinking of, the huge loss. 

I thought, to those children, they are going to lose their culture, 

they are going to lose their family and their friends, and I am 

afraid they are never going to be really united with their families. 

So I talked to her and I said—and the next day I talked to the 

Foreign Minister of Honduras and said I think we should send 

these children home, and she said yes, she wanted the children to 

go home. But I said I thought that if we did it right, we could put 

the children first and we could get a situation where we sent them 

back home but we helped Honduras keeping them safe, some of the 

shelters that we have done in Jordan and Lebanon, all sorts of 

places, and then work with that government to make the government make that safer so the children didn’t want to leave and 

break the law. I think that is possible. It ain’t easy, just like you 

said. It ain’t easy, but it is certainly possible. 
114 

I think with leadership like the leadership that you have exhibited where you are very straightforward, you say we are a country 

of rules, this is what we need to do, we need to back it up, and 

we need to let the people who are trained to keep us safe and to 

secure that border do their job in sufficient numbers to have a safe 

border, I just think absolutely that that is the direction we need 

to take. 

I think we need to do it very quickly, because we start out with 

52,000, and I don’t know what we will have when we start enacting 

laws. But I think that there is something we all need to do, and 

that is to try to stop it at this level so we can know who we are 

dealing with. 

I think the worst fear I have is I watched those 1,200 at 

Lackland get on buses, that we will never see those kids again, and 

their families won’t either. It is a dangerous, dangerous trip they 

took to get where they are, and for us to keep those children and 

say we are going to return you to families, I think we all need to 

be very aware of the other dangers they have, the human traffickers with cartels. So I think we need to also in our thinking take 

that to a different level. 

So I would ask, of course, for your continued guidance and leadership in this. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Any response? 

Governor PERRY. I agree with everything she said, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCCAUL. Smart man. I always agree with Kay 

Granger, all the time. That is always the best policy. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Kay. 

The Chairman now recognizes Gene Green from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing 

those of us who are not on Homeland Security to actually participate. 

Governor, welcome. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. You and I served together since sometime in the 

1980s. I am going to try and take my ‘‘D’’ hat off, and you can take 

your ‘‘R’’ hat off, because we have plenty of time to do that, because 

I always was taught in the legislature that our goal is to do what 

is good for Texas, just like as a Member of Congress I hope to do 

what is good for our country. 

I agree with what my colleague from Georgia said. Securing our 

borders has been a challenge for decades, although I have to admit 

I love Texas history, and I am sure glad the royalty in Spain and 

the governor of Mexico, they didn’t secure the borders on the 

Sabine either back in the 1820s and 1830s. So we have had this 

problem for a long time, and it is easier said than done on securing 

borders. 

Governor PERRY. I agree. 

Mr. GREEN. I am looking forward to Mr. McCaul’s statement on 

it because I have never not voted in my 20 years-plus in Congress, 

voted for expansion and more money for Customs and Border Protection. We have always done that, and I would think that we will 

continue to do it. In fact, in the immigration reform bill, there was 
115 

this committee, the Homeland Security Committee, passed bipartisan I think a much better part of that bill than the Senate did. 

Even though the Senate had a lot more money, I think ours, this 

committee and Congressman McCaul was smarter in doing it, and 

I would hope we could vote on that sometime. 

Let me get to a couple of things, though, that came up. First of 

all, one of your comments, your four statements, we were told now, 

and hopefully we will in a later panel, that every child who comes 

here is going to be tested for their health issues before they are released, and hopefully the next panel will guarantee that to us in 

just telling it to us. 

The other thing is that it is hard enough to do a background 

check on adults. There is no way we are going to do a background 

check on those three granddaughters we saw over there from Guatemala. If somebody wants a background check on every immigrant, it is just not going to happen. We just can’t do that. We have 

enough trouble with the adults that come over, having access to the 

files in those countries on someone. So let me put that aside. 

I don’t know of anything in the last 6 or 7 years that the President has said ‘‘you have a free pass to come to our country.’’ The 

2008 legislation was actually signed by President Bush and passed 

by a voice vote in the House of Representatives. So if we need to 

go back and change that, but I don’t think that was an invitation 

to anyone. I think that was in response to what we were trying to 

do to treat children, and it is not unlike what we do in Texas. 

When I practiced law, if I had a juvenile case, that child under 

17 years old went to juvenile court. They were treated much better 

in juvenile court than they were if they were 17 or older because 

they went to adult court. So we tried on the Federal level to do 

that, treat children as children. 

Now, we do know that in Central America we have gang problems, and some of the problems in those countries, I know El Salvador particularly, a lot of their problems, if we deported a substantial number of gangs from Texas I am sure, but also California, 

and rightfully so—I have a very urban district in Houston. We 

have enough home-grown outlaws. We don’t need to bring them in. 

So we need to deport them. 

But I don’t know of anything the President said that said this 

is open season, and frankly I don’t remember President Bush saying it either. It has been a challenge, at least I know while you 

have been Governor. You had President Bush and President 

Obama. I don’t think there has been an invitation. I know in Congress, whether it is D’s or R’s that run it, we have increased border 

protection. 

Now, I do agree with you on one thing. I didn’t know the statistic, that we have fewer Border Patrol per mile, and I would like 

to use that as a standard, and we need to correct that. 

Governor PERRY. Please do. 

Mr. GREEN. Because we need to have the same emphasis that 

California, Arizona, and the very small part of New Mexico that is 

a border. 

The other thing that in your letter you sent in May 2012, that 

Congress has increased border protection money since then, too. 

Now, it may not be spent. You and I have some philosophical dis-
116 

agreements on the National Guard. I was with the National Guard 

in Iraq, our Texas units and Army Reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan. They weren’t doing border protection. They were doing their 

military job. I think they can be used as a force multiplier, but I 

still want our Border Patrol doing their job, and I would much 

rather have a trained Border Patrol Agent than a National Guard 

person there who is not trained to do what the Border Patrol is 

supposed to do. 

I know I have heard the term ‘‘we are being invaded from Mexico.’’ That is a little hyperbole. If we are being invaded, then maybe 

we need to move the airborne division there, but that is not the 

case. People are coming here to work. They are coming here, and 

these children are coming for lots of reasons, including misinformation in their own country. But that is the other thing. 

Have you heard that there has been any suggestion by whether 

it is the Homeland Security Secretary or the President to these 

countries in Latin America that said, you know, you can come in 

here if you are a child, just come in here and surrender to a Border 

Patrol Agent? I have not seen that. 

Governor PERRY. Can I address that? 

Mr. GREEN. Sure. 

Governor PERRY. Gene, thank you. I think it is a bit more 

nuanced, the messages. 

Mr. GREEN. President Bush said we don’t do nuance in Texas. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor PERRY. I am thinking that—and let me just back up for 

a little history here. I can’t remember the dates of this. You may 

be able to give it to me better. But there was a program that we 

referred to as Catch and Release that got—— 

Mr. GREEN. I remember that, and Congress actually worked hard 

to change that. 

Governor PERRY. You did. But those are the nuanced messages 

that I am talking about. You get caught, you get brought in to San 

Angelo, Texas, and then you are given a summons that says show 

up for a court date, and everybody knows how that was going to 

turn out. So both the citizens of this country and Members of Congress were a bit outraged, and they addressed that. 

Then we had apprehend and get transported to somewhere else. 

Maybe you were apprehended on the Texas border and then you 

got sent to Arizona. So those are nuanced messages that if you can 

just get across the border, then you are going to have an opportunity to move around. The message gets sent, Gene. I don’t think 

that is really nuanced, to be real honest with you. 

No, the President of the United States didn’t stand up and say 

come, and I hope I haven’t ever said that, and if I did, I needed 

to be more nuanced. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor PERRY. But let me share with you. I never asked for 

the National Guard to come and stay. What we asked for was 1,000 

National Guard to come here in a temporary basis until 3,000 Border Patrol which are trained every day to do what you and I both 

agree they need to be doing, and thank you for supporting the concept of Texas needs to have, at least in equity per mile, if our bor-
117 

der is going to be—I think our border is just as important as the 

other States that are border States. 

Anyway, my point is that I do think that this nuanced messaging—and again, this has been going on for some time. I would 

just like to look for the solutions. We know what the problem is, 

and the solutions from my perspective—and again, we can maybe 

disagree a little bit on the exact way to deal with it and what we 

are facing, but we know how to secure the border. 

I think if we will agree that we can put the resources on the border in an appropriate number, that a lot of these other issues will 

go away. 

Mr. GREEN. I know I am out of time, and I know we are trying 

to move on. I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. I like your leadership on some of the Border Patrol and Homeland Security. We 

will work together to get it done. 

Governor PERRY. We will. We can do this. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Salmon from 

Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Governor, a couple of things. First of all, thank you for being 

here today. 

I went to the facility in Nogales, Arizona about 3 weeks ago 

where there were 1,250 children. At the time it was the only facility of its kind, and it was a makeshift facility. The first thing that 

happened when I walked in—and I am not a real emotional guy, 

but I broke into tears when I saw what was transpiring before my 

eyes. 

We are talking a lot about these children and what is best for 

these children. I think that the point that you are making is one 

that we have to focus on with a laser beam, and that is ultimately 

if we don’t stop it now, the waves will keep coming. How many of 

those kids aren’t in the facilities? How many are not making it? 

How many are dying in the desert? 

I understand that one out of every three teenage girls is being 

raped as they make that journey. I understand that many of these 

children are being sold into slavery and some into prostitution, 

many of them. If we don’t create a deterrent to stop that from happening, this untold carnage is going to continue to happen. 

I happen to agree with you that actions speak louder than words. 

If they believe that these children are going to come here, they are 

going to bounce around the system until we bounce them out to 

their relatives, some of them that are in this country that are here 

illegally, then it is going to keep coming, and it is going to come 

from Nicaragua, and it is going to come from other countries as 

well, and the carnage is not going to stop. Is that real compassion? 

I would submit it is not. 

The second thing that I would like to point out is that just throwing money at the problem alone—$2 billion, that is what the President has asked for—if we don’t have a focused plan, or if we don’t 

let the CBP officers or ICE do their jobs, then that money is wasted. 

I talked to the CBP folks at that facility, all the way down the 

line, spent a whole day there with them, and they told me of the 

abject cause for their low morale, and that is that they are not al-
118 

lowed by this administration to do their job. They are cops. Yet 

what happens? So they find a family unit, and they drop them off 

at a bus station, and they give them a date to come back to court. 

I said, well, how many of them come out for that court date? They 

started to laugh, and they said are you serious? None of them come 

back, they just stay. 

The children, because of the 2008 law, they are guaranteed a 

hearing, and those hearings are taking anywhere from 3 to 7 years 

before the hearings can be accomplished. We have got to change 

that law. We have to, and treat the children who are coming from 

Central America just like we would treat the children coming from 

Mexico or Canada. Let us just make that amendment. The administration has asked for that. 

If we do that and we act through actions and not just words, let’s 

dig that placard out that Truman had that said ‘‘The buck stops 

here,’’ for all of us, for Congress, for the President. Let’s say the 

buck stops here and let’s just fix it and stop this carnage from happening. 

The last thing I would like to say, and it is a question for you, 

the President just said a couple of days ago that he has decided to 

go it alone on immigration reform, that he is frustrated with the 

way things have happened. Governor, do you think that if the 

President goes it alone and comes out through Executive Order and 

not involving the Congress, do you think that will help or hurt this 

situation? 

Governor PERRY. I think it is really fascinating that the one 

place that the President really needs you, all of you, is on this 

issue, and it is because of the appropriation of the dollars. There 

have been some other issues that the President—I remember him 

talking about his pen and a phone, but that the President has bypassed Congress, and maybe he could or should. I don’t know. I am 

not going to weigh in. 

But this is the one time that I really think the President does 

need all of you, Democrats and Republicans alike, to be working 

with you and reaching out. Gene, I have found—you left us and 

went to Congress. The few times that I tried to do something without you, you spanked me pretty good. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor PERRY. As I recall. 

So one of the things that I have learned over my 14 years of 

being Governor, and then the other 16 years of being a State Rep 

and the other roles that I have had the privilege to play, was that 

an executive in Government, the President of the United States or 

the Governor of a State, can’t go it alone. You are not going to be 

successful. 

I hope that all of us will share with the President that we are 

willing to sit down and work with him. One of the reasons I asked 

him to come here, I wanted him to see this because, just like you, 

Congressman, I think if he walked in that sally port and he saw 

what all of you have seen, then he would realize that this is bigger 

than politics, this is bigger than—but it is not bigger than America. 

We can find the solutions to these issues and stop this tragedy that 

is occurring all across Central America and Mexico and into the 

United States. 
119 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Governor. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Olson from 

Texas. 

Mr. OLSON. Before I thank my Governor, I would like to thank 

Chairman McCaul for inviting me to be a part of the committee 

and participate in this very important hearing. Thank you, my 

friend. 

Governor Perry, good afternoon. 

Governor PERRY. Howdy. 

Mr. OLSON. My wife Nancy couldn’t be here today, but she ordered me, ordered me to say thank you to you, for your life of service to Texas, taking care of my family and 27 million Texans. 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Knowing that you and I share 

a common bond as former pilots in the military, she had a call sign 

for you: ‘‘Prosperity Perry.’’ Has a ring to it, doesn’t it? 

Governor PERRY. That is kind of a long call sign, actually. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Well, ‘‘prosperity.’’ That ought to work out. 

Governor PERRY. I kind of like ‘‘maverick’’ better. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLSON. Cross the Air Force with the Navy. I appreciate that, 

sir. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. I want to talk about President Obama’s blindness to 

a crisis that threatens our State with a tsunami of disaster. You 

have authorized $1.3 million for DPS per week to get involved in 

border security, $1.3 million coming from Texas. As you know, you 

are not like us. You can only spend money you have. So, Governor 

Perry, you are going to have to come up with some money. If this 

goes on for 6 months, you are going to have to come up with $33.5 

million. 

My question to you is: What is going to happen to other services 

that have to be impacted? Any idea what is going to happen, Governor? 

Governor PERRY. Well, obviously, Texas is fortunate in the sense 

of its economy is doing better than most other States. Matter of 

fact, 37 percent of all the new jobs created since 2000, 37 percent 

of all the private-sector new jobs created in the United States were 

created in this State over the last 13-plus years. So the State of 

Texas is in a surplus condition in its State government. 

But the fact is, from 2005, we all remember 2008–2009, that 

even Texas wasn’t immune to what happened in that particular period of time. We had to struggle; not as bad as other States. But 

the fact is during that period of time, we were spending money on 

securing this border. We were diverting money that, frankly, could 

have been spent for transportation infrastructure. 

I can promise you, Judge Garcia and Senator Hinojosa and Senator Lucio would have loved to have had some of those dollars in 

the far transportation district to have built some transportation infrastructure in this State. But public safety trumped that. 

The legislature—and I think it was a fairly overwhelming vote 

to send that money for border security in 2005, in 2007, in 2009, 

in 2011, in 2013, and it is over a half-a-billion dollars now that, 
120 

frankly, was your responsibility. Again, I want to remind you that 

I put a request in for you to pay it back. 

But you are absolutely correct, this is not the State’s responsibility. It is not Arizona’s responsibility. It is not New Mexico’s responsibility. It is not Jerry Brown’s in California’s responsibility. 

We have a Constitution that clearly enumerates the powers that 

are supposed to be dealt with by the Federal Government, and defending and securing this country’s borders is one of those that we 

are failing. 

Mr. OLSON. Yep. There is a bigger problem that is a crisis, 

though, sir. As you know, by law, when DHS gets ahold of one of 

these children, they have 72 hours to turn them over to HHS. I 

have seen HHS up close on the Energy and Commerce Committee 

for the past year through their roll-out of HealthCare.gov. In my 

51 years here on God’s earth, I have never seen a greater debacle 

from the Federal Government. It was terrible. How can we trust 

these people to ramp up with these kids coming across the border 

when they can’t even get this bill up and running? They had 3 

years to do that. They have 3 hours, 3 days. How can we trust 

them or the Government? 

My point is: Who wants to do this? Somebody in the District of 

Columbia? Somebody in Austin? Or local people? 

Governor PERRY. I don’t want to—I don’t think this is the right 

forum to discuss the Affordable Care Act. 

Mr. OLSON. Just an example of how we got there. 

Governor PERRY. I know. But I am just saying, we know how to 

fix this. I mean, we know how to address this issue. Again, the 

next panel you are going to have the opportunity to talk to some 

real pros, some people that I have extraordinary confidence in, men 

and women who have a plan. 

Again, it goes back to why I would really like for the President 

to come, or to at least—and thank you all for coming again, for 

being here. But I wish someone from the administration would 

come and sit down with the men and women who have put the 

surge operations together over the course of these last 7 years, not 

because we think we are perfect but because we know it works. 

Kay, you were spot-on when you talked about just spending the 

money for the sake of spending the money and it is not going to 

do any good. Having a plan—and we will be happy to sit down and 

show them how we in Texas have done this, and my bet is we have 

probably done it in a fairly efficient way. I mean, since 2005—and 

again, we only surged into areas of the border, and I think that is 

important to keep in mind because when we are going into 300 

miles versus 1,200 miles, there are some substantial cost increases. 

But since 2005, and we have been able to surge into these areas 

and drive down substantially the amount of activity, criminal activity, and done it for $500 million, half-a-billion dollars, which is a 

lot of money. But compared to the $2 billion that the President 

says I am going to make available, then I think there is some 

scalability here, and I think there is some partnering here that we 

don’t want to miss out on. 

Frankly, that is one of the reasons why I am here today, is to 

offer this expertise. If there is a State that has had more experience of dealing with this issue and, I might add, doing a pretty 
121 

good job of dealing with the issues at hand with our surges, if there 

is somebody that is any better or more experienced, I would love 

to have them sitting at the table with us as well. 

But I think it is really important for us to leave here with some 

solutions in our minds about, you know what? Here is a way to address this, and here is an avenue for us to address. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I agree with you, and that is why we are 

here. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentle lady from North Carolina, Mrs. Renee Ellmers, her first trip to the border. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing 

me to come along on this trip, not being a Member of Homeland 

Security Committee. 

Thank you, Governor Perry, for your leadership to the State of 

Texas and your willingness to be a leader on this issue of immigration. Obviously, as you have pointed out, we have to start with the 

border. Although many disagree on the path that we need to take 

for immigration reform as a whole, I think everyone that I have 

spoken to, regardless of party affiliation, regardless of who you are, 

what State you live in, everyone agrees that the border has got to 

be secure, and obviously you are ground zero for that action. 

I bring greetings from our Governor, Pat McCrory, and I know 

he is a good friend of yours. 

Governor PERRY. Yes. I hope I am not on the phone with him before the day is up with offering services for a hurricane. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, yes. 

Governor PERRY. But we will be if that is what is required. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Well, thank you, and we are certainly all praying 

that that will not be the case. 

But obviously in North Carolina, we do not have the hurdles that 

you have here in Texas with the border situation. But just as so 

many of the other States and areas are affected by the migration 

of these individuals coming across our border, so too is North Carolina. I know I am one, as you are, and you have pointed out numerous times that we are here to find solutions. 

I am here to find solutions on immigration in general, but especially because of this humanitarian crisis that we are experiencing, 

and coming here to learn and seeing it first-hand so that I can 

bring this back to my constituents and hopefully be a voice on this 

issue as well. 

You know, to some of our colleagues, we have talked a lot about 

what might have occurred to create some of this situation, and like 

you, I am looking for solutions. I don’t want to finger-point. But I 

think you have to—you can’t, you simply can’t ignore—in our binders, page 7, Table 1, which talks about the number of unaccompanied alien children apprehensions from 2008 to 2014, you can see 

the numbers, and you can see where they are escalated, and you 

can see what policy was put in place at that time, and then you 

can see a result. 

Whether the result was because it was written in stone that way 

or whether it is because it was perception, and then perception became reality, that is what we have been dealing with. So now we 

do have to find the solutions. 
122 

Sir, one of the things that, again, getting back—and I am just 

going to come off of what my colleague, Mr. Olson, was talking 

about, the $1.3 million a day that you have directed your Department of Public Safety to allocate, you are talking about dealing 

with, I guess at the more local level, illegal immigration and drug 

trafficking. How has this changed the dynamic? 

Of course, this is your State commitment. We are not talking 

about border security necessarily on the border. 

Governor PERRY. I might add that it is on top of what we have 

already appropriated, I think $110 to $120 million in the 2013 legislative session. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. How has this changed for the positive, and how 

can we, as we are looking at solutions, incorporate this into our 

plan of action? 

Governor PERRY. I want to save us just a little bit of time here 

because when Director McCraw gets up here, he is going to give 

you some very hard factual data and, giving you name of surge operation, here is the amount of criminal activity, here is the amount 

of apprehensions that occurred. What I will tell you in a broad 

sense is it is astounding how you drive down those activities when 

you have that law enforcement presence, when you have the boots 

on the ground, and it truly makes a difference. If we were able to 

do that from El Paso to Brownsville, I will suggest to you that it 

will have a likewise astounding impact on our border from the 

standpoint of folks on this side of the border will be substantially 

safer, and at some point in time we will have—and this is a conversation for another time too, but we will have two administrations, one in the United States and one in Mexico, that build a 

trusting relationship, and we can together, as we did in Columbia, 

deal with the drug cartels and the criminal element in Mexico and 

make that entire region, this entire region safer and more prosperous. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the gentle lady. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Corpus Christi, 

Texas, Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Chairman McCaul. As a former 

Member of this committee and a representative of the Rio Grande 

Valley in the last term of Congress, it really means a lot to be here, 

be back amongst some old friends, and talk about some issues that 

have been troubling us since I have been elected to Congress. 

I do have two takeaways, I think, that really have stuck with me 

from this hearing. I think, Governor Perry, you pointed out accurately that border security needs to come first. The American people feel like a promise was broken by the Reagan administration 

with the last round of immigration legislation, that the borders 

would be secured if we granted amnesty. We have to regain that 

trust by securing the borders first. 

I also think actions speak louder than words. You know, they 

have telephones and internet in Central America, and when children and families come up here, they call back and say, yeah, we 

are going to be here for a while it looks like, and they don’t see 

them back in Central America, it encourages more people to come. 
123 

As I see it, there are basically three classes of people crossing the 

border illegally that we are dealing with. We are going to kind of 

set adults aside because I don’t think it is really outside the scope 

of this hearing. But we have families with kids that come, and we 

have kids that come. What I have learned down here is we treat 

them differently. Families with kids we process as quickly as we 

can. They are still put in these horribly overcrowded detention centers, but eventually they are released with a notice to appear and 

go down to Catholic Charities and the local bus station and proceed 

on to wherever their eventual destination in the United States was 

at their expense, and with only a notice to appear, which we have 

seen very often they don’t. 

The kids are another problem. You can’t just set the kids loose. 

You have to do something with them. So after CBP has 72 hours 

to deal with them, and then they are released to HHS who tries 

to place them in a facility until they can find a parent or someone 

in the United States to take care of them. We will set aside the 

argument that we should probably be looking for somebody in their 

home country to take care of them. 

What has this done to Texas? We don’t have the beds for this 

number of children. What is happening with that? 

Governor PERRY. You bring up a concern that I have. 

Representative Ellmers, your home town is getting a pretty good 

lashing right now by the first major hurricane of the season. I don’t 

think we have had a hurricane in 4 years. Is that right, Sheila? I 

don’t think we had had—it has been 4 at least. I mean, we have 

been blessed in that sense. 

What I worry about as the chief executive officer, I can assure 

you that Kim Nim Kid and Steve McCraw and John Nichols all 

have it on their mind, if we were to have a major event like they 

are having in North Carolina and South Carolina at this particular 

moment, hitting your constituents, Gene, they don’t have a place 

to go. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So, Governor, do you think the other States 

need to step up and, if they have beds for these children—typically 

they are only there for a couple of weeks until we find an adult to 

deal with them. What else do we do? 

Governor PERRY. The States have always been good about working with each other, and it doesn’t make any difference whether 

you are a Democrat Governor or when Joe Manchin was the Governor of West Virginia. He was one of the first people on the phone 

to me to offer assistance with some aviation assets. Bobby Jindal, 

when Gustav came through, Bobby—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So we need to work it out. 

I am about out of time. I have one more question, sir. 

Governor PERRY. Yes, sir. Sorry. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don’t mean to cut you off. 

So what the President has asked for recently is the ability to do 

expedited repatriation, more judges to handle some of these claims, 

and some money to pay for it. Those are kind of his three big asks 

in his last speech. 

Governor PERRY. Right. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. As a conservative, do you have a problem with 

any one of those requests? 
124 

Governor PERRY. As an American, let me put it that way, and 

I don’t think it matters whether you are a conservative or a liberal 

because this issue isn’t about—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I think the only part we are going to argue 

about is where that money comes from. Do we just turn on the 

printing presses and make it, or do we find it from somewhere 

else? 

Governor PERRY. Well, here is my issue. I think the dollars need 

to be spent on border security first, and I am going to stay on that 

record, and I am going to sound like a broken record. But the fact 

is, until we secure this border—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But we are still going to have the kids. 

Governor PERRY. I understand that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. If we had 100 percent border security, every 

child that—let’s assume border security is we stop everybody within a mile of the border. We are still going to have people we are 

going to have to send back, and we are going to have to deal with 

those, especially the children. 

Governor PERRY. I understand that, and we prioritize every day 

in Austin, Texas about where we are going to expend our dollars 

and appropriate thusly, and I would suggest to you, you have a lot 

of smart people in Washington, DC and capable individuals, and 

you will appropriate where the priorities are. If the priority is to 

be able to expedite those young people back to the countries that 

they come from, then I suggest that that is what will occur. I hope 

that is, in fact, a priority with this administration and with this 

Congress. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. If we can’t find the money somewhere else, it 

is basically saying there is nothing we do in Government less important than this, and I think we will all agree there are a lot of 

things we do in Government that are less important than this. 

Governor PERRY. I am thinking you are correct. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Governor. Thanks so much for 

being here today. 

Governor PERRY. You are welcome. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thanks for your leadership. 

Let me just say this for the record. This committee passed, in a 

bipartisan way, which is almost unheard-of in the climate in Washington, a border security bill. But it has yet not seen the light of 

day on the Floor. I think if anything comes out of this crisis, it demands that we put that bill on the Floor and pass it. 

With that, Governor, thanks again. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Chairman MCCAUL. You have a great team behind you. 

I yield to the gentle lady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. 

This was a bill that we worked with extensively. Let me make 

mention of Ms. Miller, who was my Chairwoman on the Border and 

Maritime Security Subcommittee. I think it is important for Texas 

to know that we have passed out of the Homeland Security Committee a very extensive bill that responds to concerns by the State 

and Governor as well, but also has the humanitarian element to it, 

particularly in the area of the question of human trafficking. So I 
125 

would support the gentleman from Texas, that we pass that bill. 

I know you can’t cause a bill to be passed in the House of Representatives, but I would encourage the Speaker to put that bill on 

the Floor and for us to be able to vote on it. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank you, Mr. Governor, for your service to the State and to the Nation. Thank you 

very much. 

Governor PERRY. Can I just say again, as you leave, this may be 

a monumental moment for this country, because if there is one 

issue, I think America is begging to see Washington really work 

and work well and to address a major issue that faces us, and this 

committee has that opportunity, Democrats and Republicans alike, 

working together to find a solution to this great challenge of our 

time. I have truly enjoyed sitting in front of you, and I have great 

hope that you, with the work that you are about to do, working together, can send a message all across this country that not only is 

Washington a functional place but that men and women can sit together. We can disagree on some areas but find that middle ground 

and find that solution to this issue that challenges us. 

God bless you, and thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well said. Thank you. Thank you, Governor. 

I welcome the second panel to today’s hearing. 

First we have Mr. Kevin Oaks, who is the chief patrol agent, sector agent for the Rio Grande Valley sector. Chief Oaks most recently served as the operations division chief in the Office of the 

United States Border Patrol in Washington. He was also in Afghanistan. 

Now you are down the border. You have been in some interesting 

places. 

His distinguished career includes a variety of leadership positions, including chief patrol agent, the Buffalo Sector, and commander of the Border Patrol Tactical Unit. 

Next is my good friend Steve McCraw, director of the Texas DPS, 

a position he assumed in August 2009. Prior to his service, he had 

served over 20 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigations, 

where I had the distinct honor and privilege to work with him as 

a Federal prosecutor. 

Next, Mr. J.E. Guerra, appointed interim sheriff for Hidalgo 

County, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the State. 

In April this year he joined. He has a long record of service, most 

recently serving as precinct constable before becoming sheriff. 

Next, Honorable Ramon Garcia, serving a term as chief administrative officer for the county of Hidalgo. In his capacity as county 

judge, he chairs the Hidalgo County Commissioners Court, the governing body that makes policy decisions that guide the direction of 

county operations. 

Last, we have the Most Reverend Mark Seitz, the Bishop of the 

Catholic Diocese of El Paso. 

Thank you so much for being here today. 

He is testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops. Bishop Seitz is testifying on behalf of the Committee of 

Migration of the Conference, which sets broad policy and direction 

for the Church’s work in the area of migration. 

Witnesses’ full statements will appear in the record. 
126 

The Chairman now recognizes Chief Oaks for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN W. OAKS, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, RIO 

GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

Mr. OAKS. Good afternoon, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member 

Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

efforts to address the recent rise of unaccompanied children and 

others crossing our border into the Rio Grande Valley. 

As you know, Secretary Johnson testified on June 24 before the 

Homeland Security Committee about these very issues, and my testimony today echoes and reaffirms his comments. 

We face an urgent situation in the Rio Grande Valley. Last fiscal 

year, CBP apprehended more than 24,000 unaccompanied children 

at the border. By mid-June of this fiscal year, that number has 

doubled to more than 52,000. Those from the countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras make up about three-quarters of 

that migration. 

I am on the front lines of this effort. The Border Patrol has done 

heroic work during difficult and challenging conditions. I have personally seen first-hand the Border Patrol Agents stepping up to ensure that we remain vigilant and effective in securing the border 

while also providing care for people who are desperate, many of 

whom are children and women traveling with children. I am proud 

of our efforts, and I am particularly proud of the men and women 

of the United States Border Patrol who daily exemplify the highest 

commitment to service to our country. 

As Secretary Johnson said on June 24, this is a humanitarian 

issue as much as it is a matter of border security. We are talking 

about large numbers of children, without their parents, who have 

arrived at our border. How we treat the children, in particular, is 

a reflection of our laws and our values. 

Therefore, to address this situation, the Department’s threepronged strategy is to process the increased tide of unaccompanied 

children through the system as quickly as possible, stem the increased tide of illegal migration into the Rio Grande Valley, and do 

these things in a manner consistent with our laws and values as 

Americans. 

The Department has taken a number of steps, including declaring a Level IV condition of readiness so additional resources from 

across the Department are available. On June 1, the President directed Secretary Johnson to establish a Unified Coordination 

Group to bring to bear the assets of the entire Federal Government. The group includes the Department of Homeland Security 

and all of its components, the Departments of Health and Human 

Services, Defense, Justice, State, and the General Services Administration. Secretary Johnson, in turn, designated FEMA Administrator Fugate to serve as the Federal Coordinating Official for the 

U.S. Government-wide response. Under Administrator Fugate’s supervision and leadership, there are now more than 140 interagency 

personnel stationed in FEMA’s National Response Coordination 

Center directed to this effort. The broad range of these efforts is 

detailed in my testimony. 
127 

Of particular note, given the influx of unaccompanied children in 

the RGV, we have increased CBP staffing and detailed 115 experienced agents from less active sectors to augment operations in the 

Rio Grande Valley. Secretary Johnson has also authorized sending 

another 150 Border Patrol Agents based on his review of our operations. These additional agents allow the Rio Grande Valley the 

flexibility needed to achieve more interdiction effectiveness and increase CBP’s operational footprint in our targeted zones. 

In early May, Secretary Johnson directed the development of the 

Southern Border and Approaches campaign planning effort that is 

putting together a strategic framework to further enhance security 

of our Southern Border. We also have ramped up our efforts with 

the governments from the countries from which these people are 

coming—El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and also Mexico. The 

Secretary will be traveling to Guatemala next week, and we have 

launched a public messaging campaign in Central America to discourage migrants from taking this dangerous journey. 

Finally, we will continue to work closely with Congress on this 

problem and keep you all informed. DHS is updating Members and 

staff as the situation evolves with conference calls, and we are facilitating site visits to Border Patrol facilities in Texas and Arizona. Secretary Johnson has directed his staff and agency leaders 

to be forthright in bringing him every conceivable and lawful option for consideration to address this problem. 

In cooperation with other agencies and our Federal Government 

that are dedicating resources to this effort, with the support of 

Congress, and in cooperation with the governments of Mexico and 

Central America, we believe we can stem this tide. 

Thank you very much, and I will take any questions as they 

come. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oaks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN W. OAKS

JULY 3, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) efforts to address the recent rise of unaccompanied children and others crossing our border in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV). As you know, Secretary 

Johnson testified on June 24 before the House Committee on Homeland Security 

about this situation. My testimony today echoes and reaffirms his comments. 

We face an urgent situation in the RGV. Last fiscal year, CBP apprehended more 

than 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. By mid-June of this fiscal year, 

that number has doubled to more than 52,000. Those from Guatemala, El Salvador, 

and Honduras make up about three-quarters of that migration. 

As Secretary Johnson said on June 24, this is a humanitarian issue as much as 

it is a matter of border security. We are talking about large numbers of children, 

without their parents, who have arrived at our border—hungry, thirsty, exhausted, 

scared, and vulnerable. How we treat the children, in particular, is a reflection of 

our laws and our values. 

Therefore, to address this situation, the Department’s strategy is three-fold: (1) 

Process the increased tide of unaccompanied children through the system as quickly 

as possible; (2) stem the increased tide of illegal migration into the RGV; and (3) 

do these things in a manner consistent with our laws and values as Americans. 

So, here is what we are doing: 

First, on May 12, Secretary Johnson declared a Level IV condition of readiness 

within DHS, which is a determination that the capacity of CBP and ICE to deal 

with the situation is full and we need to draw upon additional resources across all 

of DHS. He appointed Deputy Chief Vitiello to coordinate this effort within DHS. 
128 

1 BCFS—not an acronym—was formerly known as Baptist Child Family Services. 

Second, on June 1, President Obama, consistent with the Homeland Security Act, 

directed Secretary Johnson to establish a Unified Coordination Group to bring to 

bear the assets of the entire Federal Government on the situation. This group includes DHS and all of its components, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Justice, State, and the General Services Administration. Secretary 

Johnson, in turn, designated FEMA Administrator Fugate to serve as the Federal 

Coordinating Official for the U.S. Government-wide response. Under Administrator 

Fugate’s supervision, there are now more than 140 interagency personnel and members stationed in FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center dedicated to this 

effort. 

Third, we established added capacity to deal with the processing and housing of 

the children, we are creating additional capacity in places, and we are considering 

others. To process the increased numbers of unaccompanied children in Texas, DHS 

has had to bring some of the children to our processing center at Nogales, Arizona 

before they are transferred to HHS. We are arranging additional processing centers 

to handle the rise in the RGV. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense (DoD) has 

provided space at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas for HHS to house the children 

before HHS can place them. DoD is also providing facilities at Fort Sill, Oklahoma 

and Ventura, California for the same purpose. DHS and HHS are working to continue to identify additional facilities for DHS and HHS to house and process the influx of children. 

Fourth, DHS and HHS are increasing Spanish-speaking case management staff, 

increasing staff handling incoming calls from parents or guardians, raising awareness of the Parent Hotline (provided by FEMA and operated by HHS), surging staff 

to manage the intake of CBP referrals to track shelter bed capacity, and facilitate 

shelter designations. We are developing ways to expedite background checks for 

sponsors of children, integrate CBP and HHS information-sharing systems, and increase capacity to transport and place children. (As Secretary Johnson noted on 

June 24, the Border Patrol and other CBP personnel, as well as personnel from ICE, 

FEMA, the Coast Guard, and HHS, are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances. Not-for-profit groups like the HHS-grantee BCFS 1 also have stepped 

in quickly and are doing a remarkable job sheltering the unaccompanied children 

at Lackland, identifying and then placing them consistent with HHS’ legal obligations. All of these dedicated men and women deserve our recognition, support, and 

gratitude.) 

Fifth, DHS is building additional detention capacity for adults who cross the border illegally in the RGV with their children. For this purpose DHS established a 

temporary facility for adults with children on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s campus at Artesia, New Mexico. The establishment of this temporary 

facility will help CBP process those encountered at the border and allow ICE to increase its capacity to house and expedite the removal of adults with children in a 

manner that complies with Federal law. Artesia is one of several facilities that DHS 

is considering to increase our capacity to hold and expedite the removal of the increasing number of adults with children illegally crossing the Southwest Border. 

DHS will ensure that after apprehension, families are housed in facilities that adequately provide for their safety, security, and medical needs. Meanwhile, we will 

also expand use of the Alternatives to Detention program to utilize all mechanisms 

for enforcement and removal in the RGV Sector. DOJ is temporarily reassigning immigration judges to handle the additional caseload via video teleconferencing. These 

immigration judges will adjudicate these cases as quickly as possible, consistent 

with all existing legal and procedural standards, including those for asylum applicants following credible fear interviews with embedded DHS asylum officers. Overall, this increased capacity and resources will allow ICE to return unlawful migrants from Central America to their home countries more quickly. 

Sixth, DHS has brought on more transportation assets to assist in the effort. The 

Coast Guard is loaning air assets to help transport the children. ICE is leasing additional charter aircraft. 

Seventh, throughout the RGV Sector, we are conducting public health screening 

for all those who come into our facilities for any symptoms of contagious diseases 

or other possible public health concerns. Both DHS and HHS are ensuring that the 

children’s nutritional and hygienic needs are met while in our custody; that children 

are provided regular meals and access to drinks and snacks throughout the day; 

that they receive constant supervision; and that children who exhibit signs of illness 

or disease are given proper medical care. We have also made clear that all individuals will be treated with dignity and respect, and any instances of mistreatment reported to us will be investigated. 
129 

Eighth, working through FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center, DHS is 

coordinating with voluntary and faith-based organizations to help us manage the influx of unaccompanied children crossing the border. The American Red Cross is providing blankets and other supplies and, through their Restoring Family Links program, is coordinating calls between children in the care of DHS and families anxious about their well-being. 

Ninth, to stem the tide of children seeking to enter the United States, DHS has 

also been in contact with senior government officials of Guatemala, El Salvador, 

Honduras, and Mexico to address our shared border security interests, the underlying conditions in Central America that are promoting the mass exodus, and how 

we can work together to assure faster, secure removal and repatriation. Last month, 

President Obama spoke with Mexican President Pen ̃ a Nieto about the situation, as 

has Secretary Kerry. On June 20, Vice President Biden also visited Guatemala to 

meet with regional leaders to address the influx of unaccompanied children and 

families from Central America and the underlying security and economic issues that 

are causing this migration. The Vice President announced that the United States 

will be providing a range of new assistance to the region, including $9.6 million in 

additional funding for Central American governments to receive and reintegrate 

their repatriated citizens, and a new $40 million U.S. Agency for International Development program in Guatemala over 5 years to improve citizen security. An additional $161.5 million will be provided this year under the Central American Regional Security Initiative to further enable Central American countries to respond 

to the region’s most pressing security and governance challenges. Secretary Johnson 

will travel to Guatemala on July 8–9. The government of El Salvador has sent additional personnel from its consulate in the United States to South Texas to help expedite repatriation to its country. 

Tenth, DHS, together with DOJ, has added personnel and resources to the investigation, prosecution, and dismantling of the smuggling organizations that are facilitating border crossings into the RGV. Homeland Security Investigations, which is 

part of ICE, is surging 60 additional criminal investigators and support personnel 

to their San Antonio and Houston offices for this purpose. In May, ICE concluded 

a month-long, targeted enforcement operation that focused on the logistics networks 

of human smuggling organizations along the Southwest Border, with operations in 

El Paso, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego that resulted in 163 arrests 

of smugglers. ICE will continue to vigorously pursue and dismantle these alien 

smuggling organizations by all investigative means to include the financial structure of these criminal organizations. These organizations not only facilitate illegal 

migration across our border, they traumatize and exploit the children who are objects of their smuggling operation. We will also continue to work with our partners 

in Central America and Mexico to help locate, disrupt, and dismantle transnational 

criminal smuggling networks. 

Eleventh, we are initiating and intensifying our public affairs campaigns in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots, to communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long journey from Central America to the United States, 

and the dangers of putting children into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. 

In collaboration with DHS, the Department of State has launched public awareness campaigns in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to warn families about 

the dangers encountered by unaccompanied minors who attempt to travel from Central America to the United States, and to counter misperceptions that smugglers 

may be disseminating about immigration benefits in the United States. Our embassies in Central America have collaborated with CBP to ensure both the language 

and images of the campaign materials would resonate with local audiences. Secretary Johnson has personally issued an open letter (see attached) to the parents 

of those who are sending their children from Central America to the United States, 

to be distributed broadly in Spanish and English, to highlight the dangers of the 

journey, and to emphasize there are no free passes or ‘‘permisos’’ at the other end. 

The public awareness campaign stresses that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or ‘‘DACA,’’ does not apply to children who arrive now or in the future in the 

United States, and that, to be considered for DACA, individuals must have continually resided in the United States since June 2007. We are making clear that the 

‘‘earned path to citizenship’’ contemplated by the Senate bill passed last year would 

not apply to individuals who cross the border now or in the future; only to those 

who have been in the country for the last year-and-a-half. 

Twelfth, given the influx of unaccompanied children in the RGV, we have increased CBP staffing and detailed 115 additional experienced agents from less active sectors to augment operations there. Secretary Johnson is considering sending 

150 more Border Patrol Agents based on his review of operations there this past 
130 

week. These additional agents allow RGV the flexibility needed to achieve more 

interdiction effectiveness and increase CBP’s operational footprint in targeted zones 

within its area of operations. 

Thirteenth, in early May, Secretary Johnson directed the development of a Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Planning effort that is putting together a 

strategic framework to further enhance security of our Southern Border. Plan development will be guided by specific outcomes and quantifiable targets for border security and will address improved information sharing, continued enhancement and integration of sensors, and unified command-and-control structures as appropriate. 

The overall planning effort will also include a subset of campaign plans focused on 

addressing challenges within specific geographic areas, all with the goal of enhancing our border security. 

Finally, we will continue to work closely with Congress on this problem, and keep 

you informed. DHS is updating Members and staff on the situation in conference 

calls, and we are facilitating site visits to Border Patrol facilities in Texas and Arizona for a number of Members and their staff. 

Secretary Johnson has directed his staff and agency leaders to be forthright in 

bringing him every conceivable, lawful option for consideration, to address this problem. In cooperation with the other agencies of our government that are dedicating 

resources to the effort, with the support of Congress, and in cooperation with the 

governments of Mexico and Central America, we believe we will stem this tide. 

Thank you. 

ATTACHMENT.—AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN CROSSING OUR

SOUTHWEST BORDER

This year, a record number of children will cross our Southern Border illegally 

into the United States. In the month of May alone, the number of children, unaccompanied by a mother or father, who crossed our Southern Border reached more 

than 9,000, bringing the total so far this year to 47,000. The majority of these children come from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, where gang and drug violence terrorize communities. To the parents of these children I have one simple message: Sending your child to travel illegally into the United States is not the solution. 

It is dangerous to send a child on the long journey from Central America to the 

United States. The criminal smuggling networks that you pay to deliver your child 

to the United States have no regard for his or her safety and well-being—to them, 

your child is a commodity to be exchanged for a payment. In the hands of smugglers, many children are traumatized and psychologically abused by their journey, 

or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted, or sold into the sex trade; they are 

exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of criminals. Conditions for an attempt 

to cross our Southern Border illegally will become much worse as it gets hotter in 

July and August. 

The long journey is not only dangerous; there are no ‘‘permisos,’’ ‘‘permits,’’ or free 

passes at the end. 

The U.S. Government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also 

called ‘‘DACA,’’ does not apply to a child who crosses the U.S. border illegally today, 

tomorrow, or yesterday. To be eligible for DACA, a child must have been in the 

United States prior to June 15, 2007—7 years ago. 

Also, the immigration reform legislation now before Congress provides for an 

earned path to citizenship, but only for certain people who came into this country 

on or before December 31, 2011—21⁄2 years ago. So, let me be clear: There is no path 

to deferred action or citizenship, or one being contemplated by Congress, for a child 

who crosses our border illegally today. 

Rather, under current U.S. laws and policies, anyone who is apprehended crossing 

our border illegally is a priority for deportation, regardless of age. That means that 

if your child is caught crossing the border illegally, he or she will be charged with 

violating United States immigration laws, and placed in deportation proceedings— 

a situation no one wants. The document issued to your child is not a ‘‘permiso,’’ but 

a Notice To Appear in a deportation proceeding before an immigration judge. 

As the Secretary of Homeland Security, I have seen first-hand the children at our 

processing center in Texas. As a father, I have looked into the faces of these children and recognized fear and vulnerability. 

The desire to see a child have a better life in the United States is understandable. 

But, the risks of illegal migration by an unaccompanied child to achieve that dream 

are far too great, and the ‘‘permisos’’ do not exist. 

JEH C. JOHNSON

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 
131 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thanks, Chief. 

The Chairman now recognizes Colonel McCraw. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. MC CRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Mr. MCCRAW. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee, thank you for allowing me to be here today. I will try to make it quick. 

The bottom line is that there are consequences for an unsecured 

border with Mexico. This is the latest consequence. Some of those 

consequences have been the emergence of Mexican cartels. Six of 

the eight cartels operate in Texas. They have turned parts of Texas 

into a trans-shipment center for the Nation as it relates to drugs 

and human smuggling and trafficking. We lead the Nation right 

now in terms of pushing through marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. So if you have a drug problem in your State, 

in your city, in your community, you have a Zeta problem. You 

have a Gulf cartel problem. You have a Mecinto Carrero problem. 

That has been that way for a number of years. 

We talk about it in terms of the safety or security as it relates 

to transnational criminal organizations, specifically the cartels. 

There has never been an organized crime group in this Nation’s 

history or anywhere in the world that has been more vicious, that 

has adapted and utilized and embraced terrorist tactics to intimidate and coerce the people, the journalists, the government. They 

have butchered over 80,000 men, women, and children since 2006, 

and these are the organizations that operate in Texas right now. 

They leverage transnational gangs. They work with our prison 

gangs. 

It is one thing when you talk about working across the lines. We 

have investigations where a Gulf cartel is working with the Mexican mafia, a Chinese-based gang out of Houston, and also the 

Aryan Brotherhood. It is the one area where race doesn’t matter 

because it is about money. 

What these cartels are focused on is making money. It is not ideology. They come, they cross, they own these corridors between our 

ports of entry and on our bridges, and the whole purpose is to 

make money. You don’t have to take my word or Texas’ word for 

it. You talk to your other colonels in your States, talk to your chiefs 

of police, talk to your sheriffs. 

The strategies that work have been proven over the last several 

decades, and one of those strategies is saturation patrols in high 

clusters of crime. When your motive in crime happens to be organized smuggling, then the impact you can have can be dramatic if 

you are willing to commit the resources and conduct sustained 

saturation patrols around the clock. 

Border Patrol is an outstanding organization. The men and 

women are on the front line of our National defense these days. 

The bottom line is you haven’t given them enough resources to do 

their job. It doesn’t matter what anybody says. It is a matter of 

math. If they can’t sustain saturation patrols on the river, the battle to secure it is not in Washington, DC or Austin. It is on the 

river itself. If they don’t have those resources around the clock, 

then this can have an impact on our communities. 
132 

The impacts on our communities—you know, we talk about crime 

is up, crime is down, but the bottom line is it is not safer. I will 

use as an example that where else in the country can you get on 

a river and have law enforcement officers shot at over 108 times? 

Where does that happen? I didn’t see that up in Canada the last 

time I checked, or on the Great Lakes. We don’t see in terms of 

these human and drug stash houses where you cram 110 people 

into a 112-foot box and you engage in these stash house extortions 

and kidnappings. They have already paid their money to get here, 

and you can rest assured there are a certain percentage of the females that are going to be sexually assaulted, and the bottom line 

is there is going to be extortion before they get out. 

They don’t mind starving and keeping people maintained at that 

location. This happens here. It happens in Houston now, as you are 

well aware of, Ms. Jackson Lee, in terms of human trafficking. We 

just took down a case where 10 illegal immigrants were running 

this operation. They had been running it for several years, and we 

rescued 13 victims. I say ‘‘victims’’ because these were young children that were enticed, lured, and brought in to work in the underground economy as nannies, in domestic service capacities in restaurants, promised that they got here. They were raped, beaten, 

and compelled into prostitution. 

This is the type of activity you have when you open your borders 

and allow crime to come in, because another part of that crime that 

comes in is criminal aliens. We talk about this crisis. It is a crisis. 

It is a crisis of them traversing from Guatemala to the United 

States is the crisis. 

Make no mistake about Guatemala. I mean, the cartels are in 

Guatemala. Zeta has contributed to the transnational gang problem in Guatemala, in Central America. So we have this 

transnational crime. We have this globalization of crime that is 

going on, but it is being fueled by an unending demand for forced 

labor in this country, and drugs. That is what is enriching the cartels. 

With their terrorist tactics, it is having an impact on our communities. Where else in the State of Texas do we have these pursuits 

where people are so in fear for their lives that they will run as soon 

as they get the lights on in such a dangerous way that they splash 

in the Rio Grande River, and if they don’t there are consequences 

to it? You don’t see it in other locations like that. 

Home invasions, where cliques come together and go into houses, 

and when they get into the houses it is a takeover. Guess what? 

It is not misdemeanor robbery just because they missed the cartels. 

Many times it is innocent individuals, as the Sheriff can attest to, 

that they come across, pseudo cop stops, public corruption. I mean, 

the cartels seek to undermine the rule of law in Texas, and there 

is not a Texan that deserves to have cartels and transnational 

gangs traversing across their lands, and they should not ever feel 

in fear. 

What happens in the Rio Grande Valley, which is the center of 

gravity right now for drug and human trafficking, doesn’t stay in 

the Rio Grande Valley. It is in North Carolina. It is in California. 

I mean, you have to realize in California you have the—well, he is 

not here anymore, but you have to deal with the Tijuana cartel. 
133 

But guess what? You have other cartels to deal with. So it doesn’t 

just stay in the Rio Grande Valley. 

It is important. Can we do it? Absolutely. I will tell you what, 

a message, only one message right here to the Gulf cartel who controls this corridor: Hey, we are going to pour troopers and Texas 

Rangers and agents into this area until they are shut down. They 

will shut down, I will guarantee it. 

Our State legislature, they are not going to give you a hand. At 

the end of the day, there is accountability. They want to know how 

we spent it, they want to know what we spent it on and what we 

achieved in spending it, and the last part of that, what is the return on investment? Did we secure it? Did we make Texans safer? 

Did we make the Nation safer? I have no doubt they are not afraid 

of providing a little tough love and accountability feedback. 

But I am also guaranteeing—and this is axiomatic. If you give 

Border Patrol the resources they need, Texas is going to be a lot 

better. There is not a Texas State legislator to talk to that wants 

to spend money on border security. They don’t. Education, transportation, health care, health, that is exactly what they want to 

spend it on, and they don’t like the idea. But at the same point, 

they made no mistake about it, that we have an obligation to secure between the ports of entry and support Border Patrol, and we 

are going to take care of Texas. 

That concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. MCCRAW

JULY 3, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Congressman Cuellar and other honorable Members of this 

Congressional committee: My name is Steven McCraw, and I serve as the director 

of the Texas Department of Public Safety. As you know, I have had the honor to 

appear before this committee on three previous occasions and provided testimony 

about the consequences of an unsecured border with Mexico. The latest consequence, 

and the reason for this hearing, is the dramatic increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) risking their lives to be smuggled into the Rio Grande 

Valley of Texas. 

These children correctly believe that the U.S. border with Mexico is not secure, 

and with the assistance of human smugglers, they will be able to arrive on U.S. soil 

and turn themselves into the U.S. Border Patrol. They also believe that they will 

have an opportunity to remain with family members living in the United States, 

and whether this point is true matters not, as they perceive it as such. 

As a result these children, primarily from Central America, continue to make this 

dangerous journey in record numbers, which has overwhelmed U.S. Border Patrol 

detention facilities in the Rio Grande Valley and elsewhere. Tragically, some of 

these children have also become victims of violent crime while traveling across Mexico. Additionally, public health officials are rightly concerned about the spread of 

disease among the children in the detention facilities and within the communities 

they are released into. Children from Central America will continue to become victims of violent crime and risk other dangers as long as they continue to traverse 

Mexico in search of refuge in the United States. The Mexican Cartels are not responsible for the UAC crisis, but they do benefit from smuggling fees and the diversion of Border Patrol resources to address the influx of UAC. 

There are many other consequences of an unsecured border with Mexico, which 

we have provided in previous testimonies. Certainly, the evolution of Mexican drug 

trafficking organizations into powerful and vicious organized crime cartels, which 

dominate the U.S. drug and human smuggling market, is a direct result of a porous 

border. Mexican Cartels traffic marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine 

throughout the United States and in Mexico they engage in kidnappings, robberies, 

human trafficking, extortions, and murders for profit. They employ corruption and 

terrorism tactics and strategies to protect their criminal operations, having killed 
134 

more than 80,000 people in Mexico, and they pose a serious threat to the domestic 

security of Mexico. 

The consequences of an unsecured border with Mexico also undermine public safety in Texas communities along the border, as evidenced through confirmed cartelrelated kidnappings and extortions; public corruption; high-speed, felony vehicle 

evasions from law enforcement; drug and human stash houses; home invasions; the 

recruitment of children to support cartel operations as look-outs and mules; pseudo 

cops; shootings at law enforcement officers patrolling the Rio Grande River; contract 

killings; and dangerous bail-outs of undocumented aliens. 

Another consequence seldom discussed is the high number of criminal aliens arrested for nonimmigration crimes throughout Texas. Since 2008, more than 200,000 

criminal aliens who have been charged with over 600,000 State crimes throughout 

their criminal careers, including over 3,000 homicides and nearly 8,000 sexual assaults. Today, more than 8 percent of all persons booked into Texas jails are criminal aliens, and of that criminal alien total, over 40 percent are recidivists—meaning 

they have at least one prior criminal arrest in Texas. 

It is important that I acknowledge the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol 

for their actions in addressing the current situation. They serve on the front line 

in protecting our State and Nation from an array of public safety and homeland security threats, and they face incredible challenges every day. 

In a perfect world, the men and women of the Border Patrol operating along the 

U.S.-Mexico border would already have sufficient resources and staffing levels to 

successfully secure the border—but they currently do not. 

One of the challenges they face is a Federal bureaucracy that impedes their ability to perform their mission. Specifically, Border Patrol Agents are restricted in the 

manner in which they can conduct patrols in Federal refuge areas contiguous with 

Mexico, which is exploited by the Mexican Cartels. Texas farmers and ranchers 

along the Texas/Mexico border provide Border Patrol Agents greater access to their 

personal property than does the Federal Government. 

It is also important to note that local law enforcement agencies including Texas 

sheriffs’ offices and police departments find themselves on the front lines of keeping 

their communities, and quite frankly the rest of the Nation, safe from international 

criminal activity. Local law enforcement agencies along the border face unique challenges and the consequences have grave State-wide and National consequences. 

Therefore, the leadership of the State has tasked DPS with supporting Texas border 

sheriffs and our other law enforcement partners along the border to combat 

transnational crime. 

The Texas Legislature has continued to provide funding to enhance border security, and DPS has dedicated a significant amount of resources, technology, equipment, and personnel toward that effort. These resources include state-of-the-art aerial assets, enhanced patrols, advanced monitoring technology, enhanced communication capabilities, increased personnel, and overtime. Texas also employs a unified 

command structure to respond to myriad threats along the border, and has developed contingency plans designed for rapid response and deployment of law enforcement resources. 

Texas continues to address the evolving threats and criminal elements operating 

along our border through efforts including but not limited to: 

• Operation Border Star.—A State-led initiative launched in 2007, which has 

built on the successes of previous operations with unprecedented local, State, 

and Federal law enforcement coordination. Operation Border Star includes 165 

agencies, including border sheriff offices and the U.S. Border Patrol. With the 

assistance and funding from the 80th, 81st, 82nd, and 83rd Legislatures, Texas 

has been able to amplify these efforts each session. 

• Overtime Funds.—Texas local law enforcement agencies on the border have 

been able to increase their patrol capability with these funds to address 

transnational crime in their communities. 

• Ranger Reconnaissance (Recon) Teams.—A highly-trained tactical team that 

conducts both overt and extended covert operations in remote areas along the 

border, aimed at disrupting and deterring criminal activity. (These teams have 

the capability to mobilize to different areas based on the locations with the greatest threat.) 

• Operation Drawbridge.—Innovative technology systems to monitor remote areas 

of the border on a 24/7 basis, using low-cost, commercially off-the-shelf technology (wildlife motion-detecting cameras) that have been adapted to meet law 

enforcement needs. Since January 2012, Operation Drawbridge and its partnership with the U.S. Border Patrol, and Texas border sheriffs and landowners 

have resulted in the apprehension of more than 37,000 individuals and more 

than 66 tons of drugs. 
135 

• Tactical Marine Unit.—With funding from the 82nd Texas Legislature and U.S. 

DHS grants, DPS created a Tactical Marine Unit (TMU) and acquired six 34- 

foot shallow water interceptor boats to deter those who break State laws and 

endanger Texans along the Rio Grande River and Intracoastal Waterways. This 

fleet of patrol vessels represents a significant enhancement to the State’s efforts 

in combating Mexican drug cartels and in taking back the river from ruthless 

criminal organizations. • Criminal Enterprise Investigations.—DPS agents specialized in organized crime 

investigations, conduct multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional investigations targeting the command-and-control cartel and gang networks overseeing drugs, 

human smuggling, and trafficking operations. • Border Prosecutors Unit.—A key component of this effort is the Border Prosecutors Unit, which is vital to criminal enterprise investigations and prosecutions 

and public corruption investigations by dedicating expert prosecutors to these 

critical efforts. • Advanced Aviation Assets.—The Texas Legislature funded state-of-the-art DPS 

helicopters with FLIR (forward looking infrared radar) and night-vision capabilities that enables DPS to detect smuggling activity, which allows us to support and direct interdictions by ground patrol officers. The legislature also funded a high-altitude, fixed-wing aircraft to enable DPS support of law enforcement 

operations along the border. These border aviation assets are responsible for 

over 13,000 arrests, $87 million in drug seizures and the rescue of 137 people. 

The Texas Department of Public Safety has been directed by the leadership of 

Texas to implement our operations plan to conduct surge operations along the 

Texas/Mexico border. DPS troopers, agents, and Texas Rangers from around the 

State are being deployed to the Rio Grande Valley to conduct data-driven, multiagency, ground, air, and marine saturation patrols in high-threat areas for sustained periods of time to deny Mexican Cartels, transnational gangs, and criminal 

aliens unfettered entry into Texas between the Ports of Entry, and in doing so, reduce transnational crime in our communities. 

We illustrated the efficacy of this approach during the initial 21-day Operation 

Strong Safety in the Rio Grande Valley in 2013, and with the funds authorized by 

the Texas leadership, we have significantly expanded saturation patrols on, along, 

and above the Rio Grande River and we have been directed to sustain the operation 

until further notice. I can assure you that in my discussions with the honorable 

members of the Texas State Legislature, they would prefer to spend State funds 

that they have allocated to border security on other vital priorities, such as education, transportation, and public health; however, there is an understanding in 

Texas that protecting our citizens is a fundamental responsibility of government, 

and they will do whatever necessary to protect the people of Texas. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Steve. 

Sheriff Guerra. 

STATEMENT OF JOSE EDUARDO ‘‘EDDIE’’ GUERRA, INTERIM 

SHERIFF, SHERIFF’S OFFICE, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS 

Sheriff GUERRA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

committee. My name is Eddie Guerra. I am the Hidalgo County 

Sheriff. I have over 20 years serving in various capacities in law 

enforcement in South Texas. 

I would like to begin by thanking you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you here today. I have under my command 

nearly 800 personnel, including sheriff deputies, detention officers, 

and administrative support staff. 

As sheriff, my primary duty lies with the preservation of the 

peace, which can be challenging because of our proximity to the 

U.S.-Mexico border. Hidalgo is the eighth-largest county in the 

State of Texas, and we are responsible for protecting the residents 

of the unincorporated parts of the county and preserving the laws 

of our State. Put it another way, Hidalgo County is 1,583 square 

miles, and we patrol 75 miles of the international border. 

There are three things that I would like you to understand about 

our current situation. No. 1, the recent surge of illegal immigration 
136 

from Central America has proven to be a challenge for law enforcement, and especially for our Federal partners. No. 2, although it is 

a Federal issue, local law enforcement is impacted by the surge of 

illegal immigration. No. 3, the threat to law enforcement and their 

safety is not coming from these immigrants but rather from the 

criminal elements that are taking advantage of them and of the situation. 

I believe that the immigration issue that I am here testifying on 

before you here today is a Federal issue. That isn’t to say that we 

will not share in the responsibility. In fact, we frequently partner 

with our local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies and 

continue to cooperate with our Federal partners today by using 

State and Federal grant money in support of their mission. 

But the Sheriff’s Department cannot be associated in the public’s 

eye as the enforcer of immigration law. That not only is counterproductive but actually puts lives at risk, and oftentimes undocumented persons hesitate to come forward as victims of crimes for 

fear of deportation. 

My directive to deputies is that we will assist our Federal partners in conducting rescue operations and in dismantling the 

transnational criminal organizations that exploit these immigrants. 

The influx of immigrants has impacted my office in very specific 

ways. Currently, the family units and OTM immigrants crossing 

the border are turning themselves in. Their only crime is entering 

our country illegally. The vast majority are not committing any 

State crime. Should one of my deputies come across an undocumented person, we refer them to U.S. Border Patrol, which responds and takes them into custody. 

My greatest concern is the immigrant deaths that we respond to. 

There are dozens of immigrants who have lost their lives trying to 

fulfill their hope of finding freedom and opportunity here. In 2012, 

we responded to 19 immigrant deaths. In 2013, we responded to 25 

immigrant deaths, which is a 31.5 percent increase from the previous year. This year we have already responded to 14 immigrant 

deaths. Bodies are found in the river or in the brush, many in deplorable conditions. Many of these immigrants die from drowning 

and heat exposure. 

But the hardest to take are the deaths of children. Most recently 

we responded to the death of an 11-year-old boy from Guatemala. 

His decomposed body was found in the brush just a quarter of a 

mile away from a residential neighborhood where he could have 

sought help. Make no mistake about it, the South Texas conditions 

are harsh and unrelenting, and the trek, as in the case of this 11- 

year-old child, was deadly. 

Earlier I commented that the threat to law enforcement and 

safety is not coming from these immigrants but rather from the 

criminal element that takes advantage of them and of the situation. My agency has responded to various calls for service that include false imprisonment, sexual assault, kidnapping, criminal mischief, home invasions, and burglaries. For the most part, the offenders are not the undocumented immigrants coming into the 

United States. They are the victims. The offenders are the 

transnational criminal organizations. Time after time, my staff 

briefs me on stash houses in which these undocumented persons 
137 

are held, often against their will, in deplorable conditions and traded like commodities among these criminal organizations for profit. 

At times, these human smugglers sexually assault the women who 

are victims and often feel that they have no voice because of their 

legal status, so the crime goes unreported. 

There are instances where criminals will hold undocumented persons for ransom. Once again, some of these crimes will go unreported. On the occasions in which undocumented persons are taken 

into the ranchlands of South Texas to traverse the back country, 

the undocumented persons have no choice but to break into homes 

in search of water and food. The South Texas conditions are beautiful, but yet they are harsh. 

As I previously stated, I am willing to accept my share of the responsibility, and we have managed the situation only with the cooperation of our State, local, and Federal partners. It is my hope 

that the increased attention on this issue brings much-needed resources to the area. I realize the challenges that immigration reform brings, but for me, these victims are more than just statistics. 

They have faces and they have names, and I firmly believe the solution lies in change in policy. 

With that, I would like to close once again by thanking you, Mr. 

Chairman and Members of the committee, for the opportunity to 

come before you today, and I stand ready to answer any of your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Guerra follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSE EDUARDO ‘‘EDDIE’’ GUERRA

JULY 3, 2014 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. My name is Eddie 

Guerra and I am the Hidalgo County Sheriff. I have under my command nearly 800 

personnel to include deputy sheriffs, detention officers, and administrative personnel. We are eighth largest county in the State of Texas and are tasked with patrolling 75 miles of the international border. 

I would like to begin by thanking you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you here today. It is my opinion that the recent surge of illegal immigration 

has proven to be a challenge for our Federal partners. As Sheriff, my primary duties 

lie with the preservation of the peace, which can be at times challenging given our 

proximity to the border. The reality is that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have 

become a part of the fabric of our society. I believe that the immigration issue I am 

here testifying on before you today is a Federal issue. That isn’t to say that we will 

not share in the responsibility, in fact, even today we continue to cooperate with 

our Federal partners by using State and Federal funds in support of their mission. 

To that end, associating my agency with the enforcement of immigration laws would 

be counterproductive as often-times undocumented persons hesitate to come forward 

as victims of crimes for fear of deportation. As such, I have directive to my deputies 

to assist our Federal partners in conducting rescue operations and to assist them 

in dismantling the transnational criminal organizations that are exploiting these 

immigrants. 

Mr. Chairman, the influx of immigrants has impacted my office in very specific 

ways. Currently, the immigrants crossing are turning themselves in and are not 

committing any State crimes. Should one of my deputies come across any undocumented person, we refer them to the U.S. Border Patrol, which will respond and 

take them into custody. My greatest concern is the immigrant deaths we respond 

to. There are several immigrants that have attempted to make entry with hopes of 

freedom and opportunity and have died in the process. In 2012, we responded to 

19 immigrant deaths and in 2013, we responded to 25 immigrant deaths, a 31.5% 

increase from the previous year. In 2014, to date we have responded to 14 immigrant deaths. These bodies are found in the river or the rush; many in deplorable 

conditions. Most of these immigrants died from drowning or heat exposure. Most recently, we responded to the death of an 11-year-old from Guatemala whose decom-
138 

posed body was found in the brush. He was likely abandoned by the human smuggler that was hired to bring him across. I am saddened to report he died within a 

quarter mile of a residential neighborhood where he could have received help. Make 

no mistake, the South Texas conditions are harsh and unrelenting and the trek, as 

in the case of the 11-year-old child, is deadly. 

Earlier I commented that the immigration surge is affecting my agency in very 

specific ways, my agency responds to various calls for service to include: False imprisonment, sexual assaults, kidnappings, criminal mischief, and burglaries. For the 

most part, the offenders are not the undocumented immigrants coming into the 

United States, they are the victims. The offenders are the transnational criminal 

organizations who employ criminals to do their bidding. Time after time, my staff 

briefs me of ‘‘stash houses’’ in which undocumented persons are held, often against 

their will in deplorable conditions, traded like a commodity among these criminal 

organizations for profit. At times, these human smugglers sexually assault the 

women, who as victims often feel they have no voice because of their illegal status 

and the crimes go unreported. There are instances where these criminals will hold 

for ransom undocumented persons; once again some of those crimes going unreported. 

On the occasions in which the undocumented persons are taken into the ranch 

lands of South Texas to traverse the back country, the undocumented persons have 

no choice but to break into ranch homes in search of water and food. The South 

Texas conditions are beautiful, but harsh. 

As I previously stated, I am willing to accept my share of the responsibility and 

we have managed the situation only through the cooperation and partnerships that 

have been established with our Federal, State, and local partners. It is my hope that 

the increased attention to this issue brings to bear much-needed resources to the 

area. I realize the challenges that immigration reform brings, but for me these victims are more than just statistics: They have faces and names, and I firmly believe 

the solution lies in a change in policy. 

With that, I would like to close by once again thanking you for the opportunity 

to speak to you today and would like to take the opportunity to answer any of your 

questions. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Sheriff. 

The Chairman recognizes Judge Garcia. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAMON GARCIA, HIDALGO 

COUNTY JUDGE, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS 

Judge GARCIA. Thank you, sir, and Members of the committee, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for making time to be here with us and 

looking at this issue close hand. 

As county judge, I feel compelled to do my Chamber of Commerce 

thing. We are the eighth largest county in Texas. We are about 

900,000 population. We have been described by Forbes Magazine as 

one of the best areas in the country to do business. We have been 

experiencing tremendous growth due in large part to our geographical location. We are the entryway from Mexico, as you are 

now realizing, and all over the country. We are the closest entry 

point to the United States from Central American countries. That 

is one of the reasons we are currently experiencing this situation. 

I have been listening. I have prepared comments, but I wanted 

to diverge from it a little bit because I am concerned that we may 

be confusing the issue. I know that Congressman Farenthold, in 

my mind at least, wanted to dwell on it. But the issue as I see it 

that we are considering before this committee here today is not 

what to do with—how do we stop the drugs from coming, how do 

we stop the human trafficking from coming. The issue, I thought, 

was very simple: What are we going to do to address this issue of 

the influx of undocumented illegal children that are coming to our 

country from Central America? 
139 

In my mind, they do not create a public health crisis for our 

area. We are not dealing with drug dealers. We are not dealing 

with terrorists. I don’t care how many more Border Patrol you get 

down here and put them up, hand by hand, covering the entire border. There is no need to. These people don’t need to be followed and 

chased to be apprehended. They cross that river and they are out 

there looking for the Border Patrol to turn themselves in so that 

they can be documented. 

The issue here is one of policy, as I see it, and that policy is related to this—as has been very correctly stated by Governor Perry 

and many Members of this committee, we are a Nation of laws, and 

right now we have a law on the books that gives these individuals 

certain rights, and one of those rights is, when they land in our 

country, when they cross that river and they are on U.S. soil, before they are deported back, they need to be provided with a hearing. That hearing is taking 2 to 3 years. 

As Congressman Salmon correctly pointed out, actions speak 

louder than words. They are believing in their country that they 

can stay here. I mean, all you have to do is get here, they give you 

a piece of paper, they ask you questions, and you can go on about 

your business. 

Well, if you really want to stop the influx of illegal undocumented children, you need to have quicker deportation hearings, 

detention hearings. You need to put some of those $2 billion towards hiring more judges, towards hiring more public defenders, 

those resources towards addressing the issue where they can get in 

and get out and send them back, and they will start getting the 

message when busloads come back, or trainloads if that is the procedure, or planeloads of children are coming back to their country. 

I just hope that we don’t confuse the issue of how do we address 

the situation of drugs coming in or the situation of terrorists coming in. 

Now, I provided you with some photographs. One of them shows 

the map, how clear it is, the red line from Central America to 

Texas, and the others are some pictures of people coming to America, as Neil Diamond would say. None of those individuals in my 

mind, or in anybody’s mind that understands the situation, believes 

that they are thinking ‘‘We are going to South Texas.’’ They are 

saying, ‘‘We are going to South Texas, get that ‘permiso,’ and then 

go on about and go to North Carolina and other parts of the country,’’ and that is what is happening. If we really want to address 

this by talking about actions speaking louder than words, you need 

to address that issue, getting them back as soon as possible so that 

that action would send a message throughout the countries that it 

is not going to happen, there is no free ride, they are not going to 

become a U.S. citizen by getting there. 

I also wanted to comment and publicly commend our local Chief 

of the Border Patrol Sector, Kevin Oaks, for his policies and specifically for the policy of being transparent, of immediately realizing— 

I think that is what has helped us in the way we have responded 

to this situation, versus what is going on in California. He came 

forth and wanted to meet with the leadership of the county so that 

he could explain and give us accurate information about what is 
140 

going on, information that we could then rely upon and feel safe 

and feel secure. 

These are kids. They are not drug dealers. They are not terrorists. Then they are being treated accordingly with the laws that are 

presently in place under our country, which they have the right to 

due process or whatever term we want to use to describe them. If 

we want to change the laws, that is another thing. But I understand the issue of comprehensive immigration reform and how difficult it may be between now and November. 

But we also want to thank our local Catholic Charities and our 

county residents for stepping up. We have expended approximately 

$60,000 in local resources. We don’t know how much longer this is 

going to last. We would appreciate any portion of that that we can 

be reimbursed for. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Garcia follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAMON GARCIA

JULY 3, 2014 

Good afternoon, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of 

the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security: My name is Ramon Garcia, I am 

the Hidalgo County Judge. I am presently serving my second term. As county judge 

I also chair the Hidalgo County Commissioners Court, which is the governing body 

that makes policy decisions that guide the direction of county operations. 

I am a life-long resident of the Rio Grande Valley and am extremely proud of Hidalgo County and all of the communities within it as well as those that make up 

the entire Rio South Texas community. In addition to my work as county judge, I 

have been a lawyer for 42 years. I am licensed in all Texas courts as well as the 

U.S. District Court, the Southern District of Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th 

Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

I commend the committee’s commitment to witness this humanitarian crisis firsthand. I personally have witnessed the efforts of Members Filemon Vela and Bennie 

Thompson and of Congressmen Rube ́n Hinojosa and Henry Cuellar in sharing the 

facts about our South Texas border region—especially when it comes to immigration 

and security. 

My sincere desire is that you will take our testimony and your own experiences 

back to Washington and not only identify the problem but provide solutions. Blaming others and turning this situation into a partisan political fight is not going to 

accomplish what we so urgently need here on the border and throughout our country, which is a workable solution, implemented through effective policy. 

I hope to leave you with three key points today: 

1. Our border communities and our country are not in danger from the women 

and children from Central America that are crossing our border. There is no 

public health crisis and their only crime is entering our country illegally. 

2. That this humanitarian crisis—as well as the separate criminal element that 

is taking advantage of the stressed resources of the Border Patrol—is not just 

a South Texas or Rio Grande Valley problem. The overwhelming majority of the 

people coming across as well as the drugs that are smuggled into our country 

pass through here en route to other parts of the country. 

3. The people of the Rio Grande Valley are compassionate and caring. Our communities have come together to assist in the humanitarian aid that local charities are providing to the women and children who are fortunate enough to have 

made it here. But we need assistance from our Federal Government to help defray the cost. According to the information we have, this influx is not going to 

stop any time soon. 

Hidalgo County is the 8th largest of 254 counties in the State of Texas. Our county encompasses nearly 1,600 square miles with a population of close to 1 million 

people residing here. The South Texas sun is harsh—as you probably have experienced first-hand; so is the terrain. 

According to our sheriff, there have been 14 immigrant deaths this year; most 

died from heat exposure or drowning. We had the first reported death of an unaccompanied minor a little over 2 weeks ago. It’s heartbreaking to think of this 11- 
141 

year-old boy wandering alone, frightened, hungry and thirsty, and dying only a 

quarter mile away from help. One has to wonder about the conditions back home 

in Guatemala that would prompt loving parents to allow their child to be transported by a human trafficker. And I have no doubt that this boy—Gilberto Francisco 

Ramos Juarez—did have a loving family. When his remains were discovered, investigators found a telephone number for his brother in Chicago on the back of the 

boy’s belt buckle. 

This humanitarian crisis is rooted in violence and poor economic conditions in the 

children’s home countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. These three 

countries have among the highest murder rates in the world. A recent survey conducted by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees of undocumented 

children from Mexico and Central America who arrived in the United States found 

that approximately 58 percent of the children interviewed were displaced by violence. 

These children are placed with relatives in States like Georgia or North Carolina, 

which according to a report by the Pew Research Center, have an undocumented 

population of approximately 425,000 and 325,000, respectively. This is not just a 

South Texas issue, these children travel to all parts of our country. 

Just last week, on June 23, McAllen Mayor Jim Darling and I hosted a briefing 

on the influx of immigrants—especially families and unaccompanied minors—with 

area leaders. We heard from the Border Patrol, Texas Department of Public Safety, 

the city and county emergency management coordinators, the county’s health department administrator, and Sr. Norma Pimentel, the head of Catholic Charities. 

I applaud these organizations and agencies for the work they have done and continue to do. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty. And we, in this community, appreciate them. 

Unaccompanied children from Central America risk their lives to travel to the 

United States, facing exploitation at every turn. After surrendering to Border Patrol, they are tested for communicable diseases and, if found to be ill, are separated 

from the rest of the group. They are then held in overcrowded Border Patrol facilities designed to temporarily hold adults. Without a parent to comfort them, these 

children sleep on cement floors and wait to be taken into Health and Human Services custody, which in some cases can take more than 10 days. Sr. Norma said when 

she visited one of these facilities, the children swarmed around her, hugging her 

and crying for their parents. 

I want to commend the U.S. Border Patrol for the good work that they do. They 

do their jobs with compassion and dedication and I respect and honor their service. 

At the same time, while the media has portrayed this as a Rio Grande Valley or 

South Texas crisis, it is in fact much broader than that. This is a National crisis— 

which no amount of fencing or National Guard troops can solve. 

Since the 1990s there have been calls to beef up border security by adding more 

Border Patrol Agents. The numbers have increased by 500 percent and we still have 

lawmakers—including some from our own State—calling for more. But there will 

never be enough; because this is not an enforcement issue. The Border Patrol is apprehending from 1,200 to 1,300 of these immigrants every day. At our briefing, one 

of the things we learned is that the immigrants are flowing in but only trickling 

out. 

Approximately 85 percent of the children that are processed here are placed with 

a relative while they await their immigration court hearings—which may take years 

due to the backlog of cases. These children don’t stay in South Texas, they live with 

relatives across the country, many of whom are undocumented themselves. Thus, 

this crisis should be of concern to every Member of Congress and not just locallyelected officials. 

One of the solutions may be to increase the number of judges hearing these cases 

and also provide lawyers for the children and family units. 

It has been alleged that a National security crisis exists along our Southern Border. I do not feel less safe now than when this crisis began. In our briefing last 

week, we learned that all the immigrants are put through a background check—the 

men and those that do not pass the background check are held separately from the 

rest. Everyone is also provided a medical exam. Our county’s health department administrator reports that the most common ailments—at least among the family 

units we see in our shelter—are the common cold, allergies, and dehydration. However, anyone found to be ill with a communicable disease is kept in isolation. The 

unaccompanied children are not released here; they are released into the custody 

of Health and Human Services. Children that are traveling with a parent are held 

with their parents; these are the immigrants that are released here in the Valley. 

They are only here as long as it takes to ‘‘catch’’ a bus to other parts of the country, 

where they eventually join their relatives to await their immigration hearings. 
142 

It is important to clarify a big misconception: The unaccompanied minors are not 

released in Hidalgo County. The only immigrants released in Hidalgo County are 

family units and these immigrants are only in Hidalgo County for a very short time. 

To date, the county has spent about $27,175 in staff time and resources, assisting 

the city of McAllen with this humanitarian crisis, under a Master Agreement for 

Mutual Aid. 

Finally, I would like to recognize the tremendous outpouring of support that these 

families have received from groups such as Catholic Charities, the Rio Grande Valley Food Bank, and countless volunteers who are helping to feed, clothe, and provide 

shelter to these recent immigrants upon being released. This surge in undocumented immigrants has shown the very best of Valley residents while waiting for 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

In conclusion, I urge you to commit Federal funding to our local humanitarian effort. This is a Federal issue and our local governments and charitable organizations 

should not be forced to bear the financial burden of providing the most basic of 

human kindness. 

Again, thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today. 
143 
144 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Judge. 

The Chairman recognizes Bishop Seitz. 

STATEMENT OF MOST REVEREND MARK J. SEITZ, BISHOP, 

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO, TEXAS, U.S. CONFERENCE 

OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS 

Bishop SEITZ. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and 

Ranking Member Jackson Lee, for the opportunity to testify today 

on unaccompanied children entering the United States. 

I have been called to serve the Church as a bishop, a bishop of 

a diocese on the border. My challenge is, to the best of my ability 

and under the guidance of the Church, to apply the Gospel teachings of Jesus to present-day situations. In visiting with these children in my diocese and in their home countries, I have witnessed 

the human consequences of the violence they have endured. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Texans have big hearts. This is particularly true of Texans who live on the border. I have seen it. They 

understand the migration issue better than most, and my experience in El Paso is that they show compassion to migrants, particularly children who are fleeing desperate situations. It is my prayer 

that you and this committee will reflect that compassion and sense 

of justice in seeking humane solutions to this current migrant challenge. 

This challenge tests the moral character of the Nation. It is a 

test we must not fail. Other nations are watching to see how we 

handle this matter. Our moral authority in the world is at stake. 

Let me say up front that U.S. Catholic Bishops support the right 

of our Nation to control her borders and to enforce the rule of law. 

Migration to our country should be orderly, safe, and controlled, 

consistent with the common good. This is why the U.S. Bishops 

have supported reform of our immigration system, so that the rule 

of law can be restored in a humanitarian manner. We hope that 

the House will understand this call and take up immigration reform as soon as possible. 
145 

In our view, Mr. Chairman, the current challenge we are facing 

is driven primarily by factors in Central America and Mexico, most 

specifically the rise of violence against children, fomented by organized criminal networks, including drug cartels. They act with impunity, threatening families and coercing children and youth to join 

their membership or face violence and even death. There are more 

young children arriving, many who are young girls age 13 or 

younger. 

While there are a variety of on-going push factors, Mr. Chairman, including daunting poverty and the desire for family reunifications, violence is the straw that stirs the drink. Otherwise, it is 

unlikely we would see such large numbers of unaccompanied children on our doorstep. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize our own recommendations, both short- and long-term, on this issue. These are listed in 

detail in our written testimony. 

Over the long term, Mr. Chairman, there must be a concerted effort to address the root causes of this exodus, specifically the rampant violence in that region. As a part of this effort, humane reintegration practices and prevention programs should complement 

anti-violence efforts. 

For short-term response, we recommend the following. Unaccompanied children should be expeditiously placed in child-friendly 

shelters and not warehoused in CBP border facilities. Families 

should not be detained in restrictive settings but placed in alternative community settings as quickly as possible. Unaccompanied 

children should not be subject to expedited removal and should be 

appointed counsel so they can navigate our complex legal system. 

Sufficient funding should be provided to care for these children so 

that Federal agencies do not have to raid other budgets such as the 

refugee budget. Pastoral services should be provided to these children and families, including visitation by priests, ministers, and 

other religions. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to relay one 

story of why children are fleeing from their homes. In November, 

I led a delegation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to 

visit El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico to look at this 

phenomenon. We met many children who told us their stories. At 

the Center for Detainee Children in Tapachula, Mexico, we met 

two boys, ages 15 and 17, who were clean-cut, respectful young 

men. They had recently arrived from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, a 

city with the highest murder rate in the world, higher than Kabul, 

Afghanistan, or Damascus, Syria. Organized crime members had 

attempted to recruit them and had told them that they and their 

families would be killed if they did not cooperate. The families of 

these young men quickly insisted they leave and flee to safety. 

Now, as they waited for repatriation to Honduras, they told us 

they would not return to their home city to what they felt was certain death. They would try again. Any risk they faced seemed to 

be a better option than returning to their home. This story is typical of many children coming north. It also shows the decisions, the 

difficult decisions faced by parents and families who are unable to 

protect their children in their homes and communities. This was 

brought home to me by a mother our delegation met at a repatri-
146 

1See USCCB: Mission to Central America: Flight of the Unaccompanied Immigrant Children 

to the United States available at http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/ 

Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf. 

ation center in El Salvador who told us ‘‘I would rather my child 

die on the journey seeking safety in the United States than on my 

front doorstep.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, from our experience, it is clear that a deterrence 

strategy, including expedited removal of these children, places this 

vulnerable population at even greater risk and will not necessarily 

stem the child migrant flow. In our view, the forces that drive them 

are greater than the dangers they face on the journey. Rather, we 

must fix the root causes at play, particularly the violence, and in 

the mean time offer protection to those children who warrant it, 

consistent with domestic law. To not do so undermines our values 

as a Nation. 

In conclusion, I ask you to consider the individual stories of these 

vulnerable child migrants—we have heard many today—and open 

your minds and hearts to their plight while seeking meaningful 

and long-term solutions. I ask you to respond to the needs of these 

children, not to turn them away or ostracize them. Americans are 

a compassionate people. We should not turn our back on these children. We, the Church, stand ready to work with you to pursue just 

solutions to this humanitarian challenge. 

[The prepared statement of Bishop Seitz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOST REVEREND MARK SEITZ

JULY 3, 2014 

I am Bishop Mark Seitz, bishop of the diocese of El Paso, Texas. I testify today 

on behalf of the Committee on Migration to give the Catholic Church’s perspective 

about the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied child migrants arriving at the U.S.- 

Mexico Border. 

I would like to thank Chairman Michael McCaul (R–TX), and Ranking Member 

Bennie Thompson (D–MS), and other committee Members for the opportunity to 

comment on the current situation. I note that the protection of migrant children is 

an especially important issue for the Catholic Church, as one of Jesus’ first experiences as an infant was to flee for his life from King Herod with his family to Egypt. 

Indeed, Jesus Himself was a child migrant fleeing violence. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph 

were asylum-seekers and faced the same choice as the one facing thousands of children fleeing to the United States each year. 

I am here to speak with you today about this special population of vulnerable children who are very close to my heart as I have met with many of them, some as 

young as 5 years old, while they were being cared for in Catholic Charities facilities 

in my diocese in El Paso. In addition to ministering to these youth in El Paso, in 

November 2013, I was privileged to lead a United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops delegation traveling to Southern Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to examine and understand the flight of unaccompanied migrating children 

and youth from the region and stand in solidarity with these children and their families. In January 2014, we issued our findings from the trip in a report entitled, 

‘‘USCCB: Mission to Central America: Flight of the Unaccompanied Immigrant Children to the United States’’ (2014 USCCB Central America Report 2014).1 Mr. Chairman, I ask that 2014 USCCB Central America Report be included in the hearing 

record. 

During our mission to Central America, we visited migrant children shelters, 

heard tearful stories from grandmothers waiting to pick up their recently repatriated grandchildren, and listened to children as young as 6 years old speak solemnly 

of trafficking and exploitation that was inflicted upon them along their migration 

journey. The corresponding report that came out of our mission acknowledged that 

a new paradigm regarding unaccompanied children is upon us—namely it is clear 

that unaccompanied children are facing new and increased dangers and insecurity 

and are fleeing in response. As a result, this phenomenon requires a regional and 
147 

2Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia (On the Spiritual Care of Migrants), September, 1952. 3Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rel Socialis (On Social Concern), December 30, 1987, No. 39. 4Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (The Church in America), January 22, 1999, No. 65. 

holistic solution rooted in humanitarian and child welfare principles. Since our mission and report issuance, many of the humanitarian challenges facing this vulnerable population have persisted and increased. In my remarks, I will highlight and 

update our observations and recommendations from that report. 

Mr. Chairman, my testimony today will recommend that Congress: 

• Address the issue of unaccompanied child migration as a humanitarian crisis 

requiring cooperation from all branches of the U.S. Government and appropriate the necessary funding to respond to the crisis in a holistic and child protection-focused manner; 

• Adopts policies to ensure that unaccompanied migrant children receive appropriate child welfare services, legal assistance, and access to immigration protection where appropriate; 

• Require that a best interest of the child standard be applied in immigration proceedings governing unaccompanied alien children; 

• Examine root causes driving this forced migration situation, such as violence 

from non-state actors in countries of origin and a lack of citizen security and 

adequate child protection mechanisms; and 

• Seek and support innovative home country and transit country solutions that 

would enable children to remain and develop safely in their home country. 

I. CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

The Catholic Church is an immigrant church, as more than one-third of Catholics 

in the United States are of Hispanic origin. The Catholic Church in the United 

States is also made up of more than 58 ethnic groups from throughout the world, 

including Asia, Africa, the Near East, and Latin America. 

The Catholic Church has a long history of involvement in child protection and refugee and asylum protection, both in the advocacy arena and in welcoming and assimilating waves of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers who have helped 

build our Nation. Migration and Refugee Services of USCCB (MRS/USCCB) is the 

largest refugee resettlement agency in the United States, resettling 1 million of the 

3 million refugees who have come to our country since 1975. MRS/USCCB is a National leader in caring for unaccompanied alien and refugee children as well. We 

work with over 100 Catholic Charities across the country to welcome unaccompanied alien children into our communities and provide for their care and general 

well-being. 

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), a subsidiary of USCCB, 

supports a rapidly-growing network of church and community-based immigration 

programs. CLINIC’s network now consists of over 212 members serving immigrants 

and their families, including asylum seekers and unaccompanied children, in over 

300 offices. 

The Catholic Church’s work in assisting unaccompanied migrant children stems 

from the belief that every person is created in God’s image. In the Old Testament, 

God calls upon his people to care for the alien because of their own alien experience: 

‘‘So, you, too, must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the 

land of Egypt’’ (Deut. 10:17–19). In the New Testament, the image of the migrant 

is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In his own life and work, 

Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized persons in a 

special way: ‘‘I was a stranger and you welcomed me.’’ (Mt. 25:35). Jesus himself 

was an itinerant preacher without a home of his own, and as noted above, he was 

a child migrant fleeing to Egypt to avoid violence, persecution, and death. (Mt. 2:15). 

In modern times, popes over the last 100 years have developed the Church’s 

teaching on migration. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to caring 

for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind, affirming that all peoples 

have the right to conditions worthy of human life and, if these conditions are not 

present, the right to migrate.2

Pope John Paul II stated that there is a need to balance the rights of nations to 

control their borders with basic human rights, including the right to work: ‘‘Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity based upon the principle that the 

goods of creation are meant for all.’’3 In his pastoral statement, Ecclesia in America, 

John Paul II reaffirmed the rights of migrants and their families and the need for 

respecting human dignity, ‘‘even in cases of non-legal immigration.’’4

Finally, Pope Francis defended the rights of migrants early in his papacy, traveling to Lampedusa, Italy, to call for their protection. Pope Francis decried the 
148 

5Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel, Apostolic Exhortation), December 

2013 at 105. 6Strangers No Longer, Together on the Journey of Hope, Pastoral Statement Concerning Migration from the U.S. and Mexican Catholic Bishops, ¶ 82 January 2003. 7Strangers No Longer, Together on The Journey of Hope, Pastoral Statement Concerning Migration from the U.S. and Mexican Catholic Bishops, January 2003. 

‘‘globalization of indifference’’ and the ‘‘throwaway culture’’ that lead to the disregard of those fleeing persecution or seeking a better life. In Evangelii Gaudium, the Holy Father speaks particularly of the importance of work with migrants and 

notes that it is essential for Catholics ‘‘to draw near to new forms of poverty and 

vulnerability [including migrants and refugees] in which we are called to recognize 

the suffering of Christ . . . ’’.5

In their joint pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of 

Hope, A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration, January 23, 2003 (Strangers No 

Longer), the U.S. and Mexican Catholic bishops further define Church teaching on 

migration, calling for nations to work toward a ‘‘globalization of solidarity.’’ In 

Strangers No Longer, the bishops stressed that vulnerable immigrant populations, 

including unaccompanied minors and refugees, should be afforded protection. To 

this end, the bishops noted that unaccompanied minors, due to their heightened vulnerability, require special consideration and care.6 Strangers No Longer also addresses the importance of families and notes that humanitarian considerations for 

families should also be a priority when considering migration issues.7

Mr. Chairman, the Catholic Church’s work in assisting unaccompanied migrant 

children stems from the belief that every person has a unique and sacred dignity. 

This dignity is not bestowed by governments or by laws or based upon their wealth 

or where they happen to be born. It inheres within the human being. We seek to 

be consistent in acknowledging the implications of this, namely that from the time 

we come to be in our mother’s womb until the moment our life comes to an end we 

are deserving of respect and care. This is true of the unborn child, the person with 

disabilities, the immigrant, the prisoner, and the sick. The more vulnerable and 

weak a person is the more they are deserving of our love. This we understand to 

be the mark of the Christian and of a healthy society. 

For these reasons, while the Catholic Church recognizes governments’ sovereign 

right to control and protect the border, we hold a strong and pervasive pastoral interest in the welfare of migrants, including unaccompanied children, and welcome 

newcomers from all lands. The current forced migration continuum of unaccompanied children traveling through Mexico and Central America and towards the 

U.S.-Mexico border frequently leads to severe traumatization and exploitation of 

children, violence, family separation, maltreatment, and even death and must be 

closely examined. The aspects of reform that I will address today relate to addressing the root causes propelling children to migrate alone, implementing prevention 

and treatment programs in the home country and in transit countries and the dignified care and treatment of this vulnerable population while in the United States. 

II. THE CHURCH RESPONSE AND CARE FOR UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, USCCB has been a leader in the protection of and 

advocacy for this vulnerable population and the institutional Catholic Church in the 

United States has played a critical role in the care of unaccompanied children. By 

virtue of our organizational structure and geographical reach, the U.S. Catholic 

Church early on has assumed a strong leadership role in the treatment and service 

of unaccompanied children. Since 1994, USCCB has operated the Unaccompanied 

Alien Children or ‘‘Safe Passages’’ Family Reunification program. 

The Safe Passages Family Reunification program serves undocumented children 

detained by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and placed in the custody of 

the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is an office within the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). The program provides for the family reunification assistance or long-term foster care of unaccompanied children who are in the 

custody of HHS. From the beginning of fiscal year 2011 (October 1, 2010) through 

June 9, 2014, the USCCB/MRS Safe Passages program has served 3,457 youth who 

arrived as unaccompanied alien children—2,266 through its Family Reunification 

Program and 1,191 through its foster care programs. 

A focus of the USCCB Safe Passages program is its home study and post-release 

services. During a home study, a community-based case worker assesses the safety 

and suitability of the proposed caregiver and placement, including the caregiver’s 

capacity to meet the child’s unique needs, any potential risks of the placement and 

the caregiver’s motivation and commitment to care for the child. Placing the child 

in the home of an intact family with a husband and wife is the ideal. Home studies 
149 

8 CRS El Salvador, Civil Society and Governance Programs, CRS El Salvador webpage, available at http://crs.org/countries/el-salvador. 9 Unaccompanied alien children or (‘‘UACs’’) are undocumented migrant children under the 

age of 18 who come to the United States without their parent or guardian. Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296 §462(g), 116 Stat. 2135, 2205 (2002). ‘‘A UAC ‘(A) has no lawful 

status in the U.S., (B) has not attained 18 years of age, (C) with respect to whom—(i) there 

is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the 

United States is available to provide care and physical custody.’’ 10ORR Year in Review, 2012, HHS website, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 

orr/resource/orr-year-in-review-2012 (accessed December 12, 2013). 11 About Unaccompanied Children Services, ORR/HHS website, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ 

programs/orr/programs/ucs/about (accessed December 10, 2013). 12 U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Southwest Border Unaccompanied (0–17 yr old) Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2013 and Fiscal Year 2014 through May 31 available at http://www.cbp.gov/ 

newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children. 13 American Forces Press Service, Fort Sill to House 600 Unaccompanied Alien Children, U.S. 

Department of Defense website, Washington, DC, retrieved June 10, 2014 from http:// 

www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122438. 

result in a recommendation on whether placement with the proposed caregiver is 

within the child’s best interest. Post-release services include risk assessment, actionplanning with families around areas of need and concern, systems advocacy with 

community providers, and culturally-appropriate services and community referrals 

for social and legal services. These services are integral to the successful and safe 

placement of children in child-appropriate environments. I will speak more about 

the importance of these services in my recommendations. 

In addition to the work that USCCB undertakes within the United States to serve 

and care for unaccompanied migrant children, the Catholic Church in the United 

States has worked extensively on prevention programs in the countries of origin, 

most notably El Salvador, through our partner, Catholic Relief Services (CRS). 

Through its Youth Builders project, CRS (El Salvador) and its partners provide atrisk youth with peer support, vocational and entrepreneurial training, job placement, life skills and leadership development, and community service opportunities. 

This project targets youth who are at risk of unemployment, of violence—as victims 

and as perpetrators—and of forced migration. CRS, in partnership with Caritas 

Internationalis, strengthens diocesan programs to work with at-risk youth through 

a network of community and government agencies. Through these projects, CRS has 

served more than 2,500 young people.8 I was able to visit and attend a Youth Builders session in San Salvador in November and saw first-hand the work that was 

being done to empower local children and give them the courage and skills to remain in their local communities, continue their education, and, in some cases, begin 

local businesses. 

III. OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SITUATION OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

Since 2011, the United States has seen an unprecedented increase in the number 

of unaccompanied migrating children arriving at the U.S./Mexico border.9 These 

children come from all over the world but predominately from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico. Whereas in fiscal years 2004–2011, the number of unaccompanied children apprehended by the U.S. Government averaged around 6,000– 

8,000 year, the total jumped to over 13,000 in fiscal year 2012 10 and over 24,000 11

in fiscal year 2013. ORR initially estimated that about 60,000 unaccompanied minors would enter the United States during fiscal year 2014. Recent Government estimates have been revised, projecting 90,000 child arrivals in fiscal year 2014 and 

130,000 in fiscal year 2015. 

As of June 20, Mr. Chairman U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have apprehended 52,000 in the Southwest Border region for fiscal year 2014.12 In response 

to the increased number of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, HHS requested and received approval from the Department of Defense for the 

use of Lackland Air Force base in San Antonio and a Naval Base in Ventura County 

in California, which are, respectively, providing shelter to 1,290 and 600 children. 

Facilities at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, also will house 600 unaccompanied children.13 The 

Federal Government is currently looking at other housing facilities throughout the 

United States. 

With the increasing numbers of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, we must understand who these children are, what is propelling them to 

travel alone on an increasingly dangerous journey, and what can be done to best 

address their welfare. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share the stories of three children—one from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—to give the committee a 

sense of the reality of the violence they are fleeing: 
150 

* Name changed to protect child’s identity. 

Marta,* age 16, was born and raised in El Salvador, where she lived with her 

mother, father, brother, and sister until just a few months ago. Currently, Marta 

is in a secure juvenile facility in the United States because she entered the United 

States without status. 

Marta reports having a very happy childhood, being involved with her church, and 

that she is very close to all her family members. Now she is separated from everyone she knows in the world, because she had to flee for her life. 

One day back home, Marta witnessed a fellow student’s death as he was shot in 

the back by the gangs on his way home from school. Then the threats against Marta 

began. Members of the La Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) gang have repeatedly tried to 

recruit Marta to assist them in their criminal activities and have threatened to kill 

her and her family. Marta has been beaten, and threatened with a machete by gang 

members. At one point, the police intervened by relocating Marta’s family to the 

countryside, but the gang still located Marta. Few community members are willing 

to assist her family out of fear of the gang. Marta’s choice was to flee the country, 

join the criminal gang, or possibly be killed. After being in hiding for months, 

Marta’s mother sent her to the United States, to save her daughter’s life. The family 

continues to be in hiding in El Salvador. 

Marta cries repeatedly out of fear for her family’s safety and is suffering from 

post-traumatic stress disorder. Marta is applying for asylum in the United States 

and has been approved to transfer to a foster care setting while she navigates immigration proceedings with the aid of a pro-bono attorney. 

Ana,* age 15, grew up in Totonicapa ́n, Guatemala, living with her biological parents and nine siblings. In an average day, Ana woke up at 5:00 A.M. to clean the 

house, and then sewed dresses until 9:00 P.M., at which time she would fix dinner 

for her family and go to bed. Prior to migrating to the United States, Ana had completed fifth grade before her father decided that her time would be better spent 

working. The impetus for her migration was the severe physical and emotional 

abuse she suffered at the hands of her father, who was unable to sustain steady 

employment and suffered from alcohol abuse. In June 2013, Ana’s mother secretly 

arranged for her to travel to the United States in hopes of reunifying with her 30- 

year-old sister in Houston, Texas. She travelled mostly by car, stopping to sleep in 

basements and warehouses on her way through Mexico. 

Once near the northern border of Mexico, she spent three nights in a trailer while 

the guide waited on other members of the group to arrive. Ana was given little 

water and nothing to eat while waiting in the trailer. On the third night in the trailer, the guide attempted to rape Ana, but another traveler pulled him away. The 

next day, after crossing into Texas, the guide again tried to rape her but his efforts 

were once again thwarted. Angry at her rejection, the guide abandoned Ana in the 

middle of the desert and returned to Mexico. Ana continued to walk until she found 

a farm and was subsequently apprehended by Border Patrol. 

Maria* is a 16-year-old girl from Honduras who arrived to the United States and 

was placed in ORR custody in July 2013. She was referred for home study due to 

having been the victim of sexual abuse at the age of 13. While in Honduras, she 

had suffered additional abuse that began with harassment in her country of origin 

by La Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) Gang. Maria was pursued, brutalized, and attempts at recruiting her culminated into the brutal beating of her mother and other 

family members, constant threats of kidnapping, and an eventual kidnapping by 

MS–13 gang members. 

Eventually Maria sought assistance and tried to get out of her confinement and 

recruitment by the gang. She finally devised a plan to escape, and under the ruse 

of going ‘‘shopping’’, the child arranged to escape to her sister’s house. However, 

when the gang realized that the child had escaped, they surrounded the home to 

which she fled. Local authorities eventually secured Maria, debriefed her, and 

helped her relocate to protective custody in another part of the country. The child’s 

mother insisted that she be moved to the care of a family member (aunt) in a nearby city in Honduras, but this only lasted a short time, since gang members found 

out this location and pursued and harassed Maria at this location as well. Since this 

incident, Maria has not had any contact or involvement with this gang, and eventually fled to the United States for fear she would be killed. Maria is currently being 

cared for by a foster care family and awaits her court date. 
151 

14 James Bargent, Honduras Extortion Gangs Undergoing Violent Leadership Crisis, Insight 

Crime: Organized Crime in the Americas, 3 June 2014. 15 UNHCR, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, March 2014. 

IV. FACTORS PUSHING UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN TO THE U.S. BORDER

In our delegation to Central America in November 2013, USCCB focused upon 

learning more about the push factors driving this migration and possible humane 

solutions to the problem. 

While poverty and the desire to reunify with family to attain security are on-going 

motivations to migrate, USCCB found that that an overriding symbiotic trend has 

played a decisive and forceful role in recent years: Generalized violence in the home 

and at the community and state level. Coupled with a corresponding breakdown of 

the rule of law, the violence has threatened citizen security and created a culture 

of fear and hopelessness that has pushed children out of their communities and into 

forced transit situations. 

Mr. Chairman, we acknowledged in our trip report in January that each country 

exhibited individual challenges which have added to these push factors. Additionally, in response to the increased flow of children in recent weeks, we also acknowledge that certain new country-specific factors may have impacted the latest flow of 

children. One such factor is the recent crackdown of gang-activity from within prisons in Honduras and efforts to increase police presence by newly-elected leader 

Juan Orlando Herna ́ndez. With the increased efforts by the Honduran government 

to stem communications from gang leaders within prisons, there are reports of increased violence as gangs fragment and mid-level criminal operators compete for 

control.14

Mr. Chairman, the on-going generalized violence, leading to coercion and threats 

to the lives of citizens—particularly children—of these countries, is the overwhelming factor facing these children and propelling their migration. Extortion, 

family abuse and instability, kidnapping, threats, and coercive and forcible recruitment of children into criminal activity perpetrated by transnational criminal organizations and gangs have become part of every-day life in all of these countries. In 

addition to the violence and abuse at the community and national level, 

transnational criminal organizations, such as the Mexican-based Zeta cartel, which 

deals in the smuggling and trafficking of humans, drugs, and weapons, operate in 

these countries and along the migration journey with impunity, and have expanded 

their influence throughout Central America. 

I note that the increase in violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador 

forcing children and adults out of their homes is affecting the entire region, not just 

the United States. For example, since 2008 Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, 

and Belize—the countries surrounding the Northern Triangle countries—have documented a 712% combined increase in the number of asylum applications lodged by 

people from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.15

Mr. Chairman, in our January trip report we detail the increased violence against 

children and families in Central America. Given the difficult conditions minors must 

confront in their home countries, USCCB believes that a robust protection regime 

for children must be implemented in Central America, Mexico, and the United 

States. Based on our presence in sending countries, we see the following as reasons 

for the increased number of children arriving in the United States: 

a. Violence perpetrated by organized transnational gangs, loosely-affiliated 

criminal imitators of gangs, and drug cartels, has permeated all aspects of life 

in Central America and is one of the primary factors driving the migration of 

children from the region.—USCCB found that in each country—particularly 

Honduras and El Salvador—organized gangs have established themselves as an 

alternative, if not primary, authority in parts of the countries, particularly in 

rural areas and towns and cities outside the capitals. Gangs and local criminal 

actors operating in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have consolidated 

their bases of power, expanded and upgraded their criminal enterprises and 

honed their recruitment and terror tactics. In many cases, the governments are 

unable to prevent gang violence and intimidation of the general public, especially youth. USCCB heard accounts of gang members infiltrating schools and 

forcing children to either join their ranks or risk violent retribution to them or 

their families. Even in prisons, incarcerated gang members are able to order violence against members of the community. There also were reports that law enforcement have collaborated with the gangs or at least have been lax in enforcing laws and prosecuting crimes. For example, according to Casa Alianza, an 
152 

16 Interview with Casa Alianza (Covenant House) Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, November 20, 2013. 17 Citizen Security with a Human Face: Evidence and Proposals for Latin America, Summary 

Regional Human Development Report 2013–2014, UNDP, November 2013, at 8. 18 UNHCR, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, at 46, March 2014. In their report, UNHCR states 

that 21% of children interviewed revealed that they had experienced some form of abuse by a 

family member, another adult responsible for their care or a domestic partner. 19 Rashida Manjoo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes 

and consequences, Addendum Follow-up mission to El Salvador, at p.7 ¶¶ 19–20, Human Rights 

Council, 17th Session, A/HRC/17/26/Add. 2, 14 February 2011, available at http://daccessods.un.org/TMP/6227008.70037079.html. 20 Ibid. 18 UNHCR, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, at 46, March 2014. In their report, UNHCR states 

that 21% of children interviewed revealed that they had experienced some form of abuse by a 

family member, another adult responsible for their care or a domestic partner. 

NGO that works in Honduras, 93 percent of crimes perpetrated against youth 

in Honduras go unpunished.16

b. Localized violence has severely exacerbated the lack of economic and educational opportunities for youth and has led to stress on the family unit, family 

breakdown, and even domestic abuse, which leaves children unprotected and extremely vulnerable.—The escalation in violence, combined with the lack of jobs 

and quality education, has led to a breakdown in the family unit, as male heads 

of households—or sometimes both parents—have left for the United States, 

leaving children behind with relatives, often grandparents. Children who have 

parents working abroad are especially vulnerable to community violence and 

forced migration as they can become targets for gang extortion due to the perceived or actual remittances they may receive. Additionally, as children enter 

teenage years and are increasingly at risk for victimization or recruitment by 

gangs, it becomes increasingly difficult for their relatives, especially elderly 

grandparents, to protect them. To this end, the United Nations Development 

Program reports that 26.7% of all inmates in El Salvador they interviewed in 

2013 never knew their mother or father growing up.17 Schools no longer function as social institutions that offer a respite from the violence and instead have 

become de facto gang recruitment grounds. As a result of being targeted because of their family situation or perceived wealth, children flee, as a strategy 

to escape the gangs, to help support the family, and to reunify with their parents or other loved ones, many of whom have been separated for years. 

c. Abuse in the home also has created stress, fear, and motivation to leave the 

family home as well as the community.—The pressure on families from local violence, economic uncertainty, and family-member absence has a deleterious effect 

on the family unit, as instances of domestic abuse towards women and children 

have grown. It has been documented that more unaccompanied children are reporting instances of child abuse and neglect undertaken by non-parental caretakers.18 Children, in particular girls, are particularly exposed to domestic violence. A survey carried out by UNICEF revealed that 7 out of 10 unaccompanied children reported having been abused in their homes.19 In El Salvador 

it was reported that the domestic violence and sexual abuse of women and girls 

in the private sphere remain largely invisible and are consequently underreported.20

d. Migrating children do not find the protection they need once they arrive in 

Mexico, even those who are eligible for asylum.—The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has consistently reported that an increasing 

number of unaccompanied children from Central America in particular are vulnerable to exploitation and cannot access protection in Mexico. To this end, 

UNHCR and USCCB are working with government authorities to provide training to law enforcement and protection officers on identifying and screening vulnerable children. 

As an example of this lack of protection, USCCB found one children’s shelter 

dedicated to caring for migrant children who may attempt an asylum claim in 

the Southern Mexico region, in Tapachula. Another shelter in Mexico City, run 

by the Mexican government’s division of child welfare [Desarrollo Integral de 

la Familia (DIF)] houses children who have won asylum but cannot be released 

until they are 18.18 In their report, UNHCR states that 21% of children interviewed revealed that they had experienced some form of abuse by a family 

member, another adult responsible for their care or a domestic partner. 

Children who request asylum usually remain in detention for months, with little help to navigate the legal system. Once a child wins asylum, the only place-
153 

21 UNHCR, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, at 46, March 2014. 

ment option available is the DIF child shelter in Mexico City until age 18, as 

there is no foster care system in place for these children. Shelter care is not 

intended to be a long-term placement for children, and often leaves children vulnerable to exploitation. Because of the challenges in gaining asylum in Mexico 

and the absence of an effective child welfare system, children often choose deportation back home so they can try to migrate again. 

e. Countries of origin lack the capacity to protect children adequately.—USCCB 

found that Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador lack the capacity to protect 

children in their law enforcement, child and social welfare, and educational systems. As mentioned, organized criminal networks and other criminal elements 

are active in many communities and schools, and the government is unable to 

curb their influence because of corruption, lack of political will, or lack of resources. Law enforcement personnel, low-paid and low-skilled, are compromised 

by these criminal elements. Child welfare services are virtually non-existent, as 

are foster-care and family reunification and reintegration services. 

f. A significant number of migrants, particularly youth, have valid child protection claims.—While the popular perception of many in the United States is that 

migrants come here for economic reasons, USCCB found that a growing number 

are fleeing violence in their homelands. UNHCR recently found 58% of the unaccompanied children it interviewed from Central America and Mexico had 

some sort of international protection claim.21 A similar study in 2006 found only 

13% of these children had a protection claim. Children who exhibit international 

protection concerns may be eligible to remain in the United States legally in 

some form of recognized legal status, such as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, as an asylee, or with T or U visas. 

V. U.S. RESPONSE TO THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

Mr. Chairman, we support the administration’s immediate response to this crisis, 

which created an inter-agency response led by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). We offer the following recommendations to ensure that children are 

cared for throughout the legal process: 

a. For the children, the faithful adherence to the best interest of the child standard is necessary in all decision making.—The best interest of the child principle 

is an internationally recognized child-welfare standard used in the U.S. child 

welfare system. It refers to a process of determining services, care arrangements, caregivers, and placements best suited to meet a child’s short-term and 

long-term needs and ensure safety permanency, and well-being. When applied 

in the United States special importance is given to family integrity, health, 

safety, protection of the child, and timely placement. This means that all procedures, protocols, and mechanisms developed are child-friendly, trauma-informed, and administered by child welfare professionals; that children are 

screened and assessed for their immediate humanitarian protection needs and 

their long-term international protection needs; that during the pursuit of longterm solutions for the children they are placed in the least-restrictive settings 

(i.e. community-based); that all children are connected with social and legal 

services to address their immediate needs; that long-term and durable solutions 

are pursued that are in the children’s best interests; and that where repatriation is the best alternative available that safe repatriation and reintegration 

be conducted in collaboration and coordination with the children’s home governments, NGOs, and other implementing partners. 

Consistent with U.S. child welfare norms, children should be placed in smaller 

community-based programs such as specialized foster care, group or small shelter programs which allow children to reside in family settings in communities. 

Large facilities are contrary to child welfare principles and the TVPRA, increase 

the risk of institutionalization, child maltreatment and losing track of children’s 

individual needs. 

b. For the United States Government, a mutually supportive, interagency response is necessary to ensure we are leveraging the expertise and resources of the 

agencies that bear responsibility for addressing all aspects of the challenge.—As 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraged by the decision of the administration to involve all relevant agencies of the Government in responding to this crisis. This should include HHS/ORR and also the Administration for Children and 

Families’ domestic child welfare division; the Department of State’s (DOS) 

Agency for International Development, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Mi-
154 

gration, and Western Hemispheric Affairs; the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review of DOJ; and Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration Customs Enforcement, and DHS/CBP. The inter-agency work on the issue should 

incorporate clear leadership responsibilities and effective collaboration mechanisms to ensure the optimum results both in the United States and throughout 

the region. 

c. Children should be properly screened and placed in the least restrictive setting, preferably with family or an appropriate sponsor.—Children should be immediately screened, ideally by a child welfare specialist, as to whether: (1) They 

are victims of human trafficking; and (2) whether they have special needs and 

require specific care, such as trafficking victims, children under 12, pregnant 

girls, and persons with disabilities. Where possible, children should be reunified 

with their family members during the course of their legal proceedings. Potential sponsors who can care for the child throughout the child’s immigration proceedings should be identified and adequately screened. Children should not be 

released, pending fingerprint and background checks of their sponsors. HHS 

and other agencies should monitor, report, and respond to violations against 

children. As required under the law, expedited removal should not be used 

against unaccompanied children. 

d. Families should be kept together, preferably in a community setting, and provided full due process rights.—Families who are part of this migration flow, 

mainly women with young children, should not be detained in a restrictive setting. Alternatives to detention for these families should be explored, including 

with faith-based communities. Such models have been implemented in the past, 

with great success and at reasonable costs. The needs of mothers and children 

are best met in such a community setting, where their specialized needs can 

be met. USCCB stands ready to help in providing alternatives to detention for 

vulnerable families. 

Moreover, subjecting these families to expedited removal procedures, as intended by the administration, could undercut their due process rights. Many 

would be unable to obtain an attorney and, because of their trauma and the setting of the immigration proceedings, would be unable to adequately articulate 

their fear of return. 

e. Post-release reception assistance should be expanded to meet the rising need.— 

We urge increased post-release services which address family preservation, 

child safety, community integration, access to counsel and continued participation in immigration proceedings. The lack of sufficient funding for assistance 

post-release increases the likelihood of family breakdown, makes it more difficult for children to access public education and community services, and decreases the likelihood that the children will show up for their immigration proceedings. 

With the release from custody happening on a shorter time frame—now less 

than 30 days—and with up to 90% of UACs being released from ORR custody 

to communities, UAC resources need to be prioritized into community-based reception services which are located where families live. ORR could leverage the 

infrastructure and expertise of the U.S. resettlement agencies by providing all 

of the children community-based, reception services. Reception services should 

be required for all UAC to assist the family with navigating the complex educational, social service, and legal systems. 

f. Pastoral care and services should be provided to children.—Mr. Chairman, 

these vulnerable children should have access to pastoral services, including visitation by religious, including priests, minister, and other faith leaders. To date, 

requests for visitation to the Border Patrol stations and shelters for this purpose has been denied by the Border Patrol and ICE. 

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the humanitarian crisis and in the best interest of the children who 

are at risk, USCCB offers the following policy recommendations: 

A. The United States should strengthen protections for children from Central 

America.—Unaccompanied minors who arrive in the United States possess legal 

rights which should be honored. Often children are scared and are unable to articulate their fears and do not understand what rights they have under U.S. law. Moreover, children who come into the care of the U.S. Government should be treated humanely and with appropriate child protections. We recommend the following: 

1. Robust funding should be appropriated to ensure the care of these children and 

families fleeing violence in their home countries.—We are heartened that the U.S. 

Senate has added $1.9 billion for the fiscal year 2015 budget to care for these vul-
155 

22http://www.justice.gov/eoir/probono/probono.htm. 

nerable populations. Any funding should be administered in a manner that respects 

the religious liberty and conscience rights of organizations providing this care. 

We recommend that: 

• Congress appropriate $2.28 billion for fiscal year 2015 for care of unaccompanied children, consistent with the administration’s request; 

• Congress should oppose the request from the Obama administration to be 

granted ‘‘fast track authority’’ to expedite the removal of children fleeing violence in Central America; 

• Congress should approve a supplemental funding request which provides monies to care for the well-being of children, including housing, legal representation, 

child welfare services, alternatives to detention for families, and post-release 

services. 

• Congress increase funding in the fiscal year 2015 HHS budget for unaccompanied refugee minors programs to $100 million, as some of these children 

should qualify for Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM) benefits; 

• Congress appropriate $100 million for DHS to care for families who have 

crossed into the United States during the duration of their legal proceedings, 

including alternative to detention programs, housing, and other basic necessities. 

• Congress should appropriate funding in the DOJ budget to provide legal representation for unaccompanied children who cannot secure representation 

through pro-bono networks. 

2. Congress should mandate and fund family reunification and legal orientation 

programs for all youth to help children integrate into their communities, reunify with 

their families, and pursue immigration relief.—Often, increased funding to the Office 

of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is responsible for the custody and care of 

UAC, is directed at improving conditions in the temporary shelters in which unaccompanied children reside while waiting for release to their families. However, 

under normal conditions the time youth spend in shelter is less than 45 days, at 

which point 90 percent are released to their families. 

There exists little funding for services once children are released, increasing the 

likelihood for family breakdown, the inability of children to enroll in school and access community resources, and the likelihood that the child will not show up to their 

immigration hearings. Funding should be directed at increasing the number of home 

studies provided to UAC prior to their release from custody to assess any potential 

risks of the placement, including the protective capacity of the sponsor to ensure the 

safe reunification of the child. Post-release services should be required for all UAC 

to assist the family with navigating the complex educational, social service, and 

legal systems. With appropriate follow-up and monitoring by child welfare professionals, it is more likely that children will not abscond and will appear at their immigration proceedings. 

Finally, funding should be increased for the Department of Justice’s Legal Orientation Program for Custodians (LOPC) which was developed to ‘‘inform the children’s custodians of their responsibilities in ensuring the child’s appearance at all 

immigration proceedings, as well as protecting the child from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking,’’ as provided under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.22

3. The best interest of the child should be applied in legal proceedings involving 

UACs, including creating child-appropriate asylum procedures and unaccompanied 

child immigration court dockets.—Currently, decisions about the welfare of UAC are 

made separately from the existing U.S. child welfare infrastructure, meaning that 

court decisions on the welfare of UAC are based on their eligibility for immigration 

relief alone rather than involving a comprehensive assessment of the best interest 

of the child. Whenever possible, policies and procedures should be implemented that 

help the child progress through the system in a way that takes into account his/ 

her vulnerabilities and age, such as the establishment of immigration court dockets 

for unaccompanied children and the creation of child-appropriate asylum procedures. Concentrating all UAC cases in a child-focused immigration docket with appropriately-trained arbiters and advocates will streamline UAC cases while also ensuring a less-threatening model for children. Additionally, implementing a uniform 

binding standard that requires all immigration judges, Federal judges, and members of the BIA to adopt a child-sensitive approach to asylum cases of child applicants will lead to greater consistency in youth asylum jurisprudence and will also 

be more reflective of current international and domestic legal requirements. As mentioned, the Government should provide legal representation for unaccompanied chil-
156 

23http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf. 24http://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htm. 25 ‘‘Community-Based Care for Separated Children’’. Save the Children. 2003. Retrieved from 

http://comminit.com/en/node/209638/347. 

dren, who would be better able to navigate the legal process and obtain immigration 

relief with an attorney guiding and representing them. 

4. Family reunification should be a central component of implementing the best interest of the child principle.—The U.S. Government should adopt a transnational 

family approach in deciding on durable solutions in the best interest of UAC. This 

should include family tracing, assessment of all family members for potential reunification, and involvement of all family members in the decision-making process, regardless of geography. 

5. The Department of State should pilot Section 104 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 08) in Mexico.—Sec. 104 of the TVPRA 

08 amends Sec. 107 (a) of the TVPA 2000 to require the ‘‘Secretary of State and 

the Administrator of the United States Agency for international development’’ to 

‘‘establish and carry out initiatives in foreign countries’’23 ‘‘in cooperation and coordination with relevant organizations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, and private nongovernmental organizations... for—(i) increased protections for refugees and internally displaced persons, including outreach and education efforts to prevent such 

refugees and internally displaced persons from being exploited by traffickers; and 

(ii) performance of best interest determinations for unaccompanied and separated 

children who come to the attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees, its partner organizations, or any organization that contracts with the Department of State in order to identify child trafficking victims and to assist their 

safe integration, reintegration, and resettlement.’’24

USCCB interviewed several Central American child victims of trafficking in a DIF 

shelter in Tapachula, Mexico whom would benefit from a best interest determination (BID) which would result in a recommendation for a durable solution to ensure 

their protection and permanency. Currently, there is no systemic way to identify 

children who have been trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked, and without a 

BID, the fate of children who were trafficked or at risk of being trafficked consists 

of repatriation to their country of origin, often sending them back into the hands 

of the traffickers. If they receive refugee status in Mexico, remaining in a shelter 

until they turn 18 years old leaves them vulnerable to exploitation within the shelter and lacking appropriate services to address their trauma and developmental 

needs. 

6. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) should continue to expand placement 

options to include small community-based care arrangements with basic to therapeutic programming.—The Flores Settlement Agreement establishes minimum 

standards of care for children in the custody of ORR and requires that UAC be 

placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their needs. Save the Children 

notes in a study: ‘‘... recent years have seen an increasing emphasis on the development of community-based approaches . . . to ensure that children who lose, 

or become separated from their own families, can have the benefits of normal family 

life within the community’’25. Placing children in the least restrictive setting that 

can meet their needs is the policy and practice of the child welfare system in the 

United States. While many of the children in ORR custody are served in basic shelters, this placement setting may not be the most appropriate for some UAC, many 

of whom have complex trauma needs, and would be better served in foster care 

placements through the URM program. 

7. Special attention should be given to Mayan youth.—A significant number of 

youth migrating from Guatemala are Mayan fleeing domestic violence, organized 

crime, and poverty. The United States is not adequately prepared to identify and 

assist these youth, as many are unable to understand English or Spanish and thus 

unable to articulate their fears. We encourage DHS to work with non-government 

organizations and Mayan leaders to identify and assist Mayan youth. 

B. Mexico, with assistance from the United States and child welfare organizations, 

must build the capacity of the Mexican child welfare system to protect migrating 

youth.—This includes training for direct care providers and Government officials to 

employ child-appropriate techniques when interviewing and serving migrating children as well as the development of protocols related to identification of safe placement for children, including, but not limited to, those identified to be eligible for 

refugee status. The Government, in partnership with child welfare experts should 

develop and incorporate standardized tools and methods to screen migrating children for symptoms of trauma and for human trafficking. 
157 

1. The Mexican government should establish a continuum of care for unaccompanied children in their custody.—Currently, unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum may remain in shelters for as long as 6 months to years and children 

who receive asylum remain in shelter until they are 18. Studies have shown that 

prolonged stays in restrictive settings impact a child’s development and well-being. 

The higher the capacity of the care arrangement, the more restrictive the environment becomes. Consistent with child welfare best practice, unaccompanied children 

should be placed in the least-restrictive setting, ideally, in community-based care, 

such as foster care, which allows children freedom of movement and access to community. Furthermore, care settings should be constructed to ensure minors are not 

commingled with gangs or other criminals, who often infiltrate these facilities. 

2. Best interest determinations (BIDS) should be conducted for children in custody 

in Mexico.—Rather than immediately deport them back to Central America, Mexico 

should allow UNHCR to employ a BIDS system for unaccompanied and separated 

children in detention to ensure they are protected from criminal elements in Mexico 

and Central America. This would include the possibility of reuniting them with their 

families in the United States, particularly if they are victims of trafficking or asylum seekers. 

3. The U.S. Government should consider child asylum/refugee cases in Mexico for 

resettlement to the United States through embassy referrals.—Cases of children with 

valid asylum or refugee claims, especially those with family in the United States, 

should be considered by the U.S. Government for possible resettlement. In many 

cases, children are neither safe in Mexico nor the country of origin, and resettlement 

to the United States is their only option for a durable solution. 

4. The current reliance on consular staff to investigate, handle, and treat children 

who are intercepted in Mexico during their migration is inadequate and leaves children vulnerable to coyotes, traffickers, and further trauma and exploitation.—Currently, in Tapachula, Mexico, the consular officials are responsible for identifying 

where apprehended unaccompanied children are from, interfacing with the other 

consulates, collecting information on children’s families, and making determinations 

about their return. The training they receive is on an ad hoc basis, sometimes led 

by local NGOs. These government officials are performing the work of child welfare 

experts and should receive adequate training and staff on-site within the consulates 

to help consult on possible child trafficking, smuggling, and exploitation cases. 

C. With assistance from the U.S. Government, Central American governments must 

employ systems to protect children so they are able to remain home in safety and with 

opportunity.—The long-term solution to the crisis in Central America is to address 

the push factors driving minors north. This would include improvements in education, employment, and enforcement, for sure, but also improvements in the social 

service and child protection systems. We recommend the following: 

1. The United States should invest in repatriation and re-integration in sending 

countries.—USCCB found that source countries did not employ comprehensive reintegration programs for children returning from the United States and Mexico, programs which would provide follow-up services to children to help them readjust to 

life in their home country. A program operated by Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) 

in Guatemala is showing promising results and should be expanded and duplicated. 

2. The United States should invest in prevention programs in sending countries.— 

Other than programs provided by Catholic Relief Services and other NGOs, source 

countries do not employ programs to encourage youth to remain and not take the 

journey north. Such a program would include skill-based training and employment 

services. Catholic Relief Services operates Youth Builders, a program previously 

mentioned in my testimony which has helped youth remain at home and live productive lives. Youth Builders offers promise for the benefits of such prevention programs: Of the 53 children served by the Youth Builders program to date, 52 have 

not migrated north. 

3. The United States should consider the implementation of in-country processing 

in sending countries.—In order to prevent children with persecution claims from 

risking their lives along the migration journey, the United States should consider 

in-country processing in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. This would also 

undercut the for-profit smuggling networks that are preying on children and families. It also would ensure that children who deserve protection receive it in safety. 

The United States has conducted successful in-country processing systems in such 

nations as the former Soviet Union and Haiti. 

4. Anti-violence efforts should include stakeholders from government, civil society, 

private sector, churches, and international donors in order to effectively leverage limited resources and should include job and educational opportunities and training 

programs.—Anti-violence prevention measures should be tackled at regional and 

local community levels in addition to national levels. Including key local stake-
158 

holders and engaging regional governmental bodies and actors is a vital part of prevention efforts. Additionally, prevention efforts must include systematic training 

and educational programs in order to fully offer meaningful opportunities for gang 

members in society once they leave the gang. 

5. Over the long term, all governments of the region, including the United States, 

must invest resources into examining and effectively addressing root causes of migration in Central America and Mexico.—This would address the lack of citizen security 

which is propelling individuals, especially children, to flee. The United States and 

its regional partners must avoid the simplistic approach of addressing the forced migration by forcing children back through increased border enforcement. This response is akin to sending these children back into a burning building they just fled. 

Instead the approach must prioritize protection for those who are displaced from 

their homes, especially children, the most vulnerable. 

CONCLUSION

The situation of child migration from Central America is a complex one, with no 

easy answers. It is clear, however, that more must be done to address the root 

causes of this flight and to protect children and youth in the process. Clearly this 

problem is not going away; in fact, it is getting more urgent in terms of the dire 

humanitarian consequences. 

Too often, and especially recently in the media, these children are being looked 

at with distrust and as capable adult actors, instead of as vulnerable and frightened 

children who have been introduced to the injustice and horror of the world at an 

early age. Anyone who hears the stories of these children would be moved, as they 

are victims fleeing violence and terror, not perpetrators. USCCB found that these 

children long not only for security, but also for a sense of belonging—to a family, 

a community, and a country. They are often unable to find this belonging in their 

home country and leave their homes as a last resort. 

In conclusion, I ask you to consider the individual stories of these vulnerable child 

migrants and open your minds and hearts to their plight while seeking meaningful 

and long-term regional solutions. I ask you to respond to the needs of these children, 

not to turn them away or ostracize them, as Americans are a compassionate people. 

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about 

these children of God and ask that you let me, my brother bishops, and the entire 

Catholic Church charitable network work with you to pursue just and humane solutions to the challenge of child migration. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Bishop. Let me just say that I 

appreciate your leadership, and the Catholic Church’s leadership. 

I think there is a role to play. We can work with you in the intervention to stop the movement in the first place to make that dangerous journey, but we also applaud your humanitarian efforts here 

in the United States. We often like to think that we do God’s work 

here on earth, but you truly do the Lord’s work here. So we thank 

you for that, sir. 

Because of our departure time, which is 3:30, to make our airplane, I may have to limit everybody to 3 minutes. I will try to lead 

by example as the Chairman, as hard as that may be. 

Let me just first, Chief, people ask me how did this happen? How 

did we get here? Fifty thousand unaccompanied children since October. How did this happen, and what do we need to do to stop it? 

Mr. OAKS. Well, I think it has been, as everybody has testified 

on the panel, a combination of all those factors. It is a combination 

of poverty, it is socioeconomic conditions, it is violence in the particular countries. It is all those factors. It is the hope of freedom 

and a better life in the United States. It is all those factors that 

draw many of these people. In the course of the last 30 years as 

a Border Patrol Agent, I have seen many iterations of this with different bodies and different groups and demographics of people that 

have come to this country for a better way of life. 

The way you stop it is by Congress and the American people and 

the non-governmental organizations and the faith-based organiza-
159 

tions and diplomatic efforts in concert to come up with a comprehensive understanding of what we are trying to accomplish, and 

then solve the problem that way. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think you mentioned also before in 2006 

we faced a similar thing with Brazil, and I think we sent a very 

strong message of deterrence that if you come, you cannot stay, and 

I think we were very effective. Of course, that was before the 2008 

law that we are under today. But I think you would agree with me 

that that actually worked. 

Mr. OAKS. Yes, sir. In terms of the Brazilians that you were talking about, we had an influx of Brazilians, and over the course of 

the last 3 decades in the Rio Grande Valley we have seen an influx 

of OTMs each decade, and the problems have typically been resolved by taking a look at that body, looking at detention, looking 

at bonds, and looking at working with the country, especially 

Brazil. The Mexican government did a pretty good job of reducing 

the number of waivers and not letting them travel free through 

Mexico to the United States. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think Mexico needs to change that policy 

and they need to step up to the plate. 

Steve McCraw, you and I have worked on this for over a decade. 

You are FBI SAC out of San Antonio. I was a Federal prosecutor. 

We have talked about securing the border it seems like forever. I 

think now is the time to get it done. This crisis is a call for action. 

I think Congress—and I am going to do everything in my power to 

make sure Congress fulfills that responsibility. 

But can you talk a little bit about—you had a plan, a strategic 

plan you put forward to the Governor, the Governor sent to the 

President of the United States back in 2009 detailing how this can 

be done. In the limited time I have, can you explain that plan? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Bottom line is what I already talked about in 

terms of resources. It is dedicating a sufficient number of resources 

between the ports of entry around the clock, saturate the highthreat areas, sustain it until they can’t come, because they don’t 

come here for anything other than profit, a lot of money on the 

human smuggling side and on the drug trafficking side. They are 

not going to sustain the risks, and every time we have surged, we 

have pushed back along those lines. 

The plan involved that we produced to the Governor 1,000 Texas 

National Guard troops at that point in time because of LPOPs. 

Keep in mind, we use Texas military forces every day on the border, the UH–72’s, the UH–60’s. We use special ops, our Ranger 

recon teams, because they bring a set of skills that can complement 

and support us. Even in terms of the LPOPs, important listening 

posts, observation posts, very important. You are dealing with a 

kind of counter-surveillance and surveillance that the cartels are 

conducting on our operations along those lines. So that is valueadded. That would give us 1,000 at that point in time. Of course, 

the supplement would have been diverting resources into the Rio 

Grande Valley, and also at that point the Laredo sector as well, 

based upon what we were seeing from our Border Patrol partners. 

Chairman MCCAUL. In closing, the way I see it is that at the end 

of the day, it protects the children we saw today, it protects the 

three little girls I saw who almost drowned in the river, and that 
160 

is just one example of so many, protects them from sexual abuse 

and trafficking. I think this committee and the working group need 

to work toward that effort. 

With that, the Chairman recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think the Chairman is correct that we need 

to work together. 

Let me thank all of the witnesses very much for your very insightful and important testimony. 

I have worked over the years on human trafficking and human 

smuggling, and none of that will be diminished in light of the title 

of this hearing, dealing with unaccompanied children, and that is 

the issue. I want to make it very clear that no one is undermining 

the importance of National security. We are in intelligence meetings all the time. We recognize the communities at the border. You 

need to have the assurance that we have not forgotten that we do 

have terrorists who want to intrude on our border. 

But what we have today is unaccompanied children. 

I want to ask Chief Oaks, you interact with our distinguished 

Mr. McCraw, the director of the Department of Public Safety, FBI, 

DEA. You interact with ATF and others as Federal law enforcement. Is there any diminishing in your mind in the fight against 

drug cartels who are smuggling, who are trafficking, who are terrorists, who are creating violence on the other side of the border 

and that it may seep over here? Is there any diminishing on the 

part of the Border Patrol in those efforts? 

Mr. OAKS. I can tell you that any time there is a change, a massive, noticeable change in operations, you will have a little bit of 

a degradation in operations. But those are quickly made up, as you 

alluded to, with our partnerships with Department of Public Safety 

who, in my estimation, is one of the finest law enforcement agencies I have worked with. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So what you are saying is that with that recognition that there has been some altering, you get right to it to 

make sure that you rise to the occasion to make sure that this area 

and the Nation’s border is safe. 

Mr. OAKS. Absolutely. You have to adjust your strategies and you 

have to recycle your forces and look at your deployment plans and 

bring in additional assets. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You have been doing that. 

Mr. OAKS. Yes, ma’am, I have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. With the question about lesser numbers in 

this region versus Southern California or El Paso, elsewhere, do 

you not make assessments of where you put Border Patrol Agents, 

and do you continue to do that to make sure the border is as unporous as it can possibly be? 

Mr. OAKS. Absolutely. We do quarterly assessments and threat 

assessments. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are on-going in doing that now? 

Mr. OAKS. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me move to Judge Garcia and Bishop, if 

I may ask you questions. 

I might ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter from 

the ACLU dated July 3, 2014. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 
161 

1 Border Patrol Agent Staffing by Fiscal Year, United States Border Patrol, http:// 

www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Fiscal%20Year%20- 

Staffing%20Statistics%201992-2013.pdf. 2 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Children On the Run 6 (Mar. 12, 2014); 

Elizabeth Kennedy, No Childhood Here: Why Central American Children Are Fleeing Their 

Homes 1 (American Immigration Council, July 2014). 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS

JULY 3, 2014 

Honorable committee Members: The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas submits this testimony on behalf of our thousands of members and supporters across 

the State. From our first-hand observations of two Customs and Border Protection 

short-term detention facilities and our extensive work in Texas border communities, 

we write to express our concerns with the Government’s law enforcement approach 

to what is actually a humanitarian crisis. Because the children fleeing to the United 

States to escape appalling conditions and unimaginable violence in their home countries have not increased crime in the Rio Grande Valley, adding law enforcement 

resources at the border, as some are proposing, fails to address the real problems 

our border communities face. For the reasons detailed below, we urge you instead 

to prioritize humanitarian solutions that ensure we treat these vulnerable children 

humanely and compassionately. 

The ACLU of Texas is a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending the Constitutional rights and liberties of all people in Texas. Founded in 1938 as the Texas 

affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas addresses issues 

of Constitutional concern in the courtroom, at the legislature, and in the public 

square. Given Texas’s long border with Mexico and the large number of people that 

call our border region home, border-related civil rights and liberties issues are key 

to our mission. 

Of particular concern to us is the impact the increasing militarization of our border has on the people of the border communities we serve. In recent years, the number of Border Patrol Agents assigned to the Southwest Border, including the Rio 

Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, has increased from 9,891 in 2005 to 18,611 agents in 

2013.1 As our border has become increasingly militarized, our efforts to document 

the impact on the people who live and work in the border region and to achieve 

greater transparency and accountability for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

has become a top priority. Staff in our Brownsville office work closely with local 

community organizations in the RGV to oppose border militarization and to advocate for policies that enhance and protect our way of life on the border. We are part 

of the Rio Grande Valley Equal Voice Network, a coalition of ten organizations dedicated to creating a movement of social change through civic engagement and promoting better jobs with livable wages, affordable housing, access to health care, and 

immigration reform. We also participate in the Bi-National Documentation Project, 

which documents abuse by law enforcement officials in our border communities. 

When necessary, we litigate on behalf of border residents whose Constitutional 

rights have been violated. 

Last week, on June 25, 2014, two of our staff members, along with members of 

other non-profit organizations visited the Weslaco Centralized Processing Center 

and the Fort Brown Station in the RGV. These facilities hold and process many of 

the children who have been fleeing violence, crime, gang threats, and poverty to the 

perceived safety of the United States.2 We were briefed by Customs and Border Protections officials, including Sector Chief Oaks, and allowed to view the cells where 

children and other immigrants are held from the operation centers of these two facilities. 

Based on these visits and our experience working in border communities, we believe that the immediate priority of this committee must be to address the appalling 

conditions in which these children are imprisoned, to ensure that the children receive fair consideration and due process if they have legitimate claims for asylum, 

and to resist the calls to put yet more Federal agents into a region already strained 

to the breaking point by over-militarization. 

THE INFLUX OF CHILDREN IS NOT AN ENFORCEMENT CRISIS

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organizations 

have documented that children embark on the perilous journey to the United States 

from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico because conditions in their 
162 

3 Children On the Run, Supra N.2, At 6; No Childhood Here, Supra N.2, At 1. 

4 Children On the Run, Supra N.2, At 6; No Childhood Here, Supra N.2, At 1; See Also United 

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Transnational Organized Crime in Central America and 

the Caribbean: A Threat Assessment 9 (Sept. 2012). 5 Brian Resnick, Why 90,000 Children Flooding Our Borders is not an Immigration Story, 

Nat’l J., June 16, 2014, at 3, available at http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/why90-000-children-flooding-our-border-is-not-an-immigration-story-20140616. 6 Alex Nowrasteh, Unaccompanied Minors Crossing The Border—the Facts (Cato Institute, 

June 17, 2014), available at http://www.cato.org/blog/unaccompanied-minors-crossing-borderfacts. 7 Id. 

8 Hearing Before the Tex. H. Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety, 2014 Leg., 

84th Sess. Interim (July 1, 2014), available at http://tlchouse.granicus.com/ 

MediaPlayer.php?viewlid=28&cliplid=8468. 9 Id. 

10 Id. 11 Jim Darling, What’s Happening on the Border, STAR-TELEGRAM (July 2, 2014), available 

at http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/07/01/5943296/whats-happening-on-the-border.html. 

12 Id. 13Observation notes from Weslaco Centralized Processing Center and the Fort Brown Station, 

June 25, 2014 (on file with the ACLU of Texas). 14 8 U.S.C. § 1232 (2013). 15Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Meese, No. 85–4544–RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996) [hereinafter Settlement]. 16Memorandum of Understanding Re Compromise of Class Action: Conditions of Detention, 

Flores v. Meese, No. 85–4544–RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996) [hereinafter MOU]. 

home counties are bleak and dangerous.3 The Central American countries from 

which children are escaping have some of the highest homicide rates in the world, 

and children face gang violence and rampant crime.4 As a result of these conditions, 

asylum applications to neighboring counties other than the United States have increased 712%.5 At the same time, the number of Border Patrol Agents assigned to 

the Southwest Border is at an all-time high, while the number of apprehensions per 

agent has plummeted due in large part to an overall decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants crossing our border.6 On account of this, the Cato Institute 

concluded that it is ‘‘less likely that Border Patrol Agents on the border are actually 

overwhelmed.’’7 Contrary to popular rhetoric, our border is secure—there are plenty 

of agents on the ground to interdict people crossing illegally and to enforce immigration laws. 

Nor has the increased number of children crossing the border made our communities less safe. Elected leaders and law enforcement officials in the RGV have observed that cities along the border are safe and that there has been no increase in 

crime. For example, during a hearing before the Texas House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety earlier this week, McAllen chief of police Victor 

Rodriguez testified that his city has not seen an increase in crime or been adversely 

impacted in terms of criminal activity.8 Jim Darling, the mayor of McAllen, added 

that it is safer in McAllen than in Austin, and Representative Joseph Pickett noted 

that El Paso is the safest city in the United States.9 During the hearing, Dr. David 

Lakey, Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, also expressed his belief that the RGV is safe, noting that his son will soon be traveling 

to the RGV on a mission trip.10 In a recent op ed, Mayor Darling underscored that 

while in the midst of this humanitarian crisis, ‘‘McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley 

are not facing an ‘emergency.’ Our city of 140,000 is secure and going about its daily 

business of serving residents. Life in McAllen is business as usual.’’11 He noted that 

‘‘[t]here has been no uptick in criminal activity in our city, which is one of the safest 

of its size in Texas.’’12

Given these realities, more enforcement is not an appropriate response to the influx of children. Increasing yet again the number of law enforcement personnel patrolling border communities will only increase the potential for interactions that violate border residents’ Constitutional rights and degrade the quality of life for everyone at the border. As importantly, a law enforcement approach also diverts needed 

resources from a humanitarian response. 

CBP SHORT-TERM HOLDING CENTERS SHOULD BETTER ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF

CHILDREN

While the overcrowding of the CBP facilities we observed is due, according to Border Patrol, to other agencies’ inability to accommodate the increase in children,13

CBP must do more to ensure that children in its custody are held in appropriate 

conditions. Both the Trafficking Victims Protections Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)14

and the Flores v. Reno settlement agreement 15 and consent decree 16 create specific 
163 

17 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2). 18 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). 19Settlement, supra n.17, at 7. 20 Id. at 3. 21 Id. at 7. 22 Id. at 7–8. 23MOU, supra n.16, at 9. 24Observation notes, supra n.13. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 

legal requirements for the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children. These 

requirements establish both legal process to help children with possible immigration 

claims and also baseline standards for their treatment while their applications are 

pending. 

Under the TVPRA, children must be ‘‘placed in the least restrictive setting’’ that 

is in their best interest ‘‘absent a determination that the child poses a danger to 

self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense.’’17 It 

also requires that children be transferred to the custody of the Department of 

Health and Human Services within 72 hours except in exceptional circumstances.18

Flores v. Reno established minimum requirements for Government treatment of unaccompanied alien children 19 intended to ensure that CBP adheres to ‘‘generally accepted child welfare standards, practices, principles and procedures.’’20 Of particular 

relevance to the instant crisis, the Flores settlement requires that the government 

‘‘treat... all minors in its custody with dignity, respect, and special concern for 

their particular vulnerability as minors.’’21 Thus, detention facilities must provide 

access to basic needs such as ‘‘toilets and sinks, drinking water and food as appropriate, medical assistance[,]... adequate temperature control and ventilation, 

adequate supervision to protect minors from others, [] contact with family members 

who were arrested with the minor,’’22 and recreation activities appropriate for children.23

Border Patrol acknowledges that these centers are not meant to shelter children, 

and it is struggling to address their needs until it can transfer them to the care 

of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).24 The conditions we observed during 

our tour raised serious concerns about whether Border Patrol is complying with 

basic legal requirements that children not be held in prison-like conditions. 

The stark reality is that Border Patrol packs children as young as 5 or 6 into 

over-crowded cells that are bare except for a single open toilet and a large cooler 

of water.25 The agents who showed us the facilities acknowledged that the children 

are only allowed outside for approximately 20 minutes a day for recreation and exercise.26 Thus for more than 23 hours every day, the children are locked in cells in 

conditions that mirror the harshest deprivations imposed on the most dangerous 

criminals: they take their meals in the cell, sleep on the concrete floor of the cell, 

and use the open communal toilet in the cell.27 They have nothing to do to pass 

the time except to stare out of cell windows and at each other hour after hour. To 

make matters worse, children must endure these conditions for extended periods: 

Border Patrol stated during our tour that as few as 30% of the children in its custody are transferred within the 72 hours required by law because of the lack of 

space at ORR shelters.28

But conditions are not the only problem we observed. Despite strong evidence that 

the children in CBP custody may have legitimate claims to asylum or other factors 

that would entitle them to legal relief, we were unable to document compliance with 

TVPRA’s requirement that every child be screened to determine whether he or she 

is a victim of trafficking or a candidate for asylum. At best, CBP officers make a 

cursory inquiry that is inadequate to determine how the law should be applied; CBP 

officials told us that screening takes place ‘‘elsewhere,’’29 but we have been unable 

to confirm that assertion. 

As Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged, the 

children in CBP’s custody have already been victimized: 

‘‘It is dangerous to send a child on the long journey from Central America to the 

United States. The criminal smuggling networks that you pay to deliver your child 

to the United States have no regard for his or her safety and well-being—to them, 

your child is a commodity to be exchanged for a payment. In the hands of smugglers, many children are traumatized and psychologically abused by their journey, 
164 

30 An Open Letter to the Parents of Children Crossing Our Southwest Border, Jeh C. Johnson, 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (June 23, 2014) available at http:// 

www.dhs.gov/news/2014/06/23/open-letter-parents-children-crossing-our-southwest-border. 

or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted or sold into the sex trade; they are exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of criminals.’’30

We acknowledge that some are calling for the immediate repatriation of these 

children, without due process of law, to alleviate the crowded conditions in detention 

facilities. But to return the children to their home countries without adequately assessing their needs would be unconscionable. These children deserve the full protections of U.S. and international law, including asylum if they seek it and counsel if 

they are placed in deportation proceedings. 

CONCLUSION

Americans may not agree about what is driving this influx of unaccompanied children to the U.S. border, but we can all agree that America cannot imprison children 

in such appalling conditions and deprive them of the protections of law. As Americans, we have a legal and moral duty to treat the children apprehended at our border humanely and to provide them with due process. We therefore urge you to provide CBP and other Government agencies in whose custody unaccompanied children 

are placed with additional resources needed to meet the basic human needs of children and to give them the process required by law. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And a letter from the President of the United 

States dated June 30, 2014 asking for the $2 billion, including resources for all of you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT—EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE HUMANITARIAN SITUATION

IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY AREAS OF OUR NATION’S SOUTHWEST BORDER

THE WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY, JUNE 30, 2014. 

For Immediate Release 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: [SENATOR REID:] [SENATOR MCCONNELL:] [REPRESENTATIVE

PELOSI:] I am writing to update you on my Administration’s efforts to address the 

urgent humanitarian situation in the Rı ́o Grande Valley areas of our Nation’s 

Southwest border, and to request that the Congress support the new tools and resources we need to implement a unified, comprehensive Federal Government response. 

While overall apprehensions across our entire border have only slightly increased 

during this time period and remain at near historic lows, we have seen a significant 

rise in apprehensions and processing of children and individuals from Central America who are crossing into the United States in the Rı ́o Grande Valley areas of the 

Southwest Border. The individuals who embark upon this perilous journey are subject to violent crime, abuse, and extortion as they rely on dangerous human smuggling networks to transport them through Central America and Mexico. 

My Administration continues to address this urgent humanitarian situation with 

an aggressive, unified, and coordinated Federal response on both sides of the border. 

Earlier this month, I directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate this Government-wide response. This includes fulfilling our legal and moral obligation to make sure we appropriately care for unaccompanied children who are apprehended, while taking aggressive steps to surge resources to our Southwest border to deter both adults and 

children from this dangerous journey, increase capacity for enforcement and removal 

proceedings, and quickly return unlawful migrants to their home countries. 

Specifically, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS are deploying additional 

enforcement resources—including immigration judges, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement attorneys, and asylum officers—to focus on individuals and adults 

traveling with children from Central America and entering without authorization 

across the Southwest border. Part of this surge will include detention of adults traveling with children, as well as expanded use of the Alternatives to Detention program, to avoid a more significant humanitarian situation. The DHS is working to 

secure additional space that satisfies applicable legal and humanitarian standards 
165 

for detention of adults with children. This surge of resources will mean that cases 

are processed fairly and as quickly as possible, ensuring the protection of asylum 

seekers and refugees while enabling the prompt removal of individuals who do not 

qualify for asylum or other forms of relief from removal. Finally, to attack the criminal organizations and smuggling rings that are exploiting these individuals, we are 

surging law enforcement task forces in cooperation with our international partners, 

with a focus on stepped-up interdiction and prosecution. 

To address the root causes of migration and stem the flow of adults and unaccompanied children into the United States, we are also working closely with our Mexican and Central American partners. Two weeks ago, at my direction, the Vice President convened leaders from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as well as Mexico, to discuss our shared responsibility for promoting security, and agree on concrete ways that we can work together to stem the flow of migrants taking the dangerous trip to the United States. These countries committed to working together and 

with the United States to address the immediate humanitarian crisis as well as the 

long-term challenges. On Tuesday, Secretary Kerry will meet with the leaders of El 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to follow up on the items agreed to in the Vice 

President’s trip, and next week, Secretary Johnson will travel to Guatemala. I also 

spoke with Mexican President Enrique Pen ̃ a Nieto about our shared responsibility 

to promote security in both our countries and the region. As part of this effort, the 

United States committed foreign assistance resources to improve capacity of these 

countries to receive and reintegrate returned individuals and address the underlying security and economic issues that cause migration. This funding will enable 

El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to improve their existing repatriation processes and increase the capacity of these governments and nongovernmental organizations to provide expanded services to returned migrants. Additional resources will 

support community policing and law enforcement efforts to combat gang violence 

and strengthen citizen security in some of the most violent communities in these 

countries. 

Finally, we are working with our Central American partners, nongovernmental 

organizations, and other influential voices to send a clear message to potential migrants so that they understand the significant dangers of this journey and what 

they will experience in the United States. These public information campaigns make 

clear that recently arriving individuals and children will be placed into removal proceedings, and are not eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals process 

and earned citizenship provisions that are part of comprehensive immigration reform currently under consideration in the Congress. The Vice President made this 

clear in his public and private events on June 20, I addressed this last week in an 

interview, and we will continue to use multiple channels to counteract the misinformation that is being spread by smugglers. 

While we are working across all of these channels, to execute a fully effective Government-wide strategy as the influx of migrants continues, we are eager to work 

with the Congress to ensure that we have the legal authorities to maximize the impact of our efforts. Initially, we believe this may include: 

• providing the DHS Secretary additional authority to exercise discretion in processing the return and removal of unaccompanied minor children from non-contiguous countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador; and 

• increasing penalties for those who smuggle vulnerable migrants, like children. 

In addition, we will request congressional action on emergency supplemental appropriations legislation to support: 

• an aggressive deterrence strategy focused on the removal and repatriation of recent border crossers; 

• a sustained border security surge through enhanced domestic enforcement, including interdiction and prosecution of criminal networks; 

• a significant increase in immigration judges, reassigning them to adjudicate 

cases of recent border crossers, and establishing corresponding facilities to expedite the processing of cases involving those who crossed the border in recent 

weeks; 

• a stepped-up effort to work with our Central American partners to repatriate 

and reintegrate migrants returned to their countries, address the root causes 

of migration, and communicate the realities of these dangerous journeys; and 

• the resources necessary to appropriately detain, process, and care for children 

and adults. 

My Administration will be submitting a formal detailed request when the Congress returns from recess, and I look forward to working with you to address this 

urgent situation as expeditiously as possible. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 
166 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But, Judge Garcia, I heard you say something 

about policy. Thank you for saying that these children are no 

threat, but we don’t want them to be in danger, to be trafficked. 

But you did say a policy question. Do you think we should pass 

comprehensive immigration reform along with strong border security? 

Judge GARCIA. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would that help this region, and maybe the 

Nation as well? 

Judge GARCIA. It certainly would help. You need to look at every 

one of these aspects, whether you try to stop drugs from coming in 

or terrorists coming in, or the undocumented Central American 

children. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would conclude with the Bishop. Would you 

please just emphasize in your interactions in that delegation to 

Central America the extent—we see poverty in the United States— 

but the extent of devastation that would drive children, or parents 

most of all, to send a 2-year-old in a diaper to wind up in a detention center here in this region? Would you just speak to that? 

Bishop SEITZ. To our experience of poverty, this is not on the 

same level. It is better perhaps to call it misery. I saw many malnourished people there. I have gone with medical missions. However, let me say I believe that the violence today is really even a 

greater cause for the departures than the misery that they experience. It is the pervasive violence, which again is difficult for us to 

get our heads around. It is like living in a war zone. They are fleeing for their lives, and there is my concern about buttoning up the 

border. Then where do they go? 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentle lady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you, Bishop, for your work. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Dr. Broun is recognized. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up, Director Oaks, on what Ms. Jackson Lee was 

asking, because it sounded as if she was heading towards that the 

drug cartels and all the crime, et cetera, that you are trying to 

combat is being controlled at levels prior to this influx of these unaccompanied alien children. But is that factual? Because it seems 

to me it is the drug cartels that are utilizing these kids just as a 

commodity, as we have already heard in testimony, that they have 

a purpose beyond just the money that they receive. 

When you are overwhelmed by all these kids, isn’t it true that 

you continue to—I know you are continuing to try to combat the 

criminal element, and Colonel McCraw is doing the same thing. 

But doesn’t this also tax your ability to combat the criminal element? 

Mr. OAKS. Well, certainly the influx of the family units and the 

unaccompanied children has taxed my forces. But like I mentioned 

before, with the additional support that we get from State and 

local, and the additional resources that we have brought in, we 

have been able to rebalance and adjust and have been able to take 

that administrative operation out and still focus on the border security mission, which is our primary mission, and we have used resources and redirected it to accommodate what we are trying to accomplish on the border. As far as I am concerned, I think the 
167 

agents are doing a pretty good job out there of taking care of what 

they need without diminishing the operation. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, the cartels are using these just as a moneymaking factor for them, plus they are continuing their criminal activities, not only in Mexico but in the United States. I know that 

you are trying to interdict all those drugs, and Colonel McCraw has 

been on the front lines. But the Governor just said that we need 

to give you some more help, and I believe that if we don’t stop this 

flood of these children, it breaks everybody’s heart, and the families 

not only in their original countries but also family members that 

may be in this country that are funding their coming here, et 

cetera, by stopping the magnet of the United States and going back 

to law and order is going to be the best way to keep these kids safe, 

to keep America safe, and be able to do what you all need to do 

to stop the criminal element. Would you agree with that, Colonel? 

Mr. MCCRAW. We weren’t happy with the level of security prior 

to this influx. The consequences of this is not—because this is just 

recent as it relates to this, and it is tragic, there is no doubt. We 

are certainly not—we are certainly concerned about those children 

coming up here, and certainly their trek across Mexico. But we 

weren’t happy with the levels of security, how much drugs and 

other crime and transnational criminals, including criminal aliens. 

Since 2008, we can document over 200,000 criminal aliens booked 

into Texas jails for non-immigration offenses, including over 3,000 

murders, 7,000 sexual assaults. So we weren’t happy with the level 

of security prior to this particular instance to begin with. 

But there is no question that if properly resourced, the Border 

Patrol can get this thing done. Until that time, the Sheriff and myself and Texas Border Patrol are going to do what we can to help 

them to support it because it is too important to Texas. 

Mr. BROUN. We must secure the border, Mr. Chairman. My time 

has expired. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vela. 

Mr. VELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say that with your leadership and that of Ranking 

Member Thompson, it has been over a year since this committee 

passed a bipartisan, unanimous border security bill that the White 

House signed back then. So I am hopeful that when we get back, 

that House leadership will bring that to the Floor so that we can 

vote on that. 

A comment also with respect to border security and pathway to 

citizenship. I assume that when we talk about border security, that 

we are talking about a process to ensure that people don’t come 

over here illegally. When we talk about a pathway to citizenship, 

in my view we are talking about the 11 million people who are already here. I think those two things should be addressed separately. In other words, I do not think that our work on immigration 

reform should be conditioned upon border security. 

I do see a common thread amongst all this debate, and that is 

that this is not just a border problem. With respect to the cartels, 

whether they be in Central America, Mexico, here in our region, or 

in the 1,000 cities across this Nation that have cartel presence, 

that is a National issue, not just a border issue. 
168 

The same with respect to the undocumented workers in every 

State in this union. The statistics show in the State of Georgia, for 

example, 500,000 people in the labor force. These are issues that 

are not just privy to us here on the border, but they are issues important to everyone else. 

Some quick questions, Chief. You mentioned the other day when 

we met with you that in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, you currently have 3,200 agents and that it would help for you to get 600 

more. Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. OAKS. Yes, sir. So, my deputy, Raul Ortiz, and I, when we 

got here, we did a complete operational assessment of our area of 

operations to determine what resources we needed in the future to 

sustain current levels and trending levels of enforcement activity 

for the next 3 to 5 years, and our determination was looking at additional technologies, some infrastructure, building a new station in 

Roma, Texas, and adding between 400 and 600 new agents, preferably agents that are already seasoned. With the help of Congress 

funding their transfers, they could be immediately readdressed to 

the Rio Grande Valley so we could have a pretty good handle on 

this situation and then control border security, because border security is the No. 1 aspect of what my job is, irrespective of all the 

other things that we have been talking about. 

Mr. VELA. I have a lot of other questions which I will submit to 

the Secretary. 

I noticed on your fact sheet that you had 3,200 agents but about 

120 support personnel, or something like that, maybe a little more. 

My view of the situation on the ground at both McAllen and 

Brownsville detention centers was that, from the standpoint of 

processing these individuals while they are in your custody, you 

could at least temporarily use a whole lot more support from the 

processing standpoint. 

Mr. OAKS. Temporarily and permanently. The good generals behind me could attest to the fact that in-theater during wartime, it 

takes oftentimes two, three, four support personnel to support each 

war fighter, and I think a similar construct for the Border Patrol 

is required for the future in terms of our professional staff and our 

mission support staff who behind the scenes do the majority of the 

work. So that civilian support staff, hiring more of those to support 

my agents would relieve my agents from some of the duties they 

are doing and redirect them down to the border. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When we talk about pathway to citizenship, I believe it is not 

only about the 11 million that are here. I am worried about the 11 

million more that will come because of that. 

We spent a lot of time today talking about solutions to the problem. There is currently an American military man sitting in a 

Mexican prison for illegally crossing the border, and I can’t help 

but looking at this picture, it certainly doesn’t seem like these people were very hard to find coming through Mexico illegally. 

My questions, Mr. Oaks, when CBP agents interviewed these minors, do they ask whether the Mexican government has done anything to facilitate their entry into the United States? Do we know 
169 

to what extent Mexican officials are assisting in the migration of 

unlawful immigrants across their borders and into ours, or if they 

are doing anything at all to stop it? Why is this only America’s 

problem? 

Mr. OAKS. Absolutely. In terms of our intelligence collection efforts, we have an intelligence collection plan that we use in terms 

of family units to specifically target illicit information, how they got 

here, where they are going. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Do we believe the Mexican government is facilitating this at all? This doesn’t seem like it would be hard to stop. 

If one man can’t cross the border from America, how could 50,000 

children cross the Mexican land undetected? 

Mr. OAKS. I would concur with that. There is some complicity 

that you will find in Mexico and Central America. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But this all becomes America’s problem. Why 

aren’t we going to the root of the problem? How are these kids getting here, and where is their responsibility that this now becomes 

America’s problem? 

Mr. OAKS. Right, I understand that. In terms of our diplomatic 

efforts, I think we are doing a pretty good job of interacting with 

Mexico and Central America in terms of describing the requirements about sovereignty issues on the border with Mexico and 

Guatemala, which is less than 300 miles with infrastructure and 

proper hardening of the ports and a more coherent immigration 

plan than Mexico would have. You would alleviate the stress of 

some of that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. It seems like this wouldn’t be a problem if they 

didn’t get from Guatemala to Mexico. 

Mr. OAKS. The same with Honduras to Guatemala as well. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So we are worried about how many miles of 

American border, but yet there is a much smaller border down 

where this problem is being created, and these poor children’s lives 

are being threatened. I think we need to also point the finger 

where the finger needs to be pointed. 

Thank you. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman. 

I also want to thank my colleague from Texas, Mr. Vela. He 

called me about 5 days ago and said, ‘‘Eric, we’ve got this crisis 

down on the border and we’re having this hearing, and would you 

come down?’’ I didn’t hesitate because I know that he would come 

down to California if I asked, and I am happy to do what I can to 

help. 

It is a horrible situation, and it is one that breaks your heart 

when you see the children. It is clearly breaking the wallets of the 

Federal Government and the people of Texas. But the one silver 

lining that I found in this is just watching the way, Mr. Oaks, that 

your agents treat these children and families with such dignity and 

humanity. They really do everything they can to accommodate 

these individuals and make them feel like they are at home under 

very harsh conditions. So I want to thank you for doing that because it is not easy. 

Just a couple of questions under limited time. 
170 

Would you agree, Mr. Oaks, with Governor Perry or disagree 

that the border is not secure? Because what I heard this morning 

is that these children are running into the arms of the border 

agents, not away from them. 

Mr. OAKS. So at least they are not getting away and we can address their issues, because children are about the last innocent 

population on this planet, and what they have to endure to get 

here is something that is almost indescribable. I think the good 

bishop described it better than I have ever heard it, and it is our 

obligation in terms of border security to treat everybody equally irrespective of if they are children or family units. But everybody 

who comes into the custody of all law enforcement, no matter what 

crimes they have committed, as civil servants and servants of the 

public it is our obligation to serve those people and do whatever we 

can to make them as comfortable as we can until they are addressed in the appropriate manner, whether it is criminal, administrative, or some sort of deportation. 

Mr. SWALWELL. With respect to the 72-hour requirement, what 

can we do as a body to give you the resources you need to make 

sure that you meet that 72-hour requirement so that children are 

not staying there beyond that period? Because your facilities, as we 

saw today, are not designed to be detention facilities. So what can 

we do immediately and in the long term if this crisis continues? 

Mr. OAKS. So on Monday, Secretary Johnson and Secretary 

Burwell, who is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I 

spoke directly to them and said the resources should be directed to 

Health and Human Services and Office of Refugee Resettlement in 

order to get them the ability, the funding, because they do a lot of 

grant funding, to get the bed space, to get the children out of our 

custody and into the appropriate accommodations as soon as possible so we can meet that 72-hour deadline. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Oaks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Ms. Granger from Texas. 

Ms. GRANGER. While we can’t apprehend those, also on another 

trip to the border earlier in the week I saw from the bus station 

that they were waiting and they were filling these buses with these 

children that were coming in, I mean just packing them in, and as 

the buses were leaving just hour after hour. I have been on the border with night vision glasses to see what we have to do, and the 

fact that oftentimes you can see people coming across the border 

but you can’t get to them because we don’t have an easy way to 

do that. But a stacked bus full of children or something like this, 

it seems like that could be stopped. 

My question is to the Bishop. My question is: Where is the 

Church in the countries where these children are leaving because 

they are afraid they will be forced into gangs or murdered? How 

active is the Church on trying to fight back on this? 

Bishop SEITZ. Well, I think the Church is very active, and we 

have been working—the Church from those countries is doing the 

best that it can. It has many good youth programs and tries to support them. They are very active. They are not the kind of church 

just to stay within the walls of the church. We also have Catholic 
171 

Relief Services that have a presence there. The Church on a broader scale, its charitable organization is working. 

But this is a big problem. This is a big problem that these nations themselves are finding themselves impotent to respond to. 

The Church, with her much fewer resources, is limited. As I mentioned last night, if your house is on fire, you can tell the people 

in the house to stay put as long as you want, but eventually they 

are going to jump, they are going to leave, and they are going to 

go wherever they can go. 

There is a 412 percent increase of asylum claims in the countries 

surrounding these three nations, including Nicaragua, which is 

poorer. So I think that is what we need to look to as the source, 

and ultimately we need to do something about the violence there. 

We need to support those countries and assist in those projects 

however we can. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Olson from Texas. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chairman. 

I was with the Chairman this morning at the detention service 

Mr. Oaks had and was there when we saw this grandmother who 

brought her three grandkids across the border, paid $7,500, so 

$20,000 to get those kids across the border. The boat flipped coming across the river. They nearly died. They were crying, crying, 

crying because they got here and they didn’t know why they almost 

died and what their future is. 

But kind of perversely, in stark contrast, walking through these 

big detention centers with the teenagers, man, smiling at us, waving, happy, like they are proud, ‘‘I came here illegally, I am going 

to stay here.’’ We are sending some mixed messages across the border. 

My first question is for you, Bishop Seitz. You have been to Guatemala and you have been to El Salvador and Honduras. You have 

seen the violence there, the oppression upon the people there, why 

they are coming here. As we all know, there are two countries on 

Mexico’s southern border, Guatemala and Belize. Belize doesn’t 

have these problems. Any idea why that is? I mean, I know they 

have the beaches, but can’t Belize be a model? 

Bishop SEITZ. Yes. I wonder if Belize couldn’t be a model, and 

Nicaragua also, which as I mentioned is even poorer. So that is 

what leads me to think that it is the violence in these places that 

is causing it, and we may be able to see some solutions based upon 

how these other countries have dealt with their people. 

Mr. OLSON. It wasn’t crossed over to Belize. They are right there. 

The cartels have said, no, we will leave Belize alone, we are happy 

with the countries we have. Why don’t they go over there? 

Bishop SEITZ. They are going there. That is what I was just saying. There is an increase in asylum claims. By the way, the United 

Nations did a study talking to 400 of these migrants. They felt that 

58 percent had legitimate asylum claims. 

So I think, rather than looking at this as an immigration crisis, 

we should look at it as a regional refugee crisis. 

Mr. OLSON. A question for you, Mr. Oaks. I was there again this 

morning. I was kind of stunned to learn that your hands are tied 

behind your back by different parts of our Government restricting 
172 

your operations. For example, you want to build a road down the 

river, right down the river, follow the river, because right now all 

we can patrol is on two major highways. If I get this right, you are 

not talking about a four-lane freeway made of concrete and asphalt. 

You are just talking about some little dirt trails for ATVs to drive 

on so you guys can pursue these people right before they come 

across the border, because once they get across, they get in that 

deep brush, you guys either can’t get them on the road or you go 

in that brush and maybe expose yourself to great harm. 

So what would you want? What does that road look like? 

Mr. OAKS. The protected areas along the Rio Grande River here 

in Texas and the reserve areas have been problematic in terms of 

lateral access up and down that area of operation. As a Federal 

Government, we have to respect the laws of the State of Texas and 

the environment, and we changed some of our tactics and deployed 

men and women on bicycles and horseback to leave a limited footprint in terms of the environment. 

I know the Secretary does have waiver authority to address 

those, and we have dealt with some property issues in the past in 

Texas that have been a little problematic. So I think it takes working with the community and the State of Texas and our environmental folks and us to take a look at what we can really do to have 

a limited impact on the environment but give access to my agents 

to those areas so we can better patrol the border. 

Mr. OLSON. It is common sense a bike path works, a wide bike 

path. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mrs. Renee Ellmers. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, all of you, for being with us today and talking about 

these very, very difficult issues. For those of you in law enforcement, you are doing a fabulous job. I can’t imagine what you see 

on a daily basis and what you have to deal with, and yet you have 

to have the clarity of mind to be able to deal with these situations. 

So, thank you. 

Judge Garcia, thank you so much. You have displayed so much 

to us the need for the reforms that we have got to put in place because we are a Nation of laws and we need to deal with these 

issues. Yet, the question of the humanity, the human rights, the 

violations that are being committed, especially when we are talking 

about these children. I, too, was very moved this morning being at 

the detention center, especially seeing the age of those babies in 

their mothers’ arms. 

As a mother, I think to myself how could I make that choice if 

I am in one of those countries or a family member that I would put 

them in that situation where we know that there is going to be violence, we know that there is probably going to be sexual trafficking 

and human trafficking, to make that ‘‘Sophie’s Choice,’’ essentially, 

knowing that you are trying to better your child’s life? 

The part that I struggle with here is that I have to, as a legislator, as all of my colleagues do, we have to be able to reach out 

to those countries, and we have to find funding to be able to address these issues. 
173 

Bishop Seitz, how can we do this, be efficient about it, address 

the problem, and help our constituents understand how important 

this is so that we end this problem? 

Bishop SEITZ. Well, it is very challenging, and as many have 

said, it is a very complex issue. There is not a simple solution or 

perhaps we would have come up with it already. 

But I really think we need to pay more attention to the root 

causes. We need to deal short-term and make sure that we are caring compassionately for these children. We are held to that standard by our own laws, by international laws, and we are setting an 

example for the rest of the world one way or the other who have 

accepted far more refugees with far fewer resources. Consider, for 

instance, the 1 million refugees—there are really more—in Lebanon from Syria. What are we telling them if we can’t deal with 

this number of children refugees? 

I think we really do have to look at—you know, some people said 

we haven’t paid attention to this region of Central America for a 

long time. Our eyes have been elsewhere. We need to look to it. 

Again, there are endemic problems. There is corruption. There are 

economic problems. There are things that, in some ways, we have 

to ask ourselves, a little examination of conscience, what have we 

done to contribute to it by purchasing the drugs? What have we 

done perhaps inadvertently that has affected their economy? 

Things like that we need to look at. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

Chief Oaks, I have repeatedly said and firmly believe border security is critical to our National security and even our sovereignty. 

I have also said I believe we can pass immigration reform in the 

House once the border is secure. 

You are king for a day. Give me in 30 seconds what you would 

do to fix the problem. 

Mr. OAKS. So, any policy, any rule of law, regulation that helps 

support my people and helps us continue and do a better job of border security I am in favor of. That is what I would do. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Do you have anything a little more specific 

than that? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OAKS. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thanks. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Since we are in Texas, I do want to hear from 

our director of DPS. What would you say to parents here in the 

United States that are thinking about sending for their kids that 

are in one of these Central American countries, or even the parents 

or grandparents or whoever is taking care of these children in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador? If you did a 30-second PSA, what 

would you say to them? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Don’t come. Bottom line. The same thing we tell 

parents in Texas when their kids are planning on vacationing for 

spring break. Mexico is not the place to go right now. The bottom 

line is we are dealing with cartels. The same cartels that are caus-
174 

ing the problems in Mexico are causing the problems in Guatemala. 

It is the Zetas, okay? Working with MS–13 in El Salvador. That 

is another transnational gang. So the bottom line is, don’t do it. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I think if a parent in the United States or 

Texas did this, they should be visited by the Department of Child 

Protective Services, it is so dangerous. 

Mr. Oaks, do you have anything that you would add to that PSA? 

Mr. OAKS. If you took a look at the broader picture, Canada, the 

United States, Mexico, and Central America, working together can 

solve a lot of these issues as far as I am concerned, in terms of all 

the things that we have been talking about, politics, policy, all the 

things, working together to protect the sovereignty of each one of 

those nations. You are looking at trade and travel, looking at building the economy and furthering educational benefits for all people 

to bring that level—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I have one more question, Director McCraw. 

Are these kids—there are other parts to it. These cartels have got 

these kids they are bringing in for money. Are they being used as 

a distraction to flood, say, the Border Patrol and bring in drugs or 

maybe more high-risk folks? 

Mr. MCCRAW. I don’t think there is an overarching plan. I think 

they are exploiting the situation. They are getting the money on 

one side, the revenue from the smuggling, and also it does tie up 

Border Patrol resources. So it is kind of a win-win for them and 

they are just exploiting it. I think that is what we are seeing right 

now. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. My concern, of course, is that kids are being 

exploited both by the cartels and, I am afraid, to some degree by 

the political process in this country. We can certainly do something 

about one part of that. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I just want to thank the witnesses. It has 

been a very productive discussion, a productive hearing, very insightful from all of the witnesses. 

This will be made a part of the Speaker’s Working Group, which 

will then be forwarded to our House leadership for workable solutions to the crisis that we face here today. 

So, with that, thanks for being here. 

The Ranking Member has a question. 

We have a flight to catch. Make it quick. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to add my appreciation to all the Members who have come to South Texas and all the witnesses, and I 

want to reemphasize that National security is always a priority for 

all Members of Congress, but we also have the understanding that 

we can balance that with the protection of these unaccompanied 

children, innocent, and we can bring the resources here to bring 

about solutions that you have asked us for. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The committee stands adjourned. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(175) 

1 U.N. General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, UNTS 

vol. 189, p. 137 [hereinafter ‘‘Refugee Convention’’]. 

A P P E N D I X 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER

JULY 3, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the Homeland 

Security Committee: During the past few years, the United States has experienced 

a steady increase in arrivals of unaccompanied immigrant children at the Southern 

Border, primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The U.S. Government, other governments in the region, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 

and inter-governmental organizations are trying to understand why these children 

are coming and how to respond, process, and care for them upon arrival in the 

United States. As a National leader in immigration law and policy, Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) appreciates the opportunity to 

submit testimony for today’s hearing on these complex issues. We offer this statement to articulate the urgent need to treat unaccompanied immigrant children as 

children first and foremost, and to ensure that they receive due process to address 

protection concerns. 

NIJC is an NGO dedicated to safeguarding the rights of noncitizens. With offices 

in Chicago, Indiana, and Washington, DC, NIJC advocates for immigrants, refugees, 

asylum seekers, and survivors of human trafficking through direct legal representation, policy reform, impact litigation, and public education. NIJC and its network 

of 1,500 pro bono attorneys provide legal representation to approximately 10,000 

noncitizens annually, including thousands of unaccompanied children. NIJC is the 

largest legal service provider for unaccompanied children detained in Illinois, conducting weekly legal screenings and legal rights presentations, which provide an 

overview of the child’s legal rights and responsibilities in the immigration system, 

at nine Chicago-area shelters. 

NIJC has played a major role in advocating for reform of the immigration system, 

especially related to unaccompanied children and asylum seekers. NIJC co-convenes 

the Migrant Children’s Defense Collaborative for legal service providers; actively 

participates in the Interagency Working Group on Unaccompanied Children, a periodic meeting of Government agencies and NGOs; and, as part of Heartland Alliance, 

serves as the NGO co-chair of the U.S.-Mexico-Central America Working Committee 

on Unaccompanied Children, a gathering of legislators, policy makers, and advocates from the United States, Mexico, and Central America. In addition to its expertise regarding unaccompanied children, NIJC was a founding member of the ‘‘Asylum Litigation Working Group’’ and regularly participates in separate discussions 

of the ‘‘Asylum Working Group;’’ together, the groups focus on monitoring developments in and implementation of laws and policies that impact asylum seekers. 

NIJC’s years of experience advocating on behalf of children and asylum seekers, 

from both policy and direct services perspectives, and collaborating with colleagues 

domestically and internationally, gives it a unique perspective on the immigration 

system and its relationship to U.S. obligations under domestic and international 

laws. 

The United States has a proud legacy of protecting people who have been persecuted. This country is a beacon of hope for people fleeing oppression and is a leading defender of human rights. The primary vehicles through which nation-states assumed legal duties towards refugees are the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status 

of Refugees (Refugee Convention) 1 and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of 
176 

2 U.N. General Assembly, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 January 1967, UNTS 

vol. 606, p. 267 [hereinafter ‘‘Refugee Protocol’’]. 3 ‘‘No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever 

to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his 

race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’’ Refugee 

Convention, art. 33–1, 189 UNTS 150. 4 Although the United States did not sign the Refugee Convention, the Refugee Protocol includes by reference the rights and duties set forth in the Convention. Refugee Protocol, art. 2 

(‘‘The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to apply Articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the 

Convention to Refugees as hereinafter defined.’’) The Refugee Protocol expanded these rights 

and duties to all refugees, whereas the Refugee Convention only applied to those displaced by 

the Second World War and its aftermath. 5 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 433 (1987) (citing ‘‘the abundant evidence of an intent 

to conform the definition of ‘refugee’ and our asylum law to the United Nation’s Protocol to 

which the United States has been bound since 1968’’). 6See e.g., Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)/Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), 

A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System, available at: 

http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL2.pdf; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Mission to Central America: The Flight of 

Unaccompanied Children to the United States, 2014, available at: http://www.usccb.org/about/ 

migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf; Women’s Refugee Commission, Forced from Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America, 2012, available at: http:// 

womensrefugeecommission.org/forced-from-home-press-kit. 7 Available at: https://immigrantjustice.org/publications/policy-brief-unaccompanied-immigrant-children-vulnerable-children-face-insurmountable-o#.Uvqm723ehmc. 

Refugees (Refugee Protocol).2 These documents require nation-states to recognize as 

refugees anyone with a ‘‘well-founded fear’’ of persecution in their home countries, 

to accord refugees certain legal rights, and to refrain from returning them to countries where their safety would be threatened.3 The United States ratified the Refugee Protocol 4 and in 1980, the United States enacted the Refugee Act to ensure 

compliance.5 Since the Refugee Act was passed, legal protections for refugees in the 

United States have been significantly weakened. Today, NIJC is extremely concerned that the protection needs of immigrant children, families, and others seeking 

asylum from Central America, as well as the push factors driving their flight, are 

being overlooked. In a misguided effort to attribute increased migration from Central America to a shift in U.S. immigration enforcement policies, the genuine violence and persecution from which these individuals flee has been ignored. 

This testimony provides a brief assessment of the current influx of unaccompanied 

immigrant children from Central America and provides recommendations to ensure 

that children are provided due process protections that address their best interests 

and ensure they are not returned to face persecution, violence, or other forms of serious harm. 

I. FORCED MIGRATION: UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN FLEE INCREASING VIOLENCE AND

DANGER IN CENTRAL AMERICA

While various individual factors are causing children to undertake a treacherous 

journey to the United States, growing violence and danger in their home countries 

is the primary reason the majority of the children are fleeing to the United States 

today. Most unaccompanied children apprehended at the border are from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (See Fig. 1), and several reports,6 including 

NIJC’s January 2014 policy brief,7 have established that the majority of unaccompanied children flee these three countries due to pervasive violence, persecution, 

and abuse. Family reunification may play a role in the timing of a child’s decision 

to migrate to the United States and to flee to the United States rather than another 

country; however, it is rarely the sole reason for a child’s flight. 
177 

8 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children on the Run, 2014, 

available at: http://www.unhcrwashington.org/sites/default/files/UAClUNHCRlChildren%20on%20the%20RunlFull%20Report.pdf, p. 4. 9William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 

2008, (Pub. L. 110–457), § 235(c)(2). 10 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children on the Run, 2014, 

available at: http://www.unhcrwashington.org/children/reports, p. 4. 11 UNHCR, 2014. 

The United States is not the only country experiencing a dramatic increase in asylum seekers from Central America due to this violence. Together, Mexico, Panama, 

Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize reported a 432 percent increase in the number 

of asylum applications filed by individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in 2012.8 These numbers demonstrate that the current crisis is a regional 

problem caused by country conditions in the sending countries, rather than a perceived change in immigration policies in the United States. 

Finally, rumors of broken borders or lax U.S. immigration policy are not the primary cause for the current influx. Since 2008, U.S. law has required that unaccompanied immigrant children be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their 

best interest.9 Moreover, the increase in the migration of unaccompanied immigrant 

children to the United States began in October 2011, more than 6 months prior to 

the announcement of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA) program.10 If a perceived change in immigration policy was fueling the current migration, there would be comparable numbers of immigrant children from 

other regional countries besides El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but this 

has not been the case.11

Violence in the home countries and the failure of U.S. immigration policy to provide any other option for immigrant families in the United States to provide safety 

for their children is forcing children and their families to make the dangerous journey to the United States. The story of Jessica and Daniel (pseudonyms), NIJC’s clients, illustrates the danger facing these children: 

‘‘In 2013, Jessica, a young woman from Honduras, fled to the United States when 

she was 17 to seek protection. Throughout her childhood, her father regularly molested and raped her, and abused her mother. When Jessica was 10 years old, her 

mother went to the United States with her father to try to provide a better life for 

Jessica and her brother, but her parents separated when her father continued to 

abuse her mother. In 2012, a gang kidnapped Jessica and attempted to traffic her 

into prostitution. Jessica escaped but after she reported the gang to the police, the 

gang began targeting her. In early 2013, the gang grabbed her while she was walking to her home, burnt her with cigarettes and raped her. As a result of the rapes 

and abuse, Jessica began to cut herself and became suicidal. She fled to the United 

States to find safety and reunite with her mother. She now sees a therapist and 

is seeking asylum. 
178 

12 UNHCR 2014 and Byrne, O. & E. Miller, The Flow of Unaccompanied Children Through 

the Immigration System: A Resource for Practitioners, Policy Makers, and Researchers, Vera Institute of Justice, Mar. 2012, available at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/ 

downloads/the-flow-of-unaccompanied-children-through-the-immigration-system.pdf. 13 Ramji-Nogales, Jaya, et. al,. ‘‘Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication,’’ Stanford Law Review, Vol. 60, Issue 2, p. 340, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ 

papers.cfm?abstractlid=983946. 

‘‘Sixteen-year-old Daniel lived with his mother in El Salvador in an area controlled 

by the MS–13 gang. In order to get to school, Daniel had to cross into a rival gang’s 

territory, causing each gang to believe he was a member of the other gang. Gang 

members repeatedly threatened him with a gun and machetes for being in their territory. After they threatened him for the third time, Daniel stopped going to school 

out of fear for his life. When his mother learned of the threats, she told his father, 

who lived in Texas. They made the difficult decision that Daniel needed to go to 

the United States for his safety. NIJC interviewed Daniel at a Chicago-area children’s shelter before he was reunited with his father in Texas and determined he 

was eligible to apply for asylum. Daniel hopes to continue his studies without the 

threat of gang retaliation.’’ 

Daniel and Jessica are two of many children who may be eligible for legal protections in the United States. The Vera Institute and the U.N. High Commissioner for 

Refugees (UNHCR) have determined that between 40 percent and 58 percent of the 

unaccompanied children currently fleeing to the United States from Central America and Mexico may be eligible for some form of protection.12

Unaccompanied children face insurmountable challenges in pursuing legal protections in the United States. Like all immigrants, children in the immigration system 

do not receive Government-appointed counsel. Without an attorney, unaccompanied 

children struggle to navigate the complicated U.S. immigration system alone and experience a denial of due process. 

The U.S. asylum system is complex and a successful asylum application requires 

considerable resources. An asylum seeker must gather country condition reports, 

primary documentary evidence, affidavits from witnesses in their home country, and 

medical and psychological evaluations. The same holds true for those compiling documentation to support applications for U visas for survivors of crime, T visas for 

survivors of trafficking, and petitions for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) 

for certain children who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected. Government 

data and leading academic studies consistently show that detention and legal representation are significant factors in determining if a noncitizen is granted asylum 

or another form of relief. One landmark academic study showed that legal representation in immigration court is the most important factor affecting the outcome of 

an asylum application, with asylum grant rates nearly three times higher for those 

who have an attorney.13 Without legal counsel, it is virtually impossible for a child 

to effectively understand and navigate these complex processes in the face of the 

threat of deportation. NIJC’s clients, Jessica and Roxana (pseudonyms), were able 

to obtain relief in the United States with assistance from NIJC’s pro bono attorneys: 

‘‘Jessica and Roxana are 11- and 14-year old sisters from El Salvador. When they 

were very small, their parents came to the United States hoping to provide a better 

life for them and left them in the care of their grandfather. Unbeknownst to the 

parents, the grandfather neglected and abused the girls until they eventually ran 

away to live on the streets. With the help of another family member, Jessica and 

Roxana fled to the United States. DHS apprehended them at the border, placed 

them in removal proceedings, and then transferred them into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) until they could be released to their parents in 

Indiana. Through NIJC, Jessica and Roxana were able to obtain pro bono attorneys 

to help them understand the immigration process and to identify any potential relief. At their hearing in the Chicago Immigration Court, the immigration judge decided to administratively close Jessica and Roxana’s cases, so they can remain with 

their parents and begin to heal from the abuse they have suffered.’’ 

Without representation, these young girls would have been unable to navigate the 

immigration court system at the risk of deportation to a country where they faced 

abuse and neglect. 

II. RESPONSE TO THIS MIGRATION CRISIS: DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS FOR IMMIGRANT

CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES

Although the influx of unaccompanied children presents a myriad of challenges, 

NIJC draws upon its depth of experience representing immigrants for more than 30 
179 

14 Semple, K. ‘‘Public Defender System for Immigrants Facing Deportation Would Pay for 

Itself, Study Says.’’ New York Times, May 29, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/ 

nyregion/study-favors-free-counsel-to-navigate-deportation.html?lr=1. 15 Corporation for National & Community Service, ‘‘justice AmeriCorps Legal Services for Unaccompanied Children,’’ http://www.nationalservice.gov/build-your-capacity/grants/funding-opportunities/2014/justice-americorps-legal-services. 16Office of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, ‘‘Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and House Members Introduce Legislation to Provide Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Minors,’’ Jun. 23, 2014, 

http://jeffries.house.gov/news%20alert. 17See section 3502, available at: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/ 

744. 18See section 3502, available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c113:1:./temp/ 

c1135nICgi:e812160:. 19Section 235 of the TVPRA made procedural and substantive changes to immigration legal 

relief for unaccompanied immigrant children seeking relief from removal; however, section 

235(b)(2) of the TVPRA limits the rights of unaccompanied immigrant children from contiguous 

countries (i.e., Mexico and Canada). While unaccompanied immigrant children from non-contiguous countries are immediately transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

and placed in formal removal proceedings, unaccompanied immigrant children from contiguous 

countries are screened by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for trafficking concerns or intentions to seek asylum and otherwise expeditiously returned to their country of origin. 20White House, ‘‘Fact Sheet: Unaccompanied Children from Central America,’’ Jun. 20, 2014, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/fact-sheet-unaccompanied-childrencentral-america. 

years to make the following four priority recommendations to improve the due process protections these children desperately need. 

1. Provide appointed counsel for unaccompanied immigrant children 

Providing legal counsel to unaccompanied children would not only ensure their 

due process protections, but would also help make immigration court proceedings 

more efficient and cost-effective. Studies demonstrate that when people in immigration court know their rights and understand the process, they seek fewer continuances while they try and identify counsel and judges spend significantly less time 

explaining complex immigration laws and procedures.14 At a time when the immigration court system is under-resourced and significantly backlogged, ensuring immigrant children have access to representation will help prevent the court system 

from becoming even more overwhelmed. 

NIJC welcomes the recent creation of ‘‘justice AmeriCorps,’’ a pilot program to 

provide 100 attorneys and paralegals to unaccompanied children. The program is a 

partnership between the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), 

which operates the AmeriCorps National service program, and the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).15 This initiative is 

a step in the right direction, but given its modest size, geographic application to 

only 29 cities, limitation to children under the age of 16, and the time it will take 

to get the program operational, the overwhelming need for legal services for unaccompanied immigrant children remains. A clear mandate from Congress and additional appropriations are needed to fund universal appointment of counsel for all 

unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings. This week, Representatives 

Hakeem Jeffries (D–NY), Karen Bass (D–CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D–CA), and 

Judy Chu (D–CA) announced the introduction of the Vulnerable Immigrant Voice 

Act of 2014 (VIVA), which provides appointed counsel for all unaccompanied immigrant children and individuals with a serious mental illness.16 Likewise, the Senate’s immigration bill, S. 744,17 and its House counterpart, H.R. 15,18 both included 

provisions of counsel for unaccompanied children and other vulnerable immigrant 

populations in immigration proceedings. NIJC urges immediate consideration of 

these bills by the U.S. House of Representatives, which is long overdue. 

2. Unaccompanied children must remain exempt from the expedited removal process 

Unaccompanied immigrant children are not currently subject to expedited removal, the process by which adult asylum seekers are screened at the border for 

protection concerns prior to a rapid return to the country of origin.19 However, a 

recent White House ‘‘fact sheet’’ regarding unaccompanied children from Central 

America 20 announced the ‘‘surging of government enforcement resources to increase 

our capacity to detain individuals and adults who bring their children with them 

and to handle immigration court hearings—in cases where hearings are necessary— 

as quickly and efficiently as possible.’’ This language is extremely alarming and any 

suggestion that unaccompanied children could be subject to expedited removal procedures must be immediately clarified. Without robust safeguards in place, the 
180 

21TRAC Immigration, Immigration Court Backlog Tool, Syracuse University, available at: 

http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/courtlbacklog/. 22 H.R. 4660, ‘‘The FY 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act’’ available at: 

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4660?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%- 

5B%22hr4660%22%5D%7D. 23Fiscal Year 2015 Congressional Budget Submission, p. 22, available at: http:// 

www.justice.gov/jmd/2015justification/pdf/ara-justification.pdf. 

United States risks violating international and domestic law by returning children 

with bona fide asylum claims to life-threatening situations. 

Expedited processing makes it extremely difficult for child victims of violence and 

trauma, and their family members, to effectively make a claim for asylum or other 

protections under U.S. law. Like all asylum seekers, it is difficult for immigrant 

children who have suffered abuse in their home countries and during their journey 

to the United States to overcome the mental and emotional impact of that harm and 

discuss their fears with a stranger. It is also extremely difficult for all asylum seekers, but particularly child asylum seekers, to understand how to request asylum at 

the border and articulate and support a claim for protection. Moreover, the accelerated nature of expedited processing in remote locations along the border makes it 

impossible for a child to obtain legal counsel during this process. 

Children who have suffered and fear persecution in their home countries are particularly vulnerable after their apprehension at the border. Many have been trafficked, exploited, and coerced in their home country and on their journey to the 

United States. The expedited removal process raises due process concerns for all 

asylum seekers, but as recognized by our law, it is particularly inappropriate for unaccompanied immigrant children. NIJC urges that our law protect all unaccompanied children apprehended at the border by exempting them from the expedited 

removal process. 

3. Provide sufficient resources for immigration courts and specialized training for immigration judges working with children 

Because immigration court funding has not kept pace with enforcement funding, 

the immigration court system operates with extensive delays and a backlog of over 

366,000 pending cases Nation-wide.21 For example, the Chicago Immigration Court, 

the fourth most backlogged immigration court in the United States, regularly schedules hearings for 2016 and beyond. The administration’s current plan to address the 

influx of unaccompanied immigrant children does nothing to help the courts keep 

up with their growing caseload. Additional funding is needed to hire additional immigration judges, language specialists, legal technicians, clerks, and legal staff who 

work on cases appealed to the EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals. Providing appropriate staffing will help ensure that children move efficiently through the system. Although the House of Representatives voted to increase EOIR funding for fiscal year 2015,22 it falls short of the White House budget request for fiscal year 

2015 23 and the amount needed to meaningfully address court delays. 

In addition, EOIR should provide immigration judges with specialized, on-going 

training on child development, childhood trauma and its effects, forms of relief 

available to children, and best practices to communicate with children. While some 

immigration judges make accommodations to reassure children in court, such as 

wearing normal attire rather than judicial robes, other immigration judges take no 

such steps. Current internal guidance also does not require that immigration judges 

explain possible relief to pro se unaccompanied children or ask them questions to 

determine relief eligibility. As a result, pro se unaccompanied immigrant children 

may have no opportunity to assert their eligibility for immigration relief during immigration proceedings and may be so frightened that they are unable to express the 

reasons they fear returning to their home country or articulate the trauma experienced in transit. Without appointed counsel, it becomes particularly important for 

immigration judges and courts to take into consideration the unique needs and 

vulnerabilities of children. 

4. The best interests of the child must be protected 

The best interests of the child should be a central component of all U.S. policies 

addressing unaccompanied immigrant children, including assessment of a claim for 

refugee status, asylum, or any other form of protection. Under current law, DHS has 

authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion to consider the best interests of the 

child when making enforcement-related decisions pertaining to unaccompanied immigrant children, including issuance of a charging document to commence immigration proceedings, administrative closure or termination of a removal case, or conceding a non-citizen’s eligibility for immigration relief. Congress should provide explicit legislative authority to protect the best interests of the child in immigration 
181 

24First Focus, ‘‘Senate Immigration Floor Amendments At-a-Glance,’’ http:// 

www.ffcampaignforchildren.org/resources/documents-and-publications/fact-sheets/senate-immigration-floor-amendments-at-a-glance. 

enforcement and benefit decision-making, such as the amendment (‘‘Landrieu 1340’’) 

to S. 744 offered by Senators Mary Landrieu (D–LA), Al Franken (D–MN), and 

Mazie Hirono (D–HI), which requires all Federal agencies and Federal courts to consider the best interests of the child in all decisions involving unaccompanied immigrant children.24

III. CONCLUSION

The 1980 Refugee Act provides critical due process protections for individuals fleeing persecution and children are no exception to these protections. As a Nation committed to human rights, the United States must uphold its commitment to protecting the persecuted, including the youngest and most vulnerable. Any solution to 

this humanitarian crisis must be comprehensive and address the root causes of migration in Central America, the natural desire for family members to reunite, and 

our obligations to protect those fleeing persecution. Unaccompanied immigrant children have escaped life-threatening violence. We must ensure that our laws treat 

children like children and do not send them back into harm’s way. 

Æ