U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–363PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

A GLOBAL CRISIS: REFUGEES, 

MIGRANTS, AND ASYLUM SEEKERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS

FEBRUARY 26, 2019 

Serial No. 116–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

( 

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 

or http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania 

DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota 

ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota 

COLIN ALLRED, Texas 

ANDY LEVIN, Michigan 

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia 

CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

DAVID TRONE, Maryland 

JIM COSTA, California 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Ranking 

Member 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CURTIS, Utah 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

RON WRIGHT, Texas 

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

STEVE WATKINS, Kansas 

MIKE GUEST, Mississippi 

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

BRENDAN SHIELDS, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

KAREN BASS, California, Chairman 

SUSAN WILD, Pennslvania 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota 

ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota 

CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Ranking Member 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin 

RON WRIGHT, California 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WITNESSES 

Ruiz, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .... 9 

Buwalda, Annigje, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign, USA ......................... 20 

Mace, Ryan, Grassroots Advocacy and Refugee Specialist, Amnesty International ................................................................................................................. 34 

Schwartz, Honorable Eric, President, Refugees International, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration ..................... 45 

APPENDIX 

Hearing Notice ......................................................................................................... 69 

Hearing Minutes ...................................................................................................... 70 

Hearing Attendance ................................................................................................. 71 

(1) 

A GLOBAL CRISIS: REFUGEES, MIGRANTS, AND 

ASYLUM SEEKERS 

February 26, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Karen Bass (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Ms. BASS. Good afternoon, I welcome everyone to the first hearing of the 116th Congress for this subcommittee. 

I want to welcome the new members of our subcommittee. 

This hearing is now called to order. Without objection, members 

have 5 legislative days in which to submit their statements and 

materials for the record. 

Since I do not have a gavel, I will just knock on the table. So 

given that there are many new members on this subcommittee, I 

wanted to take time for the first few hearings to really do an overview of the jurisdiction. I mean we are blessed to have our ranking 

member here who has been on this committee and working in the 

subject area for more than 3 decades, but for the new members 

that are here we really wanted to take time and review all of the 

different subject areas. So delving into U.S. policy toward Africa, 

having a hearing on global health, looking at international organizations. And we will do this through a series of hearings. 

I also wanted to invite the members to a meeting that we are 

going to have on March 11th, which will be with all of the Ambassadors from the African continent. In April we will do a congressional delegation to Africa, looking at the role of the U.S. military 

on the continent. This specific hearing focuses on the intersection 

of global health, human rights, and international organizations. 

The world is experiencing what many experts say is an unprecedented humanitarian and displacement crisis. I am sure many of 

us have seen images flash across our TV screen that include massive numbers of citizens displaced from Syria, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Yemen and others. But we also have 

to acknowledge that this is also happening right here on our own 

doorstep. 

According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in 2017, 

more than 68 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide. 

Those displaced included 25 million refugees, 3.1 million asylum 

seekers and 40 million IDP’s are internally displaced persons. 

People leave their countries for a variety of reasons, but most are 

forcibly displaced due to armed conflict, widespread or indiscriminate violence, human rights violations and/or persecution. Another 
2 

category of displaced people includes the millions affected yearly by 

natural disasters, such as earthquakes, storms or drought. 

We can all imagine that the choice to leave one’s home cannot 

be easy. After escaping some of the most challenging circumstances 

in their home countries, these migrants, refugees, and asylum 

seekers endure difficult journeys that often puts them at risk for 

exploitation. 

While there are many more cases, including people displaced 

from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and South Sudan, the situations I 

have referenced highlight that there are numerous root causes for 

why people are forced to leave. This is why it is critical for the 

United States to continue to support the State Department and 

USAID, given that their programs are often aimed at investing in 

women, girls, and youth. It is better to address the root causes for 

why people have to leave their countries. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the United States is 

also confronting our own challenges on how to engage with refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers. As we watch images of these 

vulnerable populations making their difficult journeys, we have to 

ask the same questions that we were asked if it were the Rohingya, 

arriving exhausted, hungry and sick, after walking for days 

through jungles or mountains or braving dangerous sea voyages. 

This is important because we should also hold ourselves accountable. It is also important because it gives us more credibility in the 

world as we attempt to tackle the important issue of displaced persons around the world. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses as we 

attempt to understand the magnitude of this crisis. I want to thank 

the witness, especially our colleague Representative Raul Ruiz. 

I yield to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Madam chair, congratulations to you on taking over the helm of 

this very, very important committee. It has been my privilege as 

you said to be on it as either chairman or ranking member since 

the 1990’s. So it is great to be with you and we have worked very 

well together over the last several years. I deeply appreciate that. 

We have been bipartisan on so many important issues, we have 

traveled together to places, we have been denied entry, for example 

DR Congo, but we did get into certainly Ethiopia. We have been 

to as well to South Sudan and had some very contentious meetings 

with Salva Kiir, very much deserved for his dropping the ball, particularly when it comes to refugees, IDPs, and basic humanitarianism. 

Today’s hearing is an interesting and a complex topic, a very important topic. I think it is right that we focus on refugees, and 

IDPs. I would like to side step some of the politics and focus instead on one category of people. But before I do I would note, and 

I think it is worth noting, that according to CRS the U.S. continues 

to be the largest donors of humanitarian assistance worldwide, providing nearly one-third of the total global contributions, more than 

7 billion in 2016, 9.3 billion in 2017 and 9.4 billion in 2018. 

The U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs anticipates that in 2019 more than 132 million people worldwide were 

requiring humanitarian assistance and protection as a result of 
3 

conflict and disaster. Moreover, the U.N. High Commissioner of 

Refugees says that in 2018 more than 68.5 million people were 

forcibly displaced worldwide due to war and conflict, widespread or 

indiscriminate violence and human rights violations. A huge number of people of great, great burden on each of these individuals 

and their families. The government that often are inadequate because of resources to care for them, putting an even more burden 

on the developed countries to step up and to assist. 

I would point out that, you know, we—the last Congress I introduced H.R. 390 to assist those men and women who were escaping 

from ISIS. I chaired no less than 10 congressional hearings on their 

plight. There were 70,000 strong who made their way into Erbil. 

Every one of them a survivor of ISIS’ genocide. And I am happy 

to say that the bill was signed into law in December, and it is designed to assist those individuals who went largely unassisted during several years of genocide by ISIS. 

I do believe that there are a large number of people who are people of faith all over the world, including the people in China, who 

are kind of internally displaced, given that they are in concentration camps. Put there deliberately, the Muslim Uighurs because of 

Xi Jinping’s horrific crackdown on religion, he called it Sinification. 

It is an effort to say that everyone, whether you be Falun Gong, 

Christian Tibetan Buddhist, or a Muslim Uighur, or anyone else 

need to comport with and conform with the communist ideology or 

else. You go to a gulag, you become internally displaced and you 

are just harassed and in many cases tortured. 

In the last administration we did have trouble with allowing 

Christians from Syria to come into the United States and I held 

hearings on that as well. It was less than one half of 1 percent who 

came as refugees. I think that was unfortunate. It could have been 

rectified. I never got to the bottom as to why that was the case. 

There was reliance on the UNHCR, which I greatly admire and 

respect as an organization. But frankly, there are a lot of Christians who simply will not go there. If they did the women would 

be harassed, sexually abused, raped in many cases and the men 

would be beaten. So they chose another route, many went to Lebanon, many went to Erbil in the case of the Christians who escaped, and again I went and visited, talked to those people, and 

they wondered where was the United States? Why were you not 

helping us? That is being rectified. 

Anna Eshoo who is the cosponsor of my bill, we had a number 

of bipartisan cosponsors, including the gentlelady who is now the 

chair, really is making the difference to reach out to those people 

who were persecuted and so maltreated. 

We also need to continue to help the Rohingya in Burma who are 

persecuted, the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan who are considered apostate by the Sunni majority and are in greater need of asylum as 

well. Again to underscore, the Muslim Uighurs this number approximates what we saw in the second world war. With so many 

people being put into concentration camps. 

Last year, I had 2 hearings on this. One woman Mihrigul, who 

is a Muslim, Tursen testified and said she was tortured in the 

chair, a hideous device used by the Chinese Government and was 

hoping for death. She goes, I wanted to die, it was just so painful. 
4 

And why was she—she asked her jailer, why am I being so maltreated? He said, because you are an Uighur and because you are 

Muslim. Those two things. 

I think the whole world has to speak up even more aggressively 

to this carnage being visited upon people of faith and others who 

do not conform to the communist dictatorship of Beijing. And again 

we need to do more, always more for refugees, IDPs, because they 

are—and I do see my old friend who used to be at the National Security Council for the Clinton Administration, who when we had a 

problem with people who were being forced back to Vietnam, pursuant to the comprehensive plan of action and I thought it was a 

very major mistake on some but in the Clinton Administration to 

do so, we had a friend and ally in Eric Schwartz, in fighting. 

I offered an amendment on the floor of the House to deny any 

funding for forced repatriation. It passed unexpectedly, people 

thought it would not. Now I am working with Eric and other like 

mind, but he took the lead within the administration. We were able 

to get rereviews of these refugees. 20,000 people who were originally told you do not qualify came to the United States. So thank 

you Eric. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Let me introduce our first witness, U.S. Representative Raul 

Ruiz, grew up in the community of Coachella, California. Where 

both of his parents were farm workers. Dr. Ruiz graduated from 

UCLA. He went on to Harvard where he earned his medical degree 

as well as a masters of public policy from the Kennedy School of 

government and a masters of public health from the school of public health, becoming the first Latino to earn three graduate degrees 

from Harvard University. He completed his residency in emergency 

medicine. And during his training he served as a consultant to the 

ministries of health in both Serbia and El Salvador. 

In 2010, Dr. Ruiz started the Coachella Valley Healthcare Initiative which brought together stakeholders from around the region to 

address local healthcare crisis. In 2010 Dr. Ruiz flew to Haiti immediately following the 2010 earthquake and served as the medical 

director for the Haitian relief organization. 

The U.S. Army’s 82d airborne awarded him the Commander’s 

Award for public service. We appreciate you coming in to testify 

and please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Dr. RUIZ. Good morning Chair Bass, and Ranking Member 

Smith. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee to discuss a critical and urgent matter, the treatment of 

migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. It is a topic I am moved 

to discuss, because frankly our Federal Government needs a lesson 

on the humanitarian standards that should govern our treatment 

of the individuals in our custody. 

Some background on me, I am an emergency medicine physician, 

and a graduate of Harvard Medical School. I am also a graduate 

of the Harvard School of public health where I specialized in humanitarian aid and disaster response and completed a fellowship 
5 

in the international emergency medicine with the Harvard humanitarian initiative. 

In 2010, I traveled to Haiti immediately following the devastating earthquake where I worked alongside the 82d airborne division as the medical director of the largest camp of approximately 

70,000 internally displaced Haitians in Petion-Ville Port-au-Prince. 

Caring for individuals in life or death situations is not new to me 

in the emergency department or as medical command or out in the 

field after a humanitarian disaster. 

I am very familiar with the international humanitarian norms 

that guide our treatment of individuals affected by humanitarian 

crisis. As this committee knows well after the atrocities of the Holocaust and World War II, the international community came together many times to establish the conventions, covenants, and 

declarations to establish basic humanitarian standards. Some of 

these include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading 

treatment or punishment. The implementation of these standards 

make up the basis of humane treatment of all human beings. 

There are also specific guidelines for the humane treatment of 

migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. This Sphere Handbook, 

internationally recognized for its use in the evaluation, planning, 

and delivering of humanitarian operations set forth guidelines for 

health, shelter, nutrition, hygiene, water supply, and sanitation. 

International organizations such as the U.N. High Commissioner 

for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross 

have also established standard of care for asylum seekers and detention. 

The United States is currently not meeting these minimal basic 

standards. Following the death of Jakelin Caal, the 7 year old Guatemalan girl who died in Customs and Border Patrol custody last 

year, I visited the CBP facilities where she was held before her 

death. The conditions I witnessed were heartbreaking. 

Women, infants, toddlers and the elderly packed and piled on top 

of each other in a cold windowless concrete room, so many bodies 

you could not see the floor. Open toilets in crowded cells without 

any privacy. Visibly sick children coughing on one another. The facility lacked lifesaving equipment and basic medications for infants 

and toddlers, no diapers, no baby food, no formula, no feminine 

products available. In short, they were understaffed, underequipped, and unprepared to provide meaningful health screenings 

to individuals in their custody, let alone respond to medical emergencies. 

We are the wealthiest Nation on Earth, but the conditions I saw 

were worse than those I saw in Haiti after their most challenging 

and devastating disaster. It is clear to me that these deficiencies 

put children and our agents at risk. As a public health expert I 

know that if Border personnel had access to the necessary resources, training and medical backup, they could triage and prevent more tragedies. This is not just about treating individuals in 

our custody in a humane manner, it is also a matter of law, both 

the U.S. law and international law give individuals the right to 

seek asylum. 
6 

In the event that the Federal Government restricts the free 

movement of an individual, including their detainment by U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol, then it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to provide for these basic rights and to ensure the protection of their humanity throughout the asylum process. That is 

why I am drafting legislation that would implement a basic set of 

uniformed humanitarian standards that guide the way CBP cares 

for detained asylum seeking children, families, and high-risk individuals that reflect our humanitarian values. 

First, to prevent deaths in CBP custody we need to meaningfully 

address the health needs of individuals entering our borders, especially through vulnerable populations like infants, children, pregnant women, elderly, and the disabled. That requires an initial 

medical screening including vital signs and a basic physical exam 

to identify risks, signs and symptoms of life threatening 

vulnerabilities. 

Second, we need a better response to emergencies by having 

emergency medical equipment available for patients of all ages and 

trained medical personnel to administer emergency medical care. 

Third, we need to provide individuals in temporary custody with 

safe, hygenic and humane temporary shelters to address public 

health and uphold human dignity. These are straightforward reforms based on the international standards outlined previously in 

my experience working in the emergency department and alongside 

disaster medical assistance teams and the U.S. Army in Haiti. 

They will bring humanity back to our treatment of women and children seeking asylum and prevent needless loss of live. 

Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers around the world have 

the courage to leave the devastating and often dangerous conditions in their home countries and travel to find safety in a better 

future for themselves and their families. That was the case with 

the men and women who founded our Nation, seeking freedom, refuge, and a better life. 

I look forward to work, with you and CBP to bring the conditions 

that children and families are held under here in the United States 

in line with the basic humanitarian standards observed in even the 

most dire and severe circumstances across the globe. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:] 
7 

Testimony of Raul Ruiz, M.D., M.P.P., M.P.H. 

Member of Congress 

Hearing on "A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants and Asylum Seekers" 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 

February 26, 2019 

Good morning Chair Bass and Ranking Member Smith. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 

subcommittee to discuss a critical and urgent matter: the treatment of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. 

It's a topic I'm moved to discuss because frankly, our federal government needs a lesson on the humanitarian 

standards that should govern our treatment of the individuals in our custody. l saw that firsthand in December, 

when I visited the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities where 7-year-oldjakelin Caal was held before 

she died. These facilities failed to meet the most basic humanitarian and public health needs of women, 

children, and other individuals in CBP custody. It's why l am spearheading legislation to fix the very real, 

humanitarian crisis on our southern border. 

So, some background on me. I am an emergency medicine physician and a graduate of Harvard Medical SchooL 

I am also a graduate of the Harvard School of Public Health, where I specialized in humanitarian aid and 

disaster response. I completed my residency in emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and a 

Fellowship in International Emergency Medicine with the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative at Brigham and 

Women's HospitaL 

In 2010, I travelled to Haiti immediately following the devastating earthquake, where I worked alongside the 

82nd Airborne Division as the medical director of the largest camp of approximately 70,000 internally displaced 

people in Petion-Ville, Part-au-Prince. Caring for individuals in life or death situations is not new to me. I am 

very familiar with the international humanitarian norms that guide our treatment of individuals affected by 

natural disasters or living in extreme poverty. 

As this committee knows well, the international community has come together many times to establish 

conventions, covenants, treaties, and declarations to outline a set of basic humanitarian standards. These 

standards aim to uphold the protection of human rights and specify the living conditions and treatment 

consistent with human dignity. They are rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emerged 

after the atrocities of the Holocaust and established a legitimate basis for more comprehensive standards 

identifying access to food and water, adequate shelter, basic medical care, and other needs essential to the 

humane treatment of all human beings. 

The United States is one of the original signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed in 

1948, which states that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all 

members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The United States 

is also a State Party of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified in 1992, which states that 

governments should provide adequate medical care during detention. We are also a State Party to the 

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified in 
8 

1994, which prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These agreements provide a general framework 

for the humane treatment of all individuals. 

There are also pragmatic, specific guidelines for the humane treatment of migrants, refugees, and asylum 

seekers. The Sphere Handbook sets forth guidelines for health, shelter, nutrition, hygiene, water supply, and 

sanitation. The Sphere Handbook is the oldest resource in the field of humanitarian standards that is 

internationally recognized for its use in the guidance, evaluation, planning, and delivering of humanitarian 

operations. 

In addition, international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the 

International Committee of the Red Cross have also established standards of care for asylum seekers in 

detention. The United States is currently not meeting those standards. 

All individuals have a right to be treated in accordance with basic humanitarian standards. Both U.S. law and 

international law give individuals the right to seek asylum. Basic humanitarian standards guarantee that an 

individual should have unrestricted access to food, water, and health care. In the event that the federal 

government restricts the free movement of an individual- including their detainment by U.S. Customs and 

Border Patrol (CBP)- then it is the federal government's responsibility to provide for these basic rights and to 

ensure the protection of their humanity throughout the asylum process. Unfortunately, we have not always met 

those standards. 

When I joined several of my colleagues to visit the facility where Jakelin Caal-tbe Guatemalan girl who died in 

CBP custody-was held, the conditions I witnessed were heartbreaking. Women, infants, toddlers, and the 

elderly packed and piled on top of each other in a cold, windowless, concrete room-so many bodies you 

couldn't see the floor. Open toilets in crowded cells without any privacy. Visibly sick children coughing on one 

another. They did not have formula or baby food, or diapers for infants or toddlers. We are the wealthiest 

nation on earth, but the conditions I saw were worse than those I saw in Haiti, the most impoverished country 

in the Western Hemisphere, after their most challenging and devastating disaster. 

The U.S. Border Patrol facility in Lordsburg was under-staffed, underequipped, and unprepared to provide 

meaningful health screenings to individuals in their custody, let alone emergency medical services. The lack of 

privacy and equipment, as well as the conditions of the detention facilities, was dehumanizing. I saw a hard, 

tiny utility table in a storage space serving as a resuscitation bed. The facility lacked life-saving equipment and 

basic medications for infants and toddlers. And agents relied on spotty cell phones to directly contact emergency 

response teams. 

It is dear to me that these deficiencies put children and our agents at risk. Both are endangered by a lack of 

access to emergency medical services. As a public health expert, I know that if border personnel bad access to 

the necessary resources, training, and medical back-up, they would be able to triage and prevent more 

tragedies. 

Our American values, moral conscience, and our constitution require us to treat all individuals humanely. This 

is why I am working to implement a basic set of uniform, humanitarian standards to guide the way we care for 

children and families who cross our borders, reflective of humanitarian norms. 

First, we need meaningful medical care of individuals entering our borders-especially for vulnerable 

populations like children, the elderly, and the disabled. That requires an initial medical screening including vital 
9 

signs, and a basic physical exam to identify risks, signs, and symptoms of life-threatening vulnerabilities. It is 

also critical that the exam and health assessment are conducted with interpretation services available to 

eliminate misunderstandings that could cost lives. 

Second, we need emergency medical equipment and trained medical personnel available to respond to 

emergencies. When medical care is far away, as is often the case at the border, agents need immediate access to 

the resources, equipment, and expertise to administer emergency care not only to migrants, but to their fellow 

agents. 

Third, we need to provide individuals in temporary custody with living conditions that are safe, hygienic, 

humane, and worthy of human dignity. This means adequate amounts of food and water. This means access to 

sanitation facilities and personal hygiene products-the ability to wash your hands with soap and water, to 

bathe, and to have clean diapers and access to feminine products. This means not packing them into small, 

windowless, cold, concrete, prison-like rooms where people are held like animals. 

These are straight-forward reforms based on the international standards outlined previously and my experience 

working in the emergency department and alongside Disaster Medical Assistance Teams and the U.S. Army in 

Haiti. They will bring humanity back to our treatment of women and children seeking asylum and prevent 

needless loss of life. 

Migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers around the world have the courage to leave the devastating and often 

dangerous conditions in their home countries and travel to find safety and a better future for themselves and 

their families. That was the case with the men and women who founded our nation, seeking freedom, refuge, 

and prosperity. It is my hope that we can move forward, recognizing the inherent human dignity of all 

individuals. I look forward to working with you and CBP to bring the conditions that children and families are 

held under bere in the United States in line with the basic humanitarian standards observed in even the most 

dire and severe circumstances. Our values as a nation demand we take action to prevent the needless loss of 

another child in our custody. 
10 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much Dr. Ruiz. We expect votes to be 

called in the next 10 minutes so I am going to keep us—we do not 

have a clock here, but I have my stopwatch, so I will keep us to 

asking questions for 5 minutes. And I will be brief to give more opportunity to my colleagues. 

Dr. Ruiz, given that I do not see the situation ending any time 

soon, on our border, and looking at resources that might be proposed by this committee in legislation and you just mentioned legislation you were talking about as well, what resources, what 

should we ask USAID or other governmental entities to provide on 

the border? 

I am also thinking about the people. I hope at another hearing 

we could look at addressing the root causes of why so many people 

were coming from Central America. I mean we are providing aid 

to Central America. But I do not know that that aid that we are 

providing is really getting at the root causes so that people do not 

make the journey in the first place. 

So I think that is for another hearing. But if you are thinking 

about the people after they leave on that journey, what type of aid 

should we be giving to those countries so that once they leave they 

are dealt with safely? And also when they are at the border, what 

would you recommend? 

Dr. RUIZ. In terms of aids to the other country or the needs of 

our own country to address—— 

Ms. BASS. Right. Both. I am actually referring to both. 

Dr. RUIZ. So let us go ahead and first start with the aid to other 

countries. First of all, we know that many, and the vast majority, 

of the asylum seekers were fleeing violence and threats, oftentimes 

due to drug cartel or gang members that exist within in what I 

would refer to as a failed State in a nontraditional way in the 

sense that their own governments cannot provide law, order and 

safety for their communities. Oftentimes they are the villages in 

the remote areas, indigenous communities who are socially isolated 

without the social capital to gather and protect themselves that are 

preyed upon. 

What we can do to provide assistance to create that order and 

safety and security for their populations would be very helpful. 

There are many who come as economic migrants and building the 

opportunities for microloans for example for women and children. 

Studies have shown that that has helped in places like India and 

Africa to foster a community development at a grassroots community level, which will give them hope opportunity and the means 

to provide for themselves and their family. 

In terms of the United States, my legislation and my focus is on 

the what, creating these basic humanitarian standards and allowing CBP and Department of Homeland Security to determine the 

how, because they will need flexibility to meet these specific needs. 

So what is in the what. For example, I think that they need to be 

able to have partnerships or have more individuals who know how 

to conduct a questionnaire, and vital signs, and a rudimentary 

physical examination, especially starting with vulnerable populations like infants, toddler, pregnant women, elderly and the disabled. And then once identified an abnormality to be able to consult with an emergency care professional who can then triage and 
11 

determine a short, medical plan of observation or treatment or 

even immediate evacuation. 

If that was done in Antelope Wells, where Jakelin Caal was detained, then she would still be alive today, because no child looks 

healthy 8 hours before they die of septic shock. Right? They do not 

look healthy. If you had just done a rudimentary vital signs on the 

child, you would have found most likely, temperature, fast heart 

rate, and that would have alerted to you that there was something 

wrong with the child. 

Ms. BASS. They did not have the resources. They were not medical people. 

Dr. RUIZ. They did not have the resources and they did not have 

the care. So resources making sure that there is medical equipment 

for infants and toddlers, which there was none. You need resources 

like basic formula, baby food. Oftentimes families and individuals 

were given a box with a burrito, infants, neonates, toddlers that is 

not what they eat so they do not eat that. Being able to provide 

an sufficient amount of clean water, as well as nutrition caloric intake of an adult and age specific weight based for children is important. 

Other things like soap, and toothbrush, and toothpaste. And a facility where they can wash their hands or bath daily will go a long 

way with public health. When you pile individuals in a concrete 

room that is cold and you keep the lights on and people are awake 

all night, all day their immune system decreases. When you add 

the stressors of what they have gone through, including being exposed to people coughing and sneezing on them, you are going to 

infect everybody and—with a common cold or what other virus that 

may exist that they acquired at that facility. 

Being able to have enough private clean toilets, latrines for a certain amount of people in the international humanitarian norms. It 

is usually one latrine for 15, 20 individuals. We work with international organizations to provide that amount of latrines in Portau-Prince in Haiti. 

So those are some of the equipment for example, temperature, 

adequate clothing, and blankets, and bedding. What I saw at the 

Border Patrol station were very thin aluminum sheets and they 

pretty much tried to sleep on the floor, oftentimes they would make 

accommodations so that their child could sleep on their arm, or on 

their chest so they wouldn’t have to sleep on the floor. 

These were the—diapers for babies was also very important, because a child’s feces is more infectious than an adult’s feces. If you 

do not provide diapers or a disposal area where you can throw 

them away and wash your hands afterwards, then you are risking 

exposure to everybody and that is just basic, basic public health. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much doctor for your testimony. 

Let me just ask you, you said the U.S. border facility in 

Lordsburg was understaffed, underequipped and unprepared to 

provide meaningful health screenings to people in their custody, let 

alone emergency medical services. Has that changed? 

Dr. RUIZ. The CBP has requested some change after our encounter. They requested more fundings through the appropriations to be 

able to contract with healthcare professionals. 
12 

When I went to the border, the agents were still devastated from 

the death of Jakelin Caal. They are humans, they are fathers as 

well, and mothers so they were in sorrow. They often expressed 

anxiety and fear of now dealing with families and children where 

they have no experience and no training to do so. They are welcoming these resources and these norms. 

Mr. SMITH. When were you in Lordsburg? 

Dr. RUIZ. I think it was in December I believe. It was Antelope 

Wells in December. I went as a delegation with the congressional 

Hispanic Caucus. 

Mr. SMITH. So like in January, do you know if any of it has been 

fixed? 

Dr. RUIZ. There are certain areas that they are focusing more 

bringing in these resources, but I cannot tell you to the full extent 

whether or not the systemic problem has been fixed. They have not 

started training—— 

Mr. SMITH. But you and your staff recontact like a month 

later—— 

Dr. RUIZ. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Did they tell you, we got this fixed? We 

are doing health training we are doing—— 

Dr. RUIZ. No. We have been following up with the commissioner 

and task forces within CBP. I have been advising the task force for 

CBP on these humanitarian and public health criteria and standards. They are still developing their recommendations for the Secretary of DHS. So this is a work in progress. It has not been fixed. 

Mr. SMITH. But given, you know, the very dire picture that you 

paint, it seems to me by the next week they should have been moving heaven and Earth to get this fixed. That is not the case? 

Dr. RUIZ. Well I agree with your assessment that they should 

have been moving heaven and Earth to meet those criterions. They 

started looking into how to do it, but I do not believe these standards have been met. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. Is Lordsburg the exception or is it the rule for 

these facilities? 

Dr. RUIZ. Well, I think that the facilities that we visited were one 

of the most remote and rural areas. So it was probably one of the 

more worse case scenarios. However, the problem that we see is 

that the conditions or the current treatment is very vague and inconsistent throughout the different Border Patrol. 

Part of that is a lack of fundamental understanding of how to respond to the humanitarian needs of asylum seeker which our laws 

permit and which we have been accustomed to within the international humanitarian community. So what we need is a systematic way to bring in these humanitarian norms and standards and 

have training for our agents and those within the agency so we can 

meet those requirements. 

Mr. SMITH. Doctor, is this a new problem or does this predate 

this new administration? 

Dr. RUIZ. I believe we have had—— 

Mr. SMITH. If I could, I have had hearings in the past and I 

asked questions previously, many questions about whether or not 

for example neglected tropical diseases were being screened for 

since there are many who could be carrying worms or other 
13 

parasites and I got a big, we do not know. And we followed up, and 

we keep asking. My question would be, you know, is this something 

that happened within the last 2 years or does this predate this administration? 

Dr. RUIZ. Well, the movement of asylum seeking migrants has 

been going on for several years and predates this administration. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. But in terms of the crisis and the lack of providing essential medical healthcare to those in need, is this brand 

new? 

Dr. RUIZ. This is an issue that has not been addressed, period. 

So—— 

Mr. SMITH. Even before this administration? 

Dr. RUIZ. Even before, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. It is important, because we want to be fair to all 

players. 

Dr. RUIZ. See, I think it is important to understand. 

Mr. SMITH. We want to get it right. 

Dr. RUIZ. This is something we have been talking to CBP about. 

And they recognized that they were not designed to address the humanitarian needs of families and children. And that is why this is 

a great opportunity for us as legislators and experts in the field to 

come together in a bipartisan way to help the CBP reform so that 

they can address the humanitarian needs of asylum seekers. 

Mr. SMITH. But again, I just wanted to make clear for the record 

that it does predate the Trump administration. Yes? 

Dr. RUIZ. Yes, the lack of humanitarian norms within a system 

has never been in our CBP. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could ask one more followup question—— 

Ms. BASS. Oh, sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Unaccompanied minors was absolutely, you know, a 

great focus as it should be, I went to one of the shelters and there 

were staff from one of my centers who was there as well, that is 

in New Jersey. And frankly I was shocked on the upside just how 

well they were being treated. 

Dr. RUIZ. Where? 

Mr. SMITH. They do not us to tell you. I will tell you off the 

record, because they do not want people knowing where it is, but 

it is in New Jersey. And there must have been 40 young people 

there and they were very well treated. Now there could be others 

where they are very poorly treated. Cory Booker’s staff was there 

with ne and Leonard Lance was there, and I was there. We stayed 

for hours asking questions, talking to young people who were there. 

So I always wanted to get it clear, one, if this is all brand new, 

because I think it is long-standing, because we have had hearings 

in this Congress that predated Trump. And there has been a call 

for significant increases in humanitarian aid by the administration. 

Dr. RUIZ. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. I think that is a good thing and I think we need to 

provide that. So you would agree with that. 

Dr. RUIZ. And also I just want to make it clear that unaccompanied minors are detained in several situations. They are not— 

they are with ICE and that is one set of facilities, and then they 

are also in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the 
14 

Department of Homeland Security. And they oftentimes contract 

with nonprofits and community agencies which provide homes and 

programs and education. 

So what we are not—we are not seeing that model which I also 

visited a location in Los Angeles throughout the whole system and 

there are unaccompanied minors that do not get treated or have 

the services like those that are under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. I am going to move on. Mr. Phillips. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass. And greetings to 

my esteemed colleague. I celebrate your extraordinary position for 

this work. I am grateful to you. 

My first question is relative to funding and the White House has 

acknowledged that we have a humanitarian crisis at the border, 

asked for funding. We approved I think $414 million if I recall correctly. Do you believe that is an adequate amount to fulfill the response to the humanitarian responsibilities? 

Dr. RUIZ. No, I do not think that that is sufficient to meet the 

what that we need to address. But that is a very good first step. 

Those conversations occurred within the appropriate appropriations 

subcommittees. And we have been working with the appropriations 

subcommittees of Department of Homeland Security to identify 

these humanitarian norms. 

So right now there is a working relationship to get the requests 

inline with what these humanitarian norms are and that was the 

2019 appropriations bill that we just passed. In 2020 there will be 

another step to bring them in line to the humanitarian standards 

that should exist in CBP custody. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. OK. I know we have to run, one more quick question if I might. Are you familiar with the country around the world 

that does this better than we do, and if so that we should look to 

as a source of best practices? 

Dr. RUIZ. You know I think that the source of best practices 

would be within the international humanitarian community. If you 

look at organizations that manage large internally displaced camps 

and refugee camps throughout the globe, ICRC and some practices 

from the U.N. commissioner for refugees and Doctors Without Borders who do this day in and day out, oftentimes at risks of their 

own life in the most dire disasters in the most impoverished countries. And they are able to meet the nutritional water needs to provide a camp that is reflective of human dignity. And so I think that 

working with them and realizing what their standards are would 

be a very good idea. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. And employing that in their home country. 

Dr. RUIZ. Yes. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. I appreciate it. 

Dr. RUIZ. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. I really appreciate you coming 

as our expert witness. I appreciation your input, I look forward to 

joining you on your legislation. 

Dr. RUIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. So votes have been called. I am going to recess subject 

to call of the chair and I would encourage members to return. I be-
15 

lieve we have two votes so we should be back in half hour, 45 minutes. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. BASS. Could I call the panel forward? Eric Schwartz, Ryan 

Mace, and Annigje Buwalda. 

Thank you very much, thank you for your patience. Sorry we 

were pulled away for votes, but we are going to go ahead and get 

started. 

Eric Schwartz has been the president of Refugees International 

since June 2017. He has a 3 decade career focused on humanitarian and human rights issues. Between 2009 and 2011 he served 

as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population Refugees and 

Migration. As assistant secretary he was credited with strengthening the State Department’s humanitarian advocacy around the 

world initiating and implementing critical enhancements to the 

U.S. refugee settlement program and raising the profile of global 

migration issues in U.S. foreign policy. 

Ryan Mace is the grassroots advocacy and refugee specialist for 

Amnesty International. He works to mobilize constituent pressure 

to advance AI USA major advocacy initiatives, in addition to lobbying Congress to protect and advance the rights of refugees and 

asylum seekers. 

Our third witness and I am sorry if I mispronounce your name. 

Miss Buwalda. From 1991 through the present time Ann Buwalda 

has served as executive director of Jubilee Campaign USA, focusing 

on international religious freedom, advocating for the release of 

prisoners of conscious and resettlement of refugees combatting trafficking for the protection of children and providing support to victims, in practice since 1992, Ms. Buwalda founded the law firm 

Just Law International in 1996, a firm handling all aspects of immigration law, including asylum and refugee cases. 

Thank you very much and you can begin your testimony. And we 

have your full statement so if you could summarize in 5 minutes, 

that would be greatly appreciated. 

And I will keep a clock here. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIGJE BUWALDA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

JUBILEE CAMPAIGN, USA 

Ms. BUWALDA. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairwoman 

Bass—— 

Ms. BASS. If you could turn your microphone on. 

Ms. BUWALDA. I would like to thank Chairwoman Bass, Ranking 

Member Smith and members of the subcommittee for providing the 

opportunity to address the panel on the crisis of religious and ethnic minority refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand and elsewhere. 

The U.S. has traditionally been a beacon of hope for the oppressed and persecuted suffering around the world. And even in 

one of his statement Ronald Reagan said, quote ‘‘Can we doubt that 

only a divine providence place this land, this island of freedom here 

for as refuge for all the people who yearn and breathe to be free.’’ 

It is a sincere hope that today’s hearing will contribute to renewing the calling that the divine Providence has placed on this land. 

Jubilee campaign seeks to draw the subcommittee’s attention to 
16 

the need to protect and aid religious minority refugees. Under both 

international refugee law and domestic asylum law, one of the five 

grounds of protection is a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one’s religion. At times religious refugees have been placed 

behind other types of refugees, indeed that was one of the reasons 

that the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 was so needed and it has been a remarkably effective tool since then and we 

are very pleased with many of the provisions within it. 

Those provisions I think need to be applied as it relates to refugees and refugee processing. My testimony today seeks to expose 

the circumstances in Thailand pertaining to a vulnerable refugee 

population, those seeking asylum from Pakistan. Verifiable statistics are difficult to obtain but we currently estimate that there are 

3,000 to 4,000 Pakistani Christians in Thailand who fled religious 

persecution and whose cases are pending, some of them are approved and awaiting resettlement, but some cases are closed and 

affording them with no place to go. 

I would like to feature in today’s testimony the case of Michael 

D’Souza, who on account of his denial by the UNHCR in Bangkok, 

Thailand of his case, he was forced to stay in their immigration detention facility in deplorable conditions, so much so after 1 year of 

suffering through that and no hope, he returned to Pakistan. Michael D’Souza was brutalized by the very people he feared would 

persecute him. His case should not have been denied and he remains stranded in Karachi, Pakistan. 

I use his case to demonstrate the fact that cases that are putting 

forward their claim as believers in a faith should be provided with 

opportunities to have their cases heard more—with more reasonableness. We have found with many of the cases within the 

UNHCR in Bangkok, there are denials because there is an unreasonable standard and burden of proof placed upon them. 

We have many cases, as do colleagues of ours who assist with 

this refugee processing where it clearly appears to us that the 

UNHCR in Bangkok has placed a higher burden of proof on Pakistani Christian asylum seekers. This is something which we have 

attempted to place attention on. We have approached UNHCR, 

they are sympathetic, but the conditions in terms of the interviews 

have not changed and we wish to see that change take place. 

We also wish to point out that the conditions in the immigration 

detention centers within Bangkok and Thailand are absolutely deplorable. We want to mention the Montagnard asylum seekers from 

Vietnam who are stranded also in Bangkok. There is upwards of 

500 of them. They are in the horrible situation at the IDC detention center where they are actually mothers are separated from 

their children and not allowed to even give them breastfeeding. So 

the conditions there are horrible. This is a very vulnerable religious 

minority community of Montagnards that need help there. 

There are many issues and reasons for why this is taking place 

that we have submitted within our written submission for my testimony today. And it is my hope that we can enable the UNHCR in 

Bangkok to do a better job of paying attention to religious minority 

asylum seeker cases. 

And finally, I wish to mention that we desperately need additional numbers for refugee resettlement to the United States. We 
17 

do not believe that there is sufficient attention placed on this vulnerable population of refugees. And we wish to see that the United 

States admissions program would accept more of them. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Buwalda follows:] 
18 

Annigje Buwalda 

Executive Director 

Jubilee Campaign USA 

Hearing on "A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants and Asylum-Seekers" 

U.S. House of Representatives 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 

February 26, 20 19 

I would like to thank Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the 

Subcommittee for providing the opportunity to address the panel and submit this statement on the 

crisis of religious and ethnic minority refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand and elsewhere. 

The United States of America has traditionally been a beacon of hope for the oppressed 

and persecuted suffering around the world. Ronald Reagan stated at the end of his 1980 acceptance 

speech as the Republican Party presidential candidate, "Can we doubt that only a divine 

Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the 

world who yearn to breath freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron 

Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and of llaiti, the victims of drought and famine 

in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity." 

The founding of my organization's branch in the United Kingdom stems back to the Siberian Seven 

refugees who gained their freedom from religious oppression in the Soviet Union through the 

efforts ofPrcsidcnt Ronald Reagan and who were welcomed to the Unites States as a result of his 

leadership. We are again at a cross roads of history requiring leadership where our traditional 

values as a welcoming nation to those suffering oppression and persecution, especially those 

neeing religious based persecution, is in debate and doubt. It is my sincere hope that today's 

hearing will contribute to renewing the calling that the divine Providence has placed on this land. 

Jubilee Campaign seeks to draw the Subcommittee's attention to the need to protect and 

aid religious minority refugees. Under both international refugee law and domestic asylum law, 

one of the five grounds of protection is a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one's 

religion, which includes the right to choose a belief and practice as well as maintain one's religious 

1 
19 

beliefs or none at all and the right to perform one's religious practices. At times religious refugees 

have been placed behind other types of refugees. Indeed, one of the reasons many of us pursued 

the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 was to ensure that sufficient training and attention 

is placed by refugee and asylum adjudicators on religious based claims seeking refugee protection. 

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6401 et seq., was a response to 

increased religious persecution around the globe. It establishes the infrastructure for advancing 

religious freedom as American foreign policy and for protecting individuals who arc being 

persecuted because of their religion. Several of its provisions address religious persecution and 

should be applied in giving consideration to refugee resettlement to the United States. 

My testimony seeks to expose the circumstances in Thailand pertaining to a vulnerable 

refugee population those seeking asylum from Pakistan. Verifiable statistics are diflicult to 

obtain, but we currently estimate that there are 3,000 to 4,000 Pakistani Christians in Thailand who 

have fled religious persecution and whose cases arc pending, approved and awaiting resettlement, 

or closed affording them with no place to go. Despite the widespread and serious persecution of 

religious minorities in Pakistan, a significant number of applicants in recent years are being 

unfairly denied refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 

More about that below, but first some context. Within a host country and based on its agreements 

with a host country, the UNHCR performs a critical role in protecting asylum seekers and 

processing refugee claims. In Thailand, the UNHCR has attempted to adhere to its commitments 

to asylum seekers who have swelled in numbers on account of increasing persecution in home 

countries. At the same time the UNHCR needs to placate the Thai government's limitations on its 

ability to protect asylum seekers, provide assistance, and properly adjudicate claims. 

We understand from anecdotal information because exact statistics are not released by the 

UNHCR that in the past couple of years approximately 50% of Pakistani religious minority 

applicants are being granted refugee status by the Bangkok UNHCR office. However, this statistic 

is misleading, as information we have collected shows that upwards of 90% of cases from the 

Pakistani Ahmadiyya community are granted, leaving the percentage of granted Pakistani 

Christian cases between 10% and 30%. We find this to be disturbingly low, given the pattern of 

persecution of the Christian minority in Pakistan. This year the U.S. Department of State under 

2 
20 

the IRF Act of 1998 placed Pakistan "on a Special Watch List for severe violations of religious 

freedom." In its 2018 report the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 

recommended Pakistan for Country of Particular Concern designation under the IRF Act. In light 

of these findings and so many other human rights reports, all religious minorities from Pakistan 

should be afforded the same burden of proof and that burden of proof should be refiective of the 

recognized severe violations of religious freedom experienced by these minorities in Pakistan. 

Despite the severity of country conditions, the UNHCR in Bangkok unreasonably denies 

cases. There have been several reasons for the denials, many of which seem to be unjust. One 

reason appears to have been the rush to adjudicate cases during a period of extreme backlogs during 

2016-2017. The backlogs at the UNHCR in Bangkok seem to have improved but potentially at 

the cost of denying legitimate refugee claims, and I provide below specific examples of cases we 

have assisted to seek re-openings and reversals of the rejections. Other organizations also active 

in assisting the vulnerable Pakistani Christian refugee population such as Christian Freedom 

International have many examples of cases we believe to be legitimate but whose claims were 

rejected. Some of these denials appear to be based on general skepticism as to threats faced by 

Christians in Pakistan, or a lack of knowledge of country conditions. There further seems to be a 

minimization of persecution by non-state actors, even when it appears clear that their actions either 

represent the positions of local law enforcement officials or are in any case unopposed by them. 

Another shortcoming we have observed is a perception of bias causing the UNHCR contracted 

interpreters to inaccurately interpret the interviews of Christian asylum seekers. This may have 

impacted the case of Michael D'Souza described below. Most disturbing, however, has heen the 

imposition by the UNHCR of an unreasonable credibility test and significantly higher burden of 

proof as well as standard of perfection imposed on the Pakistani Christian asylum seekers. The 

adverse credibility findings declared in many of the decisions end up damning those Pakistani 

Christians, even though their claim is legitimate. I describe below the glaring example in the 

adjudication ofTalib Masih's claim. 

Jubilee Campaign has attempted to assist some of the denied cases in their appeal process 

with the UNHCR which have resulted in re-openings and approvals. However, those approved 

now have no country to which they can be referred for resettlement leaving them stuck and 

3 
21 

vulnerable in Thailand. The conditions for refugees in Thailand have been extensively detailed by 

Amnesty lntcrnational 1 (AI), and these findings confirm our organization's observations. The 2017 

AI report notes that refugees in Thailand face many difficulties due to their lack of legal status 

including, "limited employment prospects, trouble accessing medical care and educational 

opportunities, financial stresses, self-imposed restrictions on movement and social interactions, 

and the constant fear of arrest. Refugees and asylum-seekers arrested for immigration violations 

may face prolonged and indefinite detention in appalling conditions in IDCs .... UN human rights 

bodies, UNHCR and civil society organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about the 

prolonged detention of refugees and asylum-seekers, the poor conditions in IDCs, and the impact 

of these factors on the physical, psychological and social wellbeing of those seeking protection in 

Thailand .. .. Given the stark realities of detention and refugee life in Thailand, some refugees 

and asylum-seekers make the difficult decision to return to their horne countries and face the 

dangers and hardships that caused them to seek protection abroad."2 

This is where the other shoe drops for these refugees; whether they have been denied 

refugee status or are subjected to prolonged waiting for a resolution to their case, the deplorable 

conditions of the Immigration Detention Center (IDC) and the refugees' lack of domestic legal 

status, leaves them hopeless, with little choice but to return to the dire circumstances they once 

fled fi·om. We must emphasize the fact that people die in the IDC because they are not given 

access to medical treatment or are unable to pay for their medical care, medicine, or proper food. 

D'Souza 

Such was the situation for Michael D'Souza, a Pakistani Christian who fled to Thailand 

with his family in 2012. Mr. D'Souza and his family had been verbally harassed and threatened 

with bodily harm because of their Christian faith by various groups of Pakistani men and mullahs 

since 2005. Mr. D'Souza endured numerous beatings including one in which his persecutors 

threatened to "hang him like Jesus," as they stretched his arms out to the side and kicked his back. 

In 2012, two of Mr. D'Souza's sisters-in-laws were kidnapped and a group of men beat Mr. 

1 Between A Rock and A JJard Place: Thailand's Re(l1gee Pol ides And l'io/ations 0{7/!e Principle Ofi\'onR~foulement. ©Amnesty International, 2017. 2 Ibid., pgs. 41-42. 

4 
22 

D'Souza unconscious outside his home. After seeing a poster on a mosque wall with his 

photograph and a charge of blasphemy, Mr. D'Souza followed the advice of his friends and took 

his family out of Pakistan for their safety. 

The D'Souzas arrived in Bangkok, Thailand, in November 2012. Mr. D'Souza received his 

asylum seeker certificate in December but later that month was arrested and the D'Souzas had to 

spend a day in the Immigration Detention Center (!DC). After paying 50,000 Thai baht, they were 

released. Mr. D'Souza's Refugee Status Determination (RSD) interview was held on October 9, 

2013. While waiting for a determination. the D'Souzas were arrested again and spent three weeks 

in the IDC. After paying bail, they were released. Mr. D'Souza's UN refugee application was 

rejected in 2015, and Mr. D'Souza has provided to us several examples of where his interpreter 

mistranslated. A subsequent appeal was denied in 2016, and the D'Souzas were again placed in 

!DC. After a year in !DC in difficult circumstances and with no place to go, the D'Souzas made 

the painful decision to self~deport to Pakistan in hopes of better things. But that was not to be. 

Returning to Pakistan, Mr. D'Souza was unable to find a job, so with money from church 

friends in Bangkok, he bought a motorized rickshaw (tuk-tuk) to work as a taxi driver. Two months 

later, he was recognized by a group of men who told him that they were members of the Taliban 

and that they had been looking for him for years. They severely beat him with a cane and burned 

his tuk tuk. Mr. D'Souza cannot work, his children cannot go to school, and he now lives in 

constant fear for his safety and that of his family. Sadly, Mr. D'Souza's return to Pakistan 

confirmed the reasons why he should have been granted his refugee status determination by the 

UNHCR, those whom he feared, found and bludgeoned him just as they had threatened to do years 

earlier. 

Although refugees may appear to "voluntarily" self-deport, serious questions arise as to 

whether those deportations are truly "voluntary" or, due to the overwhelming economic, 

emotional, and physical difficulties for refugees in Thailand, whether the refugees are insidiously, 

indirectly coerced to deport. The AI report states, "refoulement [forceable deportment] need not 

be accomplished using physical coercion." International law also prohibits •·constructive" 

refoulement, which occurs when states use indirect means to coerce the retum of individuals to 

5 
23 

situations where they arc likely to face human rights violations. UNHCR's "Handbook on 

Voluntary Repatriation" states, '·The principle of voluntariness is the cornerstone of international 

protection with respect to the return of refugees." While a number of factors, including the 

economic, social and cultural pressures may affect whether a return is voluntary, lack of legal 

status and indefinite confinement can be chief drivers in an involuntary decision to return to one's 

country of origin.3 

For good reason, the Human Rights Watch Organization (I-IRW) this past November, sent 

a formal letter to the Prime Minister of Thailand strongly requesting that Pakistani asylum seekers 

in Thailand, not be sent back to Pakistan.4 Most of these asylum seekers come from the Christian 

and Ahmadiyya communities in Pakistan and have been the main targets of the blasphemy law 

which carries with it the death penalty.5 Jubilee campaign joins with HRW in pointing out that 

while Pakistan has primary responsibility for protecting the religious rights of its communities, 

"Thailand also has a legal responsibility to not return refugees to a place where their lives or 

liberty would be in danger," as the above mentioned case of Michael D'Souza and the case of 

"James" featured in the AI report tragically illustrate. 

Other cases currently languishing in Thailand include: 

Sunny Gill 

Sunny Gill is a well-known Christian journalist and documentary photographer from 

Pakistan. Through his political and religious activities, he has continuously raised the issues of 

Pakistan's voiceless minorities. Because of his work, Mr. Gill was physically assaulted by 

members of a criminal group associated with the Awami National Party (ANP) leading to his 

f1eeing to Thailand where he applied to the UNHRC for refugee status. The UNHRC denied Mr. 

Gill's petition in 2016 with a second denial issued in 2017. Since his first denial, five activists 

matching Mr. Gill's profile disappeared in Pakistan. Similar to Mr. Gill, the activists were wellknown for speaking out against the Pakistani military and religious militants and advocating for 

3 Ibid., pg 42. 4 Human Rights Watch, Letter to Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha, I I/612018. 5 Pakistan is one of only three countries which punish blasphemy with the death penalty. See, U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom Legislative Factsheet; Blasphemy, November 2018. 

6 
24 

religious minority rights. Thankfully, the UNHCR granted a request that Mr. Gill's appeal be 

reopened, he was re-interviewed, and he has been granted refugee status more than a year ago. 

However, there is no country to which his approved case has yet been referred on account of the 

global retraction by countries accepting referred refugees from the UNHCR. 

Talib Masih 

Talib Masih, a Christian Pakistani, attended an Indian wedding celebration in 2009. 

Five days later, Talib and Mukhtar Masih were accused and beaten by a group of Muslim men 

who alleged that Mukhtar had torn pages from the Koran, burned them, and humiliated the 

Prophet in a pre-wedding ceremony. Local Muslim clerics accused Talib and Mukhtar of 

blasphemy, made inflammatory statements against the blasphemy-accused, and incited Muslim 

residents who destroyed the homes and business of Christians in Korian village, as well as the 

burning of two Protestant churches. Violence continued for days, spreading into the town ofGojra 

in Punjab Province. A mob of 3,000 Muslims was responsible for burning at least I 07 houses, 

shooting indiscreetly and killing 8 Christians. Other Christians died from burn injuries. The 

violence forced villagers to flee. Talib Masih, after receiving severe threats, was forced into hiding 

for nearly two years before travelling to Thailand in 2012 seeking asylum. UN!IRC denied Mr. 

Masih's application in 2014; and he was given a second notice of denial in 2016. Following a 

request prepared by Jubilee Campaign, the UNHCR reopened Mr. Masih's refugee status, reinterviewed him, and granted his refugee status in April 2017. However, Mr. Masih remains in 

hiding in Thailand with no country to which his approved refugee case has yet heen referred on 

account of the global retraction by countries accepting referred refugees from the UNHCR. 

Yasmin Saleem 

Yasmin Saleem is a Pakistani Christian married to a Pakistani journalist. In 2012, her 

husband sought to help a 16-year-old Christian girl procure a divorce from a Muslim man, who 

had kidnapped her at gunpoint, forced her to convert to Islam, and forcibly married her. The girl's 

parents let her stay with Yasmin's family for protection. With the help of a Christian lawyer, the 

Muslim divorce was granted. The now ex-husband, who was in jail at the time of the divorce, 

became aggressive and tried to harass those who helped the girl. He threatened Yasmin by phone 

and text, threatening to kidnap Yasmin's daughter and do the same things he had done to this other 

7 
25 

girl. One day as Yasmin left work, she was struck by a car dislocating her vertebrae. Later, she 

received a call from the ex-husband saying that next time she wouldn't be so lucky. Yasmin didn't 

contact the police because she believed the ex-husband would tell the police that she had kidnapped 

his wife and converted her from Islam. By the middle of2012, the girl was no longer with Yasmin's 

family and thought the harassment would end, but the threats continued. She was harassed at work, 

resulting in her employer asking her to resign. After one particularly harrowing encounter with the 

gun-toting ex-husband at Yasmin's house, Yasmin fled to Thailand. Her husband remained in 

Pakistan to secure passpmts for their children who joined Yasmin in 2013. The UNHRC rejected 

Yasmin's case in 2014 citing a lack of evidence, denied the subsequent appeal in 2017; a second 

application was made which was also rejected for lack of evidence in 2018. In December 2018 a 

third application with evidence has been filed on Yasmin's behalf. She remains in Bangkok, 

fearful of arrest by Thai authorities, unable to provide schooling to her children with her there, and 

terrified of being returned to Pakistan. 

Another refugee community facing severe persecution are the Montagnards of Vietnam. 

USCIRF has cataloged the severity of persecution of this religious minority community. Our 

sources estimate that there are presently 500 Montagnard Christians in Bangkok, but the number 

is rising, as persecution increases for the million or so Montagnards in Vietnam. The treatment of 

Montagnard asylum seekers in Thailand is unique because immigration authorities separated 

families, including nursing children from their mothers. Although some mothers have been bailed 

out of the IDC, many mothers still remain detained, separated from their children. Most, if not all 

of these mothers have been recognized as persons of concern by UNHCR. It's also sensitive for 

them because Vietnam has a history of extrajudicial kidnappings in Thailand, most recently in the 

case of a Radio Free Asia blogger. Also, note that a Memorandum to End Child Detention was 

recently signed between Thailand and the UNHCR. As a result/prequel to this, bail is open for 

mothers and children registered with UNHCR, and Thai immigration now transfers mothers with 

children out of IDC and to more humane shelters. However, mothers from Vietnam remain 

separated from their children, and there are, in fact, still children in !DC. 

We urge the United States to increase its efforts to welcome Pakistani Christians and other 

minority religious refugees such as the Montagnards awaiting resettlement in Thailand. A number 

8 
26 

of Christians have been granted refugee status by the UNHCR in Thailand but have yet to be 

resettled to another country. In the year 2018, the United States welcomed 338 refugees from 

Thailand pertaining to the Muslims religion. In contrast, only 101 Christian arrivals were reported. 

Pakistani Christians awaiting to be resettled need protection and prompt intervention from 

supportive countries such as the United States is needed. The refugee crisis facing religious 

minorities is by no means confined to Thailand. 

The precarious political environment in Eritrea makes it of special concern. Human rights 

violations in Eritrea identified by the State Department includc6: 

Arbitrary deprivation of life; 

• Disappearances; 

Torture and other cruel, inhumane, and 

degrading treatment by security forces, 

including for political and religious 

beliefs; 

• Harsh prison and detention center 

conditions; 

• Arbitrary arrest; 

Denial of fair public trial; 

Arbitrary or unlawful interference with 

privacy, family, or home; 

Restrictions on freedoms of speech and 

press; 

Restrictions on internet freedom, 

academic freedom, and cultural events; 

• Restrictions on freedom of peacefu I 

assembly, association, and religion; 

Limits on freedom of internal 

movement and foreign travel; 

Inability of the citizens to choose the 

government in free and fair elections; 

Corruption and lack of transparency; 

Restrictions on international nongovernmental organizations; 

Violence against women and girls, 

including in military camp settings and 

national service positions; 

Human trafficking; 

Criminalization of same-sex sexual 

conduct: 

l'orced labor, including forced 

participation in the country's national 

service program, routinely for periods 

beyond the 18-month legal obligation. 

6 "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017: Eritrea." U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor, www.statc.gov/j!dr!/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper. 

9 
27 

In an attempt to assume complete control of religious activities and teachings, the 

government only recognizes four religious denominations: Islam, Eritrean Otthodoxy, 

Catholicism, and Lutheranism. Church leaders are often selected by the government, while 

sermons and activities are regulated. Other faiths and denominations including Evangelicals, 

Pentecostals, and Jehovah Witnesses are forced to meet and worship in secret, and if discovered, 

face severe consequences including arrest, torture, and imprisonment. It is estimated that over 

1,000 people are in prison on account of their faith in Eritrea, including church leaders. 

In 2018, 14,567 Eritreans fled the country to Ethiopia alone comprising slightly less than 

40% of the total number of people seeking refuge in Ethiopia 7. Of particular concern is the high 

number of unaccompanied and separated children fleeing the impending military conscription. 

Eritreans aged between 15 and 40 arc most likely to leave to avoid national service and in response 

to their perceived limited prospects within the country. Forty-four percent of refugees in Ethiopia 

arc children and of that number 27% are Eritrean. 8 The UNHRC noted that the onward movement 

of unaccompanied and separated children originating from Eritrea to urban centers and third 

countries was up substantially with up to 60 percent estimated to leave camps within a given year 

exposing the children to risk of smuggling. trafficking and sexual and gender-based violencc.9 

Eritreans who left their country illegally fear the consequences of returning. They may face 

torture, prison, disappearance, and discrimination given their continuing objections to national 

service requirements and repressive government policies. In addition to that, Eritreans are subject 

to pay the diaspora tax and must sign a "letter of apology" at the Eritrean embassy prior to returning 

home (Human Rights Watch, 2015). While serious concerns about treatment on return have 

generally prevented the deportation of Eritreans, Sudan has repeatedly forced back Eritrean 

asylum-seekers and refugees to Eritrea, where they risk persecution (GSDRC, 2016). The UK 

removed 49 Eritreans between April and June 2015 (ibid). One Eritrean whom the United States 

removed last year was so distraught that he committed suicide during a layover on his rcturn. 10 

7 Ethiopia Country Refugee Response Plan, January 2019- December 2020, UNHCR. Pg.6 8 Ibid. 

9 Ibid., pg. 20. 10 News Release, ICE detainee passes away in transit to home country, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Public Affairs, June 8, 2018 

10 
28 

Aster Tewelde 

Aster Tewelde is one such Eritrean who left her native country for fear of an indefinite 

conscription and the associated dangers for conscripted women of rape, forced marriage, and 

death. Aster fled to Yemen in a small boat dangerously crossing the Red Sea. While in Yemen, 

she married and had a son. In 2001, after Aster became a Christian, her boss began harassing her 

because of her Christian faith. She had to defend herself and eventually quit working altogether. 

Her son was suspended from school because he would not practice Islam and, later, beaten by his 

teacher due to his Christian faith. The teacher and students demanded that he become Muslim to 

stay in school, resulting in him being out of school for over a year. He received death threats after 

he had written in his notebook that Mohammad was a false prophet. In 2015, Aster's husband, 

died. It took 2 weeks to bury him because the local burial sites would not accept Christians. A 

neighbor helped for a few weeks, but she had to rely on others for food and help. Young men and 

boys continually mock her son because his father died and he was pressured to join ISIS, which 

he rebuffed because of his Christian faith. However, her son is afraid to leave his home as Muslims 

are looking for young men to recruit in the streets. Aster is unable to work due to restrictions on 

women in Yemen and she is unable to leave her home unless a male friend of her husband comes 

and takes her and her son to buy food. The UNHCR granted Aster and her son refugee status in 

2014 and again in 2016, but the UN is currently unable to get to Sanaa, to renew her refugee 

documents. Aster has relatives in the U.S. and is seeking to come to the U.S. as a refugee. Despite 

the clear vulnerabilities of Aster in the country of Yemen, the United States is not processing 

refugee cases from Yemen, and there is no possibility of referral to any country tor resettlement. 

Speaking of Yemen, there are Yemeni converts in Egypt, Ethiopia and Chad who are in 

di fTicult circumstances. Converts from Islam to Christianity from Yemen and other countries face 

unique vulnerabilities. Children of converts are forced to take Islam in school; they cannot attend 

a Christian school as it could lead to the school being closed. Even when converts are registered 

with the UNHCR they still do not have the right to live as Christians in the country of refuge such 

as Egypt and Jordan. Even when they receive permission to leave the country (RSD) they can face 

difficulties with birth certificates and marriage certificates. For example, a woman born Muslim 

11 
29 

and whose documents state her religion at birth is not legally allowed to marry a non-Muslim. This 

issue is found mainly in Jordan and Lebanon. 

Recommendations: 

The UNHCR in Thailand apply a consistent burden of proof and equally apply adjudication 

standards before making adverse credibility findings, as well as address perceived bias 

towards Pakistani Christian asylum seekers. 

The United States increase its refugee admission and adjust its refugee admission criteria 11 

to accept additional religious based refugees. The current refugee admission priorities 

should more intentionally incorporate religious minority refugees. 

1 thank you again for convening this hearing and allowing me to testify to the ongoing crisis of 

religious and ethnic minority refugees and asylum seekers. 

11 Priority I -Individual cases referred by designated entities to the program by virtue of their circumstances and 

apparent need for resettlement; Priority 2- Groups of special concern designated by the Department of State as 

having access to the program by virtue of their circumstances and apparent need for resettlement; and Priority 3 

Individual cases ftom designated nationalities granted access for purposes of reunification with family members 

already in the United States. 

12 
30 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. Mr. Mace. Hold on 1 second. 

Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF RYAN MACE, GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY AND 

REFUGEE SPECIALIST, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. MACE. Thank you for having us here. Chairwoman Bass, 

Ranking Member Smith, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting us to this hearing. You have my submitted testimony so I will be summarizing it today. 

My name is Ryan Mace and I am a refugee specialist At Amnesty 

International, USA global human rights movement. Last November 

I joined an AMNESTY delegation traveling to Jordan and Lebanon 

where we had the opportunity to hear from dozens of refugees. As 

global displacement has reached historic highs, affecting every region of the world, we must remember, this is a global crisis, but 

people are at its core. Refugees are human beings with human 

rights, rights that are at risk. 

Unfortunately countries around the world have responded with 

restrictive policies and fail to offer permanent protection on a scale 

that even begins to match the need. This is born out with the drastic reduction to refugee resettlement globally and an increase and 

detention used to deter and punish people who seek asylum. We 

are now helping lead this race to the bottom. Whether it is the 

Muslim refugee or asylum bans, increased detention of asylum 

seekers or targeting NGO human rights defenders, these policies 

can rightly be viewed as a violation of human rights. It is no exaggeration to say that the ability of people to seek safety and enjoy 

lasting protection is not only at risk, it is in crisis. 

I would like to tell you about a Syrian refugee family that has 

been living in Lebanon since 2013. Mr. Amari, father of four children aged 4 to 11 shared his two priorities with me. His first is 

the education of their children. Sadly more than half of refugee 

children in Lebanon attend no school at all. 

His second is to ensure they do not have to rely on others generosity to get by. In late 2016 they were notified they would be resettled to Richmond, Virginia. They packed up their bag and were 

ready to go. With the announcement in January 2017 of the Muslim ban their dreams were shattered, they would not be going to 

Richmond. We come in peace, he said to us. We are looking for security and safety. We are asking for your help. The U.S. refugee 

program has long been a partnership between the Federal Government, local communities and private investments built up over decades. 

Today it is needlessly at risk. At its peak the program admitted 

over 200,000 this year we will be lucky if we get to 20,000. The 

dramatic decrease in resettlement has put untenable pressure on 

refugee hosting countries around the world, countries including 

Turkey, Uganda, Jordan, and Lebanon all whose significant populations of refugees straining their social service programs. 

In recent years many countries have designed policies to keep 

people from ever even accessing their borders, putting up barrier 

after barrier to keep them out. States are violating their right to 

seek asylum. Forcing them to wait for weeks or longer in unsafe 
31 

conditions or make the terrible decision to take dangerous routes 

to safety. 

Since 2016, European governments have practically shut down 

Mediterranean sea routes that refugees have used in the past with 

devastating results. 

In the U.S., Amnesty International has documented the dangerous trend of pushing back asylum seekers at the U.S. southern 

border in a recent report titled You Don’t Have Any Rights Here. 

The report titled quotes a CBP official speaking to a Brazilian 

mother in Texas last year as they separated her from her child. 

That is the message that our frontline officials are communicating 

to those in search of safety. 

Unfortunately, many migrants and asylum seekers around the 

world are detained, often in appalling conditions and for indefinite 

periods. In Libya, migrants and refugees in detention centers are 

routinely exposed to torture, extortion and rape. In the U.S., over 

40,000 people are held in detention any given day. Everyone should 

have the right to freedom from arbitrary detention and detention 

should always be the last resort. 

The assault on refugees and asylum seekers has now reached 

such heights that even advocates are targeted. An increasing number of countries are enacting policies to limit refugee rights organizations from doing their critical work. Here in the U.S., asylum advocates have reportedly been targeted by authorities, including facing criminal prosecution for providing water to exhausted migrants 

in the desert. 

Here we are, 2 years later and the Amari family is still in limbo, 

without a permanent home, despite one waiting for them in the 

U.S. As an advocate, I feel powerless, but the members of this committee have the power to change this family’s life and others like 

them. 

These are our recommendations, first the U.S. should restore its 

commitment to refugee resettlement. Second, this cannot be the 

last time this subject is before this committee or this Congress. I 

am glad to hear that that will be the case. Third, this Congress 

must support legislation that overturns destructive policies that 

target these populations. And finally, our government has long 

been a leader in helping displaced populations around the world 

and we must continue to play that role. 

In closing, the world is rightly wondering if the U.S. is still an 

active partner in offering protection for those who need it most. We 

need to listen to refugees and asylum seekers and from those directly working with them. 

I thank the committee and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mace follows:] 
32 

Testimony of Ryan Mace 

Grassroots Advocacy & Refugee Specialist 

Amnesty International USA 

Hearing on "A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants and Asylum-Seekers" 

U.S. House of Representatives 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 

February 26, 2019 

Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting us to this vital, and overdue, hearing on the challenges facing refugees, migrants, and 

asylum-seekers around the world. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

My name is Ryan Mace, and I am the refugee specialist at Amnesty International USA, the U.S. 

section of Amnesty International, a global human rights movement with over seven million 

members worldwide, dedicated to the principle that everyone has human rights that must be 

protected, respected, and fulfilled. For the past several years, refugee protection has been one of 

Amnesty International's top priorities, both globally and here in the United States. 

Last November, I joined a small Amnesty delegation travelling to Jordan and Lebanon, where we 

had the opportunity to hear from dozens of refugees, as well as service providers, and U.N. 

agencies. The primary goal of the trip was to better understand what the impact of U.S. policies 

have been on refugees themselves. 

As we struggle with how to best respond to the unprecedented increase of asylum-seekers and 

refugees, affecting every region of the world and on a scale that is hard to fathom, we must 

remember: this is a global crisis, but people are at its core. While the sheer numbers may 

overwhelm us, we cannot forget that every one of those numbers is a person. Refugees are 

human beings with human rights. Rights that arc at risk. The rights of refugees and asylumseekers are under assault from all sides, around the world and here at home. 

Unfortunately, despite the global need, countries around the world have responded with 

restrictive, harsh policies and a complete failure to come together to offer permanent protection 

to refugees and asylum-seekers on a scale that would even begin to match the need. In the last 

two years we have seen a drastic reduction in the international community's commitment to 

refugee resettlement as a vital and lasting protection for those who need it, for which the U.S. is 

squarely to blame. Further, our own government, and many others across the globe, are 

increasingly using detention to deter and punish people for exercising their human right to seek 

asylum. 

At one time, the U.S. was both an author and a champion of refugee protection principles 

globally. Sadly, we are now leading this race to the bottom, devising harsh and exclusionary 

policies targeting refugees and asylum-seekers at home and abroad. Whether it is the Muslim, 

refugee, and asylum bans, a policy of separating families along the Southern border with 

Mexico, pushing people back from our borders or forcing them to remain in Mexico, 

Page 1 of9 
33 

dramatically increasing the detention of asylum-seekers, or reportedly targeting NGO human 

rights defenders- the United States' policies towards refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers can 

rightly be viewed as extreme, violating international law, including international human rights 

law, and just downright cruel. And our policies mirror many of the restrictive policies other 

countries have adopted around the world. 

It is no exaggeration to say that the ability of people to seek safety, and enjoy lasting protection 

is not only at risk, it is in crisis. While there arc certainly critiques to be made of how other 

countries have responded, we must first look to our own policies. The Trump administration is 

waging a deliberate campaign of human rights violations against asylum-seekers and refugees, to 

broadcast globally that the United States no longer welcomes refugees. Simultaneously, the 

Trump administration is seeking to dismantle the U.S. asylum system, including by narrowing 

definitions of who qualifies for protection in violation of international law. Setting a dangerous 

precedent, the U.S. government's failure to acknowledge or meet its obligations under human 

rights and refugee law is undermining the international framework for refugee protection, grossly 

violating the right to seek asylum, and inviting a race to the bottom by other countries. 

A Family's Life on Hold 

It is important that we center the voices and experiences of impacted populations when 

discussing this crisis. I wish you could hear directly from some of those we met during our 

travels as many of their stories are by one measure heartbreaking, but by another, filled with 

resilience and hope. 

To illustrate just how cruel these policies can be in practice, I would like to tell you about one 

family we had the opportunity to meet while my colleagues and I were in Lebanon. While in 

Beirut, we went to the bustling U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reception 

center where refugees go to obtain their refugee status determination, provide biometric 

information, ensure their case files are up to date, and receive information about how to access 

basic support services. There we met the Amari 1 family. With four kids ranging from age four to 

eleven, the family reminded me of my own sister's. All the kids had big smiles on their laces and 

could not wait to tell us what they wanted to be when they grew up. Three of the four wanted to 

go into medicine, with the middle girl confidently declaring she wanted to be a bone specialist. 

All of them were excited about their futures and doing exactly what any child their age should be 

doing- dreaming big. 

Mr. Amari told us his first priority is the education of their children. While their children were 

able to access some level of schooling, that is not the case for all refugees we met with, nor is 

their future ability to go to school in Lebanon certain. Lebanon hosts nearly a million refugees 

from Syria, almost half of whom are school-aged children. While some can attend at least a few 

hours of school a day, more than half are not in any school at all. None of them are receiving the 

adequate levels of schooling required for their development. 

1 Name changed to protect identity. 

Page 2 of9 
34 

Mr. Amari's second priority is being able to work and ensure his family can be self-reliant. They 

do not want to have to rely on others' generosity to get by. And they do not want to just "get by" 

-they want to be self-sufficient and see their children thrive. 

While they did briefly recount the story of why they were forced to leave their home, what was 

most compelling was why they remain stuck in Lebanon. 

Originally from Syria, the Amari family has been living in Lebanon since 2013. They have gone 

through the lengthy process of being accepted for resettlement to the U.S. and then undertaken 

the U.S.' significant and rigorous multi-agency security reviews. In late 2016, the Amari family 

was notified they were in the last steps of their resettlement case to the United States and would 

soon travel to their new home- a stage of the process that can take years to get to. They went 

through the final required steps, packed up their bags, and gave away to other refugees anything 

they could not bring with them. They knew where their new home was going to be a place 

called Richmond. Virginia. Describing the moment when he learned his family would move to 

Virginia, Mr. Amari recalled: "we felt, at the time, this was our new home." 

Then the dream all came crashing down. In January 2017, the first iteration of the Muslim ban 

was announced, banning Syrian refugees indefinitely. They would not be going to Richmond. 

Since that time, the Amari family has heard nothing further on their case except periodic and 

maddeningly vague updates that their case is under "security review." With tears in his eyes, Mr. 

Amari told me: ·'We come in peace. We are the victims. We are looking for security and safety. 

We are asking for your help." 

Refugee Resettlement at Risk Globally 

The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is a partnership between the Federal government, local 

communities, and private investment, built up over decades by the hard work of dedicated 

Americans alongside refugees and immigrants alike. Today, it is needlessly at risk as the Trump 

administration slashes our refugee admissions goal and then does nothing to meet the lowered 

goal. This should alarm all of us. 

Following the unspeakable horrors that occurred during both world wars and the resulting 

refugee crisis, the international community gathered together and created the 1951 Convention 

Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention was grounded in Article 14 of the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, which mandates that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy 

in other countries asylum from persecution.'' The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 

Protocol, to which the U.S. is a signatory, protects refugees from being returned to countries 

where they arc at risk of being persecuted and gives the international community a set of 

guidelines, laws, and norms to ensure the protection of refugees' rights. 

The U.S., for its part, implemented its obligations under international law through the 1980 

Refugee Act, championed by the late Senator Kennedy, which not only codified the international 

definition of refugee in U.S. law, but also provided the basis for the modern U.S. Refugee 

Admissions Program and other vital programs that ensure that refugees have access to protection 

here in the United States. At its peak, the U.S. refugee program admitted over 200,000 refugees, 

Page 3 of9 
35 

and during every year of the George H.W. Bush presidency the U.S. admitted more than 100,000 

refugees annually. 

Not even two years ago the U.S. was the world's leader in resettling refugees. That time is no 

more. In 2016, 126,291 refugees were resettled around the world, of which the U.S. resettled 

96,874.2 Jn 2018, that number has fallen to 55,692 refugees resettled globally, of which the U.S. 

resettled, 22,874. The dramatic decrease in resettlement, fueled by the U.S.'s ahdication, has put 

untenable pressure on refugee-hosting countries around the world. Countries including Turkey, 

Uganda, Jordan, and Lebanon all host significant populations of refugees per capita; straining 

their educational, health care, and other social services programs. Further, many of these 

countries already have high unemployment rates. Thus, refugees, even if permitted to work in 

any employment sector, have great difficulty in securing steady and sustaining employment. Of 

course, the people most directly aHected are the refugees themselves, who are forced to live for 

years and sometimes decades in dismal conditions and have no choice but to remain dependent 

on international assistance. 

By dismantling the institution of refugee resettlement, the U.S. gives up not just its moral 

obligation towards refugees seeking lasting safety, but also the many, wide-ranging contributions 

that refugees bring to our communities throughout the country. Refugees and asylees work in all 

sectors of our economy, serving as teachers, doctors, musicians, chefs, and shaping policy as 

elected and public officials all over the country. We used to provide leadership to the 

international community on the issue of refugee resettlement; today, we leave the Amari family 

and their four school-aged children languishing when they could be safely settled in Richmond 

by now, likely thriving, with the children fully in school. We are capable of so much more. 

A System Designed to Keep People Out 

In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have designed policies to keep 

people in search of safety from ever accessing their borders. These policies violate states' 

international human rights and other legal obligations. 

By turning away asylum-seekers at ports-of-entry or putting up barrier after barrier to keep them 

out, numerous states, including the U.S., are violating their right to seek asylum from 

persecution. While Amnesty International recognizes the sovereign power of states to regulate 

entry and stay of foreign nationals in their territories, migration policies and border control 

measures must be consistent with international human rights law and refugee protection 

frameworks. 

The turning away of asylum-seekers violates the core principle of non-refoulement- the 

cornerstone of all international law on refugees. Forcing or deporting someone back to where 

they will be in danger, including turning away people to territories where their "life or freedom" 

would be threatened, is a violation of international law. UNHCR has further advised that "states 

will be required to grant individuals seeking international protection access to the territory and to 

fair and efficient asylum procedures." Besides violating international customary law, arbitrarily 

2 http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/ 

Page 4 of9 
36 

closing border crossings creates new harms for people seeking safety. It increases the risks to the 

safety of those who are forced to wait for weeks or longer in precarious and unsafe conditions or 

forces them to take far more dangerous routes to continue their journey to safety. 

For example, since 2016, European governments have implemented a series of measures to shut 

down Mediterranean Sea routes that refugees and asylum seekers have used in the past to escape, 

and instead outsourced their responsibilities to neighboring countries, notably Turkey and Libya, 

to devastating results. Our researchers have documented how refugees in Turkey live in 

perpetual legal limbo, fearing forced depotiations to warzones and barely managing to eke out a 

living, much less establish a life.3 1n Libya, the European Union's policies have contributed to 

horrific abuses: refugees are held in modern-day dungeons, and have been brutally totiured, 

extorted, raped, and sold in slave markets. 

Closer to home, asylum-seekers have not fared much better. Over the last two years, President 

Trump's administration has implemented immigration policies that have caused irreparable harm 

to thousands of people, have manifestly violated both U.S. and international law, and appear to 

be aimed at dismantling the U.S. asylum system. These policies include the ban on seeking 

asylum for irregular border crossers, the pushbacks and metering of asylum-seekers and 

migrants, and the so called "remain in Mexico" policy. 

Amnesty International documented the dangerous trend of pushing back asylum-seekers at the 

U.S. Southern border with Mexico in a recent report titled "You Don't Have Any Rights Here."4 

The report title directly quotes a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official speaking to a 

Salvadoran father in California in November 2017 and to a Brazilian mother in Texas in March 

2018 as they summarily separated the two parents from their children. That is the message our 

front-line officials are communicating to people coming to the United States in search of safety. 

By turning away asylum-seekers at its pmis-of-entry, the United States has grossly violated their 

right to seek asylum, as well as its obligation not to return asylum-seekers to places where they 

would face grave harm. This principle is incorporated into U.S. law, which requires border and 

immigration authorities to receive and refer asylum-seekers for an interview with an asylum 

officer and conduct individual assessments of any risk of persecution or torture that they may 

face upon return. Practically since the start of the Trump Administration, however, U.S. 

authorities have forced thousands of asylum-seekers to queue on the Mexican side of the border, 

where many have reported facing violence at the hands of criminal gangs, and possible detention 

in Mexico and forcible deportation back to their countries of origin. The practice of limiting how 

many can request asylum at our border is known as "metering." CBP personnel have regularly 

turned away Mexican nationals seeking asylum in the United States, including unaccompanied 

minors. In January 2019, the U.S. government further sowed chaos and confusion among 

asylum-seekers when it announced that individuals seeking asylum at U.S. potis-of-entry along 

the southern border would be expelled to Mexico for the duration of their asylum claims- a 

process which can take years to complete. These practices collectively constitute flagrant 

'https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR4430222015ENGLISH.pdf 

4 https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/You-Dont-Have-Any-Rights-Here.pdf 

Page 5 of9 
37 

violations of the right to seek asylum and the U.S. government's obligations under international 

law not to forcibly return people to places where they will face harm. 

Detention of Asylum-Seekers 

Unfortunately, many migrants and asylum-seekers around the world arc detained, often in 

appalling conditions and for indefinite periods. From Libya to Greece, to Nauru off the coast of 

Australia to detention centers in the United States- governments are detaining migrants, asylumseekers, and refugees, often in appalling conditions and for indefinite periods of time. 

In Libya, Amnesty International has documented that as of November 2018, nearly 6,000 foreign 

nationals- mostly of African origin- are being held in detention centers across the country. The 

detention centers where refugees and migrants are kept have no judicial oversight, meaning 

detainees are held without any judicial order, cannot challenge their detention and are not offered 

legal counsel, making their detention unlawful under international law. Torture and other illtreatment are rife, being used by guards to exploit the detainees and extract money from their 

families. 

In Greece, refugees have been trapped in overcrowded and squalid EU-sponsored camps on the 

Greek islands.5 Moria, and other refugee camps on the Greek islands, arc dangerous for 

everyone, but women and girls, unaccompanied minors and members of the LGBTl community 

are particularly at risk. Showers and toilets often do not have locks and lighting is poor. Even 

simple daily tasks such as taking a shower or getting water can be stressful and risky. This will 

be the third winter that Moria and thousands of its inhabitants will have to endure such 

conditions. Not surprisingly, this coincides with the third winter of the implementation of the 

EU-Turkey deal, the main driver behind the inhumane conditions refugees and migrants face 

today on the Greek islands. 

Hundreds of individuals remain trapped in offshore detention centers on Papua New Guinea and 

Nauru. Nauru has failed to provide refugees with the health care they desperately need, and the 

Nauru government has passed a law banning medical transfers based on tele-medic assessments, 

effectively circumventing a law passed in Australia earlier this month which allows refugees in 

Manus and Nauru needing urgent medical attention to be brought to Australia. Denying them 

medical transfers is yet another blow and demonstrates just how far the human rights of refugees 

have slipped down Nauru and Australia's agendas. The misery of indefinite detention is pushing 

increasing numbers of refugees and people seeking asylum to suicide attempts and self-harm, a 

report from the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) and Amnesty International found in 

November 2018.6 

In the United States, over 40,000 people are held in detention every single day- many of them 

asylum-seekers. The policy and practice of indefinitely jailing individuals based solely on their 

migratory status constitutes arbitrary detention in violation of both U.S. and international law, 

including the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified and integrated 

5 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur25/9442/2018/en/ 

6 https:f/www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa34/9422/2018/en/ 

Page 6 of9 
38 

into U.S. law. Everyone, including migrants and asylum-seekers, has the right to liberty and to 

freedom of movement, including protection from arbitrary arrest and detention. Alternatives to 

detention should always be considered first and detention should be a measure of last resort. 

In practice, U.S. authorities have leveraged the agony of prolonged detention to compel asylumseekers to "voluntarily" give up their asylum claims and accept deportation back to their 

countries of origin where they had fled persecution. That practice constitutes forced return under 

international law. The anguish of indefinite detention has often been amplified by family 

separations and inadequate conditions of detention, including routinely substandard medical care 

that has contributed in some cases to asylum-seekers' deaths in immigration detention facilities. 

Further, international law also makes categorically clear that children should never be detained 

for immigration-related purposes, as it will never be in their best interest. Amnesty International 

opposes all detention of children- whether accompanied or unaccompanied- solely for 

immigration purposes and, calls for a presumption against the detention of asylum-seekers and 

other migrants to be established in law, and that immigration detention is exercised only when 

determined to be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose and based on an assessment 

ofthe individual's circumstances. 

Many children now in the custody of the U.S. government were placed there after being forcibly 

separated from their caretakers and families. For example, Abel, a seven-year-old child, was 

forcibly separated from his mother, Yalquiria, at the U.S. border in March 2018. Though Abel 

has since been liberated from government custody, his mother still sits in an adult detention 

facility in El Paso, Texas. Their story is emblematic of the enonnous human costs of the U.S. 

addiction to detention. Separating families violates multiple fundamental human rights all at 

once, including the right to family unity, the right to liberty, and the right to freedom from torture 

and other ill-treatment. Both the prosecution of asylum-seekers for irregular entry, and the forced 

separation of families, is a violation of U.S. obligations under international refugee law. 

Children's rights arc also violated in multiple ways through family separations, including by 

exposing them to extreme and unnecessary trauma after being separated. 

Crackdown on Defenders of Refugees and Migrants 

The assault on refugees and asylum-seekers has now reached such heights that even advocates 

for these populations are being targeted. States have the duty to foster a healthy civic space, and 

to enable and protect those who operate within that space - including those who seek to advocate 

for refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants- and to do so without discrimination. However, an 

increasing number of countries are enacting laws and policies designed specifically to limit the 

ability of refugee and migrant rights organizations from doing their critical work. 

For example, in Amnesty International's recently released rep01t, "Laws designed to silence," we 

detail how in Hungary, a recent package of laws passed in2018 is purposefully designed to 

target individuals and organizations who carry out activities in support of refugees and migrants. 

The new law creates the criminal offence of"facilitating illegal immigration" and applies to both 

individuals and organizations that are accused of engaging in certain "organizational activities" 

that assist people who are seeking asylum and those who have entered Hungary irregularly and 

Page7of9 
39 

arc attempting to secure a residency pennit. The vague terminology contained in this law could 

see criminal penalties imposed for a broad range of activities, including campaigning, providing 

legal support to migrants and refugees, or conducting research into human rights violations. 

Here in the United States, asylum advocates and lawyers have described being targeted by U.S. 

authorities, including by having "alerts" placed on their passports and being criminally 

prosecuted simply for providing water to exhausted migrants in the desert along the border. 

Penalizing such activities is a direct assault on the work of civil society actors who support or 

advocate on behalf of refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants. This should alarm anyone who 

cares about the rights of asylum-seekers, and the organizations and committed professionals 

seeking to help them through an increasingly difficult and dangerous route to safety. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Two years later, and the Amari family is still in limbo, without a permanent home despite one 

waiting for them here in the United States. Advocates for their rights can be left feeling 

powerless. 1 cannot personally help move their resettlement case forward. I cannot help them go 

to school. I cannot help them feel safe. 

But the members of this Committee have the power to change this family's lite, and to help other 

families like them. 

To that end, these are our recommendations to this Committee: 

I. Increase our commitment to refugee resettlement: At times of far less need, our 

country has done far more. The U.S. has cut its commitment to refugee resettlement to 

the lowest levels in the history of the U.S. refugee program and appears to be making 

little effort to even try and reach this lowered goal. The U.S. should restore its 

commitment to offering refugees who need it access to resettlement by increasing the 

U.S. resettlement goal to at least 75,000 refugees to be resettled every year and provide 

the vetting agencies responsible the resources and tools they need to meet the goal we set. 

II. Hear directly from those affected through congressional delegations and further 

testimony: Today's hearing cannot be the last time this subject is before this Committee 

or this Congress. We need to hear from those most directly implicated by these policies 

on what life is like for them, what do they need, and how U.S. policies along with 

humanitarian and development assistance can better help them. We also need to hear 

from those directly working with refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants at all levels. l 

would also encourage this committee to organize bipatiisan congressional delegations to 

see the impact of these policies, and human rights violations, firsthand. 

III. Support legislation that overturns President Trump's damaging policies: The 1161

h 

Congress must support and pass legislation that ovetiurns President Trump's destructive 

policies that target refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers. This Congress must reaffirm 

the clear intent of the laws passed by this body that ensure the safety and wellbeing of 

refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers. l encourage every Member of Congress to 

support and pass legislation that would: 

Page 8 of9 
40 

a. Nullify the Muslim, refugee, and asylum bans; 

b. Ban the separation and/or detention of families with children; 

c. End the policy of pushing people back from our borders or forcing them to remain 

in Mexico; 

d. And stop allowing the detention of asylum-seekers to be the norm both here in the 

U.S. and around the world. 

IV. Support increased humanitarian assistance: The U.S. government has long been the 

single largest donor to helping displaced populations around the world and we must 

continue to play that role. The U.S. invests in life preserving and lifesaving humanitarian 

assistance that helps forcibly displaced people who lack access to the most basic 

necessities of life, including food, clean water, safe shelter, healthcare, and education, all 

of which are human rights. Further, these funds aid people displaced by natural disaster, 

conflict, and war. For example, funding supports efforts to eradicate famine in countries 

including South Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia, and address long-standing humanitarian 

crises in countries including Afghanistan, Somalia, and Colombia, which have caused 

significant intemal displacement. Congress should robustly fund humanitarian assistance 

accounts including the Migration and Refugee Assistance, International Disaster 

Assistance, and Emergency Migration and Refugee Assistance accounts. 

The world is rightly wondering if the United States is indeed still committed to the principles 

contained within the refugee convention and is still an active partner in offering protection for 

those who need it most. We must show them that we are. 1 look forward to your questions. 

Page 9 of9 
41 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC SCHWARTZ, PRESIDENT, REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL, FORMER ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND 

MIGRATION 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these 

critical issues. Members have referenced the numbers at the end 

of 2017. There were nearly 70 million people worldwide confronted 

by persecution and by human rights violations and 24.5 million of 

those people were refugees, those outside their countries of origin, 

and about 40 million were internally displaced. 

According to the well respected organization, Development Initia- tives, governments and the private sector spend over $27 billion 

annually in humanitarian aid. The United States is the largest 

donor. But as a percentage of GDP, we are not near the top. And 

U.S. aid amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. 

So what are some of the key issues on refugees and migration 

confronting this Congress? First, there is the issue of support for 

refugee solutions, solutions that have been overwhelmingly endorsed by governments in a recently adopted Global Compact on 

Refugees, solutions which are reflected in international programs 

supporting education and employment of refugees, in countries like 

Jordan, like Turkey, like Uganda, like Ethiopia and others. 

The United States had been at the forefront of this solutions effort, but frankly, policies have shifted. With the Trump administration pressing for dramatic cuts in humanitarian aid, opposing the 

Global Compact on Refugees, and slashing U.S. refugee resettlement. Congress has a role to push back against these measures. 

And the dramatic decrease of refugee resettlement, in particular 

Muslim majority countries, should be the subject of careful oversight. 

On the challenge of global forced migration generally, and despite the administration’s decision to boycott another set of negotiations around a new agreement, or compact, on global migration 

that was also overwhelmingly endorsed by governments, Members 

of Congress should press for substantial increases in support, in 

funding, for key initiatives that were envisioned in that global migration agreement. These include efforts to minimize drivers of 

forced migration in countries of origin, measures to ensure respect 

for migrant rights, enhanced pathways for regular immigration and 

alternatives to migrant detention. 

On another critical issue, the rights and well-being of refugee 

women and girls, Congress should seek to lift restrictions on aid for 

sexual and reproductive health services, and on services related to 

response to gender-based violence, restrictions that have been imposed by the administration. And those should be particularly 

alarming in light of violence against women and girls in places like 

Burma, otherwise known as Myanmar, South Sudan, and the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo. And Congress should reject actions that politicize humanitarian aid. In 1984, it was the Reagan 

Administration that declared that a hungry child knows no politics. 

And we should be deeply concerned by departures from this prin-
42 

ciple, reflected for example by the administration’s decision to end 

humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians due to the political positions of Palestinian leaders. This has had serious consequences for 

life sustaining assistance and Congress should protect aid to civilians at risk without discrimination. 

Finally, Congress cannot ignore refugee protection at home, 

where we have recently witnessed measures that dramatically limit 

the ability of Central Americans to make claims for asylum. Beyond enacting legislation to ensure that the administration acts 

consistent with U.S. law and values, Congress could legislate, 

should legislate a special refugee and humanitarian resettlement 

program to address humanitarian challenges at our southern border. We have done it with Soviet Jews, we have done it with Cubans, we can do it with Central Americans. 

The consensus—the consensus in our country for respect of refugee rights—that is a consensus that has always been a fragile 

one, with loud voices of intolerance often appealing to our fears, 

rather than to our ideals and our interests. And this is precisely 

why at this moment in history the voices of Members of Congress 

are so critical. I urge that you use those voices in Washington and 

beyond the beltway to ensure a brighter, a more affirming, and a 

successful future for all Americans. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:] 
43 

Testimony of Eric Schwartz 

President 

Refugees International 

Hearing on '·A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants and Asylum-Seekers" 

U.S. House of Representatives 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Subcommittee on Africa. Global Health, Global Human Rights. and International Organizations 

February 26, 2019 

I want to thank the Chair, Representative Bass, as well as Ranking Member Smith and 

the members of this subcommittee for holding this important and timely hearing. 

It is a special pleasure for me to testify before this Subcommittee, in part because of my 

and my organization's personal connections with so many of your members: Representative 

Chris Smith, with whom I've collaborated on a number of rcfi.tgce issues, including a special 

resettlement initiative for Vietnamese refugees when I was at the National Security Council in 

the mid-1990s; Representative Bass, with whom Refugees International (RI) has worked on 

issues such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Libya; and with your Midwestern 

members-Representatives Omar. Phillips, and Sensenbrenner-each of whom has been 

involved with the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School ofPuhlic Affairs, where I served 

as dean for six wonderful years. 

Refugees International is a non-governmental organization that advocates for lifesaving 

assistance and protection for displaced people in parts of the world impacted by connie!, 

persecution, and forced displacement. We conduct fact-finding missions to research and report 

on the circumstances of displaced populations in countries such as Somalia, Mexico, Colombia, 

Syria, and Bangladesh among many others. Rl does not accept government or United Nations 

funding. which helps ensure that our advocacy is impartial and independent. Some of what we 

are sharing below is drawn ti-om prior Rl reporting. including our Report Card on the Trump 

administration's performance on refugee and humanitarian protection. 

I. The State o(the Humanitarian World: 

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). there were 

at the end of2017 nearly 70 million persons around the world forcibly displaced as a result of 

conflict, human rights abuses. and persecution. This is the highest total since recording of these 

figures began after the Second World War. The numbers include some 24.5 million people 
44 

2 

deemed to be refugees-that is those outside their country of origin-and some 40 million 

internally displaced people-people displaced within their countries of origin. And UNHCR 

reported some 3.1 million asylum seekers, those outside their countries of origin who seek legal 

status in countries that have received them. 

Beyond these numbers, we have witnessed some 25 million or so people displaced 

annually in recent years as the result of disasters borne by natural hazards and exacerbated by the 

impact of climate change. 

UNHCR figures reveal that as of the end of2017, nearly 70 percent of the world's 24.5 

million refugees came from just five countries: Syria, South Sudan. Afghanistan. Myanmar, also 

known as Burma, and Somalia. Most have been in that status for many years or more, and 

contrary to popular perception, most do not live in camps but rather in urban, semi-urban, or 

rural areas. Eight countries at the end of20 17 hosted about 45% of all the world's refugees. 

Those countries included Turkey, Pakistan, Uganda, Lebanon, Iran, Germany. Bangladesh, and 

Sudan. And well over half the world's internally displaced people live in just seven countries: 

Syria, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan, and Nigeria. 

If that is a brief description of the challenge, what about the structure and operations of 

the international system of humanitarian response? 

2. International Humanitarian Aid- the Landscape: 

According to the Global Humanitarian Assistance Report published by the well-regarded 

Development Initiatives organization, the vast majority of funding for international humanitarian 

response-about 75 percent-comes from governments, with the rest coming from private 

sources. And in 2017, governments and private sources spent over 27 billion dollars in support of 

humanitarian aid, numbers that do not include resources used by the governments. usually in the 

global south, hosting refugees. 

For humanitarian crises and displacement crises that outstrip the capacity of an individual 

government but in which forced displacement occurs within the borders of the country in crisis. 

international involvement is loosely coordinated by the UN Office for the Coordination of 

Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA), with assistance provided by a broad range of actors organized 

by sectors and which include UN Funds and Programs like UNICEF, the World Food Program. 
45 

3 

UNHCR; international NGOs; and national and local NGOs-all of which coordinate with local 

authorities. 

For refugee crises-that is. those that cross borders-UNHCR generally plays a leading 

role, supported by many of the organizations I have just listed. 

The United States is the largest donor to these international humanitarian assistance 

efforts, probably accounting for between a quarter and third of expenditures, but as a percentage 

ofGDP, the United States is nowhere near the top--and U.S. humanitarian assistance amounts to 

less than 1% of the entire federal budget. U.S. support comes principally from two sources, the 

State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees. and Migration. and USA!D's Bureau for 

Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance. 

3. Some Ker Retitgee and Migration Issues (or U.S. Potier Makers 

A. Support (or Refugee Solutions- a Maior Current Issue o( Concern 

Background: Ultimately. there are three durable solutions for refugees: repatriation to 

the country or origin when the conditions in the country of origin permit return; local integration, 

in which the government of the country to which the refugee has fled permits the refugee to 

reside there permanently with legal status; and, finally. third country resettlement, when a 

government agrees to permanently resettle a refugee who had been obtaining temporary refuge 

and protection elsewhere. 

In recent years, as the number of refugees in protracted situations has grown, 

governments. international organizations, and advocates have made greater efforts to promote 

stability, as well as work and education opportunities tor refugees, even when so-called durable 

solutions have not been available. 

At a New York Summit on Refugees and Migrants held in 2016, governments affirmed 

these objectives and concluded that host governments in the global south hosting refugees 

needed much greater support from wealthy countries, including support not only for the refugees, 

but for the host communities in these host countries; and that governments like the United States 

needed to expand their refugee admissions programs to meet the third country resettlement needs 

identified for refugees by UNHCR-and to demonstrate to countries hosting millions of refugees 

that the United States and other rich countries were prepared to do their fair share. 
46 

4 

These kinds of conclusions, which offer real hope to refugees. were endorsed in a 

recently adopted Global Compact on Refugees (GCR)-and they are reflected in relatively new 

programs of financial and other support for education and employment of refugees in refugeehosting countries such as Jordan, Turkey, Uganda, Ethiopia and many others. 

The Trump Administration and Refugee Solutions: Until early 2017 the United States 

had been in the foretl·ont of many if not most of these etTorts to support solutions. but policies 

have shifted in the last couple of years. 

Rather than look for additional humanitarian resources that would support host 

governments, the Trump administration in early 2017 unveiled fiscal year 2018 budget proposals 

calling for unprecedented cuts of some 30 percent in humanitarian aid. Congress rteiected these 

cuts, but the administration unveiled in February 2018 proposals for dramatic cuts in fiscal year 

2019, which again have been resisted by the Congress. 

In addition, the Trump administration was one of only two countries that voted against 

adoption of the GCR, the other being Hungary, with 181 governments voting in favor-and this 

sent an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world about U.S. support for this refugee solutions 

elTort. Finally, the administration significantly changed U.S. policy and practice on third country 

refugee resettlement. 

Under the 1980 Refugee Act, the president each year determines a U.S. refugee 

admissions ceiling-that is, the maximum number of refugees the United States will choose to 

bring to the United States for third country resettlement. In the final year of the Obama 

administration, the U.S. Refugee Admissions ceiling was raised from 85,000 to 110,000 for 

fiscal year 2017, in large measure to signal U.S. support for the kinds of global initiatives I have 

just mentioned. 

But upon coming to office, President Trump reduced that II 0,000 figure to just over 

50,000 through executive action, and also ordered a temporary suspension in the admissions 

program. He subsequently reintroduced the Refugee Admissions program but with new security 

screening and other procedures that have substantially impacted not only overall numbers, but 

distribution of those numbers, resulting in a dramatic decrease in the percentage of individuals 

resettled from Muslim-majority countries. For fiscal year 2018, the President authorized a U.S. 

refugee ceiling of 45,000, though only about half that number ultimately arrived in the United 
47 

5 

States. And tor fiscal year 2019, the President authorized a U.S. refugee ceiling of30,000. Not 

surprisingly, this has been accompanied by a worldwide decrease in refugee resettlement. 

What Congress Can Do: First. Congress must continue to strongly resist efforts to cut 

U.S. humanitarian assistance. There is no question that your support saves lives every day. In 

addition, although Congress cannot force the United States to join the GCR or force the president 

to increase the refugee admissions ceiling, Members can and should strengthen oversight efforts. 

For instance, the president's demonization of the ref!.tgee program and suggestion that it has 

posed a security threat is not evidenced-based and should be carefully scrutinized, with the 

assistance of refugee and counter-terrorism experts from outside the government. And the 

dramatic decrease of resettlement of individuals from Muslim majority countries should also be 

the source of serious concern and careful oversight. 

B, Addressing the Needs uud the Rights o[lnternallv Displaced People (lDPs) 

Although international agencies provide food, sheller, and protection and other assistance 

to lDPs, the challenges facing these populations arc often greater than those faced by refugeesbecause refugees, who live outside their countries of origin in host countries that are generally 

prepared to accept a role of international organizations, arc the beneficiaries of a relatively welldeveloped international system of protection and assistance. The international system's 

protections for IDPs, in contrast. is less rohust-in large measure because these displaced people 

are within their own countries, and governments of those countries tend to be jealous guardians 

of sovereignty, especially when it comes to their own citizens. 

What Congress Can Do: Largely at the behest of the government of Norway, several 

governments have been discussing the creation of a UN-sponsored blue ribbon panel to consider 

additional measures to strengthen the system of assistance and protection for IDPs. This is a 

good idea, and members of Congress can express their support to both the administration and to 

the UN Secretary General. 

C. Global Migration and Mixed How.;· 

As a practical matter, refugees arc now broadly defined as individuals fleeing 

persecution, contlict, and human rights violations, but history and current conditions around the 

world demonstrate that there is a broader category of forced migrants that merit the concern of 

governments. For example, the movement of individuals to and through Libya represents a case 

of such mixed migration, in which both migrants and refugees have been su~jected to 
48 

6 

unspeakable abuses. In December 2018, governments of the world overwhelmingly approved a 

Global Compact on Migration (GCM), designed largely to address these kinds of issues. The 

desiderata that emerged from the GCM, if implemented, would go a long way toward addressing 

mixed migration challenges. The GCM envisions efforts to minimize drivers of migration in 

countries of origin, provision of accurate and timely information to would-be migrants, measures 

to ensure respect for migrants in transit, enhanced pathways for regular migration, use of 

migration detention as a last resort, and exploration of alternatives to migrant detention, among 

many other measures. Unfortunately, the Trump administration withdrew from negotiations 

around this Global Compact, but members of Congress should remain engaged. 

'What Congress Can Do: The migration oftice in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, 

and Migration (PRM) has traditionally operated with very limited funds in a bureau that is 

otherwise funded very generously by the Congress. Through a variety of legislative means, 

Members could communicate their strong desire for a substantial increase in funding for the 

migration component of PRM, to support initiatives envisioned in the GCM. 

D. Avoiding the Politicization o(Humanitarian Aid 

In 1984, in justifying its decision to provide humanitarian aid to famine-affected 

Ethiopia, the Reagan administration declared that "a hungry child knows no politics." This 

sentiment-although implemented imperfectly by U.S. administrations over the years-has 

nonetheless guided U.S. policymakers. Yet the Trump administration departed dramatically from 

this principle when the president and his administration said they were cutting off aid to the UN 

Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) due to the political positions 

espoused by the Palestinian political leadership. The withdrawal of support-in clear violation of 

international humanitarian principles to which the United States has long subscribed-has had 

tangible and negative humanitarian consequences for life-sustaining assistance to children, 

women, and men in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and Gaza. 

What Congress Can Do: In light ofUNRWA's critically important role and the 

unfortunate rationale for ending assistance, the Congress can and should protect U.S. financial 

support for this organization. 

E. Humanitarian Assistance and Protection (or Women and Girls 

Women and girls are pat1icularly vulnerable to significant and substantial abuses in 

humanitarian settings, and the Trump administration has instituted policies that put at risk gains 
49 

7 

for protection of women and girls. In particular, in January 2017, the administration reinstated 

and expanded what had been known as the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag 

Rule, and blocked U.S. health assistance to foreign NGOs that advocate for or provide 

information, referrals, or services related to legal abortion, even when such activities are 

financed by private or other non-U.S. government funds. While the State Department announced 

an exception to this prohibition involving humanitarian accounts, much non-emergency funding. 

which has been impacted by the prohibition, builds resilience for women and girls who may find 

themselves in humanitarian emergencies. 

In a separate action, the United States has withheld funding from the UN Fund for 

Population Activities (UNFPA), the lead UN agency for ensuring that women and girls who have 

fled conflict obtain access to critical sexual and reproductive health services, as well as the 

services relating to prevention and response to gender-based violence. These measures are all the 

more concerning in light of recent and widespread crimes of violence against women and girls in 

places like Myanmar, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among many 

other areas. 

What Congress Can Do: We understand that there is legislation that has been 

introduced on the Global Gag rule. Moreover, Congress can legislatively seek to protect funding 

for UNFPA. which has played a key role on these issues. 

F. Practicing at Home What the United States Has Trttditionallr Preached Abroad 

For many decades. the United States Government has pressed other governments around 

the world to promote generous policies of refugee protection, including respect for the most 

critical guarantee in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol: the 

guarantee that no refugee applicant should be returned to a place where their life or fi·eedom 

would be threatened. U.S. capacity to credibly play this role is undermined when the United 

States fails to practice at home what the United States preaches abroad, and recent restrictive 

measures relating to the southern border and access to asylum raises such concerns. In particular, 

the Trump administration and U.S. officials have implemented measures that have dramatically 

limited the ability of individuals at U.S. borders to make claims for protection within the United 

States in accordance with U.S. law implementing U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention 

and Protocol. 
50 

8 

Such measures have included the blocking of access to ports of entry to asylum seekers 

by officials; the metering of asylum requests at ports of entry at the southern border, in which 

U.S. officials have indicated to asylum seekers that there is not enough processing capacity and 

have told them to return at another time; and the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers who 

entered the United States between pmts of entry. which is in contradiction to American law that 

allows for the application of asylum regardless of manner of entry. This also conflicts with a 

provision of the Refugee Convention that indicates that people will not be prosecuted for illegal 

entry if they promptly present themselves to the authorities and show good cause for such entry. 

But all this has been prologue, as the Trump administration has now rolled out a new 

policy effectively designed to prevent processing at ports of entry of Central Americans seeking 

asylum at the southern border. The administration has indicated that such persons, after 

registering their claims, will be returned to Mexico where they can wait to have those claims 

processed. Although the administration has stated it is acting pursuant to a law that permits 

return to a contiguous territory of an alien pending a removal proceeding, Rl believes this action 

is in violation of basic due process rights and will also run afoul of the Refugee Convention and 

Protocol's prohibition against return of refugees to a place where their life or freedom will be 

threatened. 

What Congress Can Do: While most of these actions will be subject to court challenge, 

Congress can enact legislation to ensure that the administration acts in accordance with U.S. 

obligations under the Refugee Convention and Protocol. Beyond asylum law, Congress could 

take a separate action that would both respond to challenges related to Central American 

migration and demonstrate a broadened commitment to rcfi.1gec and humanitarian resettlement. 

In particular, Members could authorize a Central American refugee and humanitarian 

resettlement program, mandating admission of several hundred thousand Central Americans over 

several years, through an orderly process that could be administered by the State Department"s 

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. As migration scholars Roberto Suro and Alex 

Aleinikoffargued in a recent Washington Post piece, the United States has had targeted 

legislative measures like this in the past, for Cubans, Soviet Jews and others, and such an 

arrangement could prove to be a highly effective and humane way to address humanitarian 

challenges at our southern border. 

4. Conclusion- the Imperative o(Politiml Leadership 
51 

9 

The perceived consensus within the United States about tolerance and respect for 

refugees has always been a fragile one. Even worse, nativism and chauvinism are nothing new to 

our political culture. Whether it is our original sin of slavery. 19'11 century Know-Nothing appeals 

to anti-immigrant sentiment, early 20'11 century anti-semitic rants like those spewed by Charles 

Edward Coughlin, who had tens of millions of followers during the 1930s, or later 20'11 century 

trafficking in innuendo and guilt by association of Senator Joe McCarthy, there have always 

been loud voices of intolerance appealing to our fears rather than to our hopes and our 

aspirations. 

This is why. at this particular moment in our history, it is your voices, the voices of 

leaders in Congress-Republicans and Democrats-that are so critical. !urge that you use those 

voices in public and in private, in Washington and beyond the Beltway, to best ensure a brighter. 

more affirming. and successful future for all Americans. 
52 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your patience 

through our voting and the recess that we took. And would like to 

ask questions that focus on recommendations for what you think 

that we could be doing, how we could direct our assistance. 

Mr. Mace, you talked about restoring the refugee resettlement 

piece. I would like for you to elaborate a little more on that. You 

also spoke about the Muslim ban. And knowing that that is a policy that I do not see changing at any time, but what can we do in 

terms of as Congress as we put legislation forward to support refugees in terms of resources that we could give. What are some examples? 

And I would ask that of all of the witnesses, but will start with 

Mr. Mace. 

Mr. MACE. Sure, thank you for the question. On resettlement 

first, just in terms of the recommendation itself, our ask would be 

to see if restored this cannot be a new normal. The goal is 30,000 

for this Fiscal Year and as I said we will not even get to 20,000 

if we continue at this rate. We cannot let that be a new normal. 

We cannot let that be a new normal now and in future administrations as well. 

And would encourage Congress to through appropriations make 

that clear, make that clear to the administration that that is not 

what we want. In terms of the Muslim ban, and in terms of Syrians in particular I spoke of the Amari family from Syria. There 

are 5.7 million people, Syrians, refugees and UNHCR has actually 

said that they are one of the populations in highest need of resettlement. The U.S. has settled 40, to date, four, zero this fiscal year. 

I think that anyone could say we can do better than that, especially 

when we are faced with such need. 

And I would echo others on the panel that we should really call 

as in times past the Congress has said we are in an emergency, we 

are in an urgent situation, we need to recognize that, it does not 

matter, we do not need to wait for the end of the Fiscal Year to 

do that. I understand the President has a lot of power with setting 

the refugees’ admissions goal, but Congress has power too and 

should reassert that. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Ms. BUWALDA. Ms. BUWALDA. I would like to make a comment to that. I do not 

see it as a Muslim ban. I see it as a ban specific to countries because we represent Christians in the very same countries that have 

the same—that are suffering under the same plight of being unable 

to come to the United States. And these are minorities within those 

countries that are subject to the ban. 

And so I wish to make that point for the record. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. Mr. Schwartz. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, I appreciate the question and in my testimony, it was very important that every part of my testimony had 

a section on what Congress can do. And let me talk a little bit 

about some ideas there. 

First, oversight is really important. In 2016, we resettled more 

than 9,000 Somalis. In 2016, we resettled more than 12,000 Syrians. As of January 31, those numbers were respectively 14—not 

14,000—14 and 13. Since 9/11, we have resettled 1 million refugees 
53 

more or less. In those years since 2001 there is not one case, there 

is not one case of an American citizen being killed in an act of terror perpetrated by a resettled refugee. 

In 10 years we had more than 250,000 people killed by gun violence. We have resettled 1 million refugees since 9/11, not one case 

of a refugee being responsible for an act of terror that led to the 

loss of an American life. Yet, we have gone from 9,000 Somalis in 

2016 to 14 Somalis in 2018–2019. So that requires oversight. You 

need counterterrorism experts who are not in the government to 

get in here and talk about evidence-based policy. So oversight is 

critical. 

Second, I think the Congress can legislate a refugee resettlement 

program. The President, yes, under our current program has the 

authority to determine the number of refugees who come in. But 

if you want to resettle 100,000 Central American refugees, and humanitarian cases and family cases, over a 5 year period, you can 

legislate that. And why not? To create a more orderly process at 

our border. To practice at home what we are preaching abroad to 

so many other governments.The President himself in 2017 at the 

United Nations declared that countries should take care of refugees 

who are close to their homes. Well, Central America is at our border and are pretty close to their homes. 

So you could legislate, coming from this committee, the PRM 

Bueau could implement it, a refugee resettlement, program. 

Ms. BASS. Did you say PRM? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. The State Department’s Bureau of Population 

Refugee and Migration. 

I will just give you a couple of other recommendations: you could 

legislate support for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees—an agency that by all impartial accounts, including a General Accounting Office report, has diligently sought to implement humanitarian assistance. Yet all of that aid was cutoff by 

the Trump administration. You could legislate programs that have 

been cutoff on the protection of women and girls in humanitarian 

situations; you can do all of that and much more. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Before I go to my esteemed colleague here, 

my ranking member, it was interesting what you said about Christians minorities in those countries when the ban was put in place, 

the target was the Muslim population, I think it is unfortunate 

that Christians are being—there is consequences for them as well, 

but remember that was the original intent. It was changed to be 

countries for it to follow the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Ranking Member. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. 

Thank you all for your testimoneys, it provides a great deal of 

guidance and wisdom I think for the subcommittee, it is deeply appreciated and all of your work for decades in most cases. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions. You know, your point, Mr. 

Schwartz, I think was very well taken about people not being killed 

by refugees but there are threats out there as we all know, and 

maybe there have been some but they were not identify by police 

or whatever as refugees. And your point on gun violence I thought 

it was very well taken as well. 
54 

There is right now in the news we hear about the so-called ISIS 

bride from Alabama who has called for sleeper cells with ISIS to 

kill Americans, especially during patriotic holidays such as Veterans Day, Memorial Day. I remember during the Balkan war, I 

was there frequently in Bosnia and Croatia. And when the fighting 

went into Kosovo, was in Stankovich refugee camp in Macedonia, 

met with many of the people there and frankly the open door welcoming for people from that camp to the United States. Many of 

them disembarked in my district. 

They came to McGuire Air Force Base. Many of us went out to 

the airplanes and met them. Some of those people I am sure I met 

when I was at the camp because I was there for hours. But there 

was one guy who became part what they called the Fort Dix Five 

who had become radicalized at some point. And they were trying— 

because he lived at Fort Dix, which is adjacent to McGuire. 

Mr. SMITH. And he was the weapons procurer, and they planned 

on a mass killing of servicemembers and their families and Fort 

Dix. They originally intended on bringing pizza and with it AK–47s 

and other—to just kill people wantonly and horribly. Luckily, that 

was thwarted by the FBI and by—so there are threats. 

And I am just wondering, you might speak to it. How do we mitigate those threats? How does the vetting process become even more 

aggressive? I know when we had the last administration here, they 

talked about very high degrees of vetting. And I know the current 

administration is doing the same. 

Second, if I could, Ms. Buwalda, you speak very eloquently about 

the crisis in Thailand, and it is Christians, it is Falun Gong who 

are being sent back to China, it is Montagnard, the 500 who are 

being mistreated there, Christians. But your 10 to 30 percent of the 

Pakistani Christians that are granted refugee status is appalling. 

And I am wondering, you know, what do you recommend we do to 

hold UNHCR accountable, I have sent letters to them. I have 

talked to officials, we have talked to the UNHCR and we seem to 

get nowhere. 

Is it a very poor staff on the ground, and Human Rights Watch 

has spoken about this as well, or is it something different that we 

are talking about, you know, there is just not enough people? 

But what is the problem and how do we fix that? Because that 

is seems to me to be a huge, huge problem. And your elaboration 

of the case of Michael D’Souza after being beaten, goes to Thailand 

seeking help, comes back to Pakistan, and then, as you point out, 

his two sisters-in-law were beaten as well. If that is not well-founded fear of persecution, I do not know what is. 

So hopefully the UNHCR will do a far better job. You know, 

many of us have been very concerned with them over the years. 

The secretary general who used to be the head of the UNHCR, I 

met with him many times when they were sending women who 

would make their way out of North Korea into China, many of 

whom would be forced into human trafficking. And as you know, 

I wrote the laws on human trafficking, including the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act. We had women testify here in this room 

who they were sent back by the Chinese Government in clear contravention of the refugee convention to which they are signers of. 
55 

I mean, maybe you guys want to speak to that as well because I 

find that appalling as well. 

And just briefly, maybe Eric you could speak to—you know, 

many of our concerns with UNRWA is the fomenting of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, but particularly anti-Semitism. I have 

hearings on that as well. The textbooks, maybe you can speak to 

whether or not they have been in all cleaned up to get rid of all 

the anti-Semitic hate that are then inculcated into the minds and 

the hearts of young children pursued under UNRWA. 

On the humanitarian side, food, medicines, I am with you, just 

get it to whoever is in need, period. But if you could speak to that. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, should I respond? 

Mr. SMITH. You can start, yes. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. You raised a couple of important issues Congressman Smith, and thank you. And thank you for your kind 

words before. I am very grateful for the opportunity to have worked 

with you on that and other issues through the years. 

First, let me say that my concern about the UNRWA decision 

was that it was explicitly and demonstrably an unprincipled decision. The President tweeted 1 day that, you know, if Palestinian 

political leaders do not—I do not have the quote, but essentially— 

do not toe the political line, we are going to stop aid. And then the 

next day the U.N. Ambssador to the United Nations, in response 

to a specific question about UNRWA, alluded to the same issue 

that the President alluded to. If the political leaders do not toe the 

line, that aid ends. 

Now, whatever your views about UNRWA, that is obnoxious, unacceptable, and in conflict with the American commitment to the 

Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles, to which we have subscribed. That aid should be based on need, and the political opinions and views of political leaders should not impact whether or 

not—— 

Mr. SMITH. Can I interrupt for a second? How do we get the educational piece fixed—— 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. OK. I am going to get to that. So my point was 

that that decision was an unprincipled decision. 

My second point is that I would refer you to the General Accounting Offices, I believe it was 2017, or the General Accountability Office, their name has changed; the 2017 report on 

UNRWA. And I think what it demonstrates is this is an organization which is doing the very best it can—and doing good work in 

trying to ensure that principles of tolerance and impartiality are 

promoted in its materials—under very difficult circumstances. And 

if UNRWA was not doing that, nobody would. 

And so I would refer all Members of Congress to that GAO report, because from my perspective, it reveals that this is an organization that is operating in a difficult environment and doing very 

good work in trying to push principles of tolerance, impartiality, 

aid-based on need, human rights promotion, in circumstances 

where they are using, you know, national curriculum, et cetera. So 

they are pushing against efforts at discrimination and bias. That 

does not mean that they are completely successful in eliminating 

it, but they are pushing in the right direction. 
56 

Should I address your security question, because I do not want 

to—I can wait. 

Ms. BASS. Why do not we have the other two people respond. We 

are quite a bit over time, and I want to give my other colleagues 

a chance to ask questions. 

Ms. BUWALDA. I would like to speak to your question with regard 

to the UNHCR’s adjudication. And I believe that there is definite 

need of improvement. One of the reasons for why it occurred in 

terms of denial rates being so high is that they have an unbalanced 

burden of proof placed upon them, a skepticism. We had a UNHCR 

official describe how—just the basic skepticism of Pakistani Christian asylum seekers there that demonstrated that they are probably systemwide within Bangkok not effectively handling these 

cases. 

From 2016 to 2017, there was an effort to bring backlogs down. 

What they did was rush cases through. The fastest way for doing 

that is to deny them. And that also came with adverse credibility 

claims. With an adverse credibility claim you have almost no 

chance on any appeal and you are left hopeless. The anecdotal evidence we have and information we have is significant in terms of 

the numbers. 

I would also like to point out that the UNHCR—their own reports are demonstrating that Pakistani Christians suffer persecution. One of the examples I gave in my testimony I submitted is 

that of Talib Masih. Talib Masih was listed in their own report 

prior to them denying his case for asylum in Bangkok. And we 

worked very hard. His case has been reversed, but now he has no 

place to go. He cannot come—he has not been referred to any country at this stage, 1 year later, for resettlement. So we are remaining concerned about him and others that should be resettled. 

Mr. MACE. And if I may, briefly, just on UNRWA, I will say that 

when I was in Jordan and Lebanon, we also went to Palestinian 

refugee camps, it was one of the first places we went. And I just 

echo what you said, Congressman, that ultimately it is about ensuring this aid gets to those who need it most. 

A Shatila camp we were in in Beirut, it was one of the most overcrowded places just—and because of the Syrian refugee crisis, it is 

the numbers—it is just the density is extreme. And we asked people at UNRWA about what do these cuts tangibly mean? Education 

was one of the first things they said. And that, you know, they 

have—other donors have helped fill in the gaps, but they were very 

worried about what the years to come mean if the U.S. does not 

restore its commitment. And would certainly encourage them to 

come before this committee or the full committee to really hear 

from them because I definitely think that they would have much 

to say in response, to you. 

Just on the vetting, I just want to say that of refugees in general, 

the refugees who are resettled to the U.S. are by far and away the 

most vetted of any population, period. Probably in the world. And 

certainly we should always look to improve this program and make 

sure that this program is safe. We want this program to be safe. 

It is safe. And I think that this President and the previous Presidents have looked to that. And let’s make sure this program works 
57 

and is actually doing the goals that we set out at the start of the 

year, which it is currently not. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. 

Representative WILD. Ms. WILD. Thank you, madam chair. And thank you to all of you 

for being here to educate us about what I consider to be a very, 

very important issue. 

Mr. Mace, you sort of anticipated the question that I was going 

to ask Ms. Buwalda, but I was going to go ahead and ask her at 

this point. There is a perception, which is I believe not true, that 

refugees are not properly vetted. And this may be perpetuated by 

our administration, maybe it is not. But could you address, without 

going into exhaustive detail, the type of vetting that refugees undergo before they are allowed to come and live here? 

Ms. BUWALDA. Yes, Congresswoman. The vetting system is very 

detailed and multilayered. There is actually a very in depth review 

that takes place. There are all kinds of background checks. There 

is even, as I understand it, DNA testing. In certain communities, 

such as in Syria, they go to the neighborhoods where the person 

claims to be from to determine whether those neighborhoods had 

terrorist activities, et cetera. 

There is a data base that, you know, overlap in terms of how vetting takes place. I am completely in agreement with my copanelists 

here that the vetting process is extensive. And I do believe that 

there is—you know, there may always be room for improvement, 

but I do believe the vetting process is extensive on this population. 

And, consequently, it is amongst the lowest populations that we 

would have a threat from. 

There are other types—I am an immigration attorney, there are 

other times of visas where there is no vetting. And so this is significant vetting that does take place. 

Ms. WILD. And how long does the process take, if you know? 

Ms. BUWALDA. Due to the overlapping, it can be—the shortest is 

well over a year, and the longest ones because of overlapping, one 

will expire, another one start, it can be 2, 3 years. 

Ms. WILD. Thank you. 

Mr. Mace, I have heard it said that the vast majority of people, 

wherever they were born, would prefer to stay in their home country if they can do so safely and receive adequate nutrition and so 

forth. Has that been your experience, and what you have observed? 

Mr. MACE. In terms of people wanting to go back to their home 

countries? 

Ms. WILD. Or—I guess my question is really based—and it is 

more of a statement, I suppose, that refugees are leaving untenable 

situations. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. MACE. Absolutely. And I think it is important to note that 

no one wants to leave their home, but if you are forced to based 

on what you believe, a war, violence, that is not a choice. And, you 

know, when we were in Jordan and Lebanon, we met well—almost 

100 refugees throughout the course of our trip, and we would always ask, Syrians in particular, we would ask, do you feel comfortable to go home? Every single one said, no, not right now. Some 

would say, I would like to go back, but the conditions are not right 

right now. And then some said, I will never be able to go back. If 
58 

I go back, I have nothing to go back to. If we go back, my son will 

be conscripted into the army. My name is on—these are just different things that people—my name is on a list, and if I go back, 

I will die. Someone point blank said that. 

So I think it just goes to the point that, yes, some people do want 

to go back, but the conditions are not right. And, unfortunately, 

these crises that we are talking about, they just go on and on, and 

we are seeing people who live in protracted displacement, intergenerational refugees. I mean, I met children of refugees who were 

born in the country that they are in now. So, yes. 

Ms. WILD. Thank you. 

I want to ask you a followup to that, and it may sound like a 

rhetorical softball question, but it is actually one that I would like 

to hear you articulate about, and Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Buwalda, 

also if you care to. And that is, why is it important for the United 

States to lead the way in this humanitarian crisis? 

And I ask you that from the perspective of a legislator who has 

a district where a number of my constituents may very well articulate the idea that we should just be taking care of what is happening right here in America, and why do we need to get involved 

with people from around the world who are suffering through these 

humanitarian crises. 

So give us some words of—some pearls of wisdom of what we can 

say to address that to people who express that. 

Mr. MACE. Sure, I would love to speak briefly and hear from my 

colleagues here. 

First of all, when the U.S. leads, others follow. And, you know, 

we do not have to look that far back when we were the leader. We 

are not the leader in resettlement anymore, period. And last year, 

in 2018, not the calendar year, there were 55—a little over 55,000 

people who resettled, not to the U.S., globally. And 22,000 or so of 

which was in the U.S., so we are not even the leader anymore. 

A few years ago it was well over 100,000. There are 1.4 million 

people who need access to resettlement. I think anyone can say the 

U.S. can do better. And, importantly, on our U.S. refugee admissions program, it is a program that started in 1980 with the 1980 

Refugee Act, it is a program that has been built up, like I said, 

with communities like yours, all across the country, and it benefits 

our communities. It is such—it revitalizes—refugees are—they are 

everything and anything because they are just like us. 

So I just do not understand anyone who says that refugees do not 

contribute to the United States. And we have seen that, not only 

here in the U.S., but all around the world. 

Ms. WILD. Thank you. 

I am going to actually ask you, Mr. Schwartz, but rather than 

going into that question because I saw something in your written 

testimony that I did not hear talked about today, and that is what 

the effect of the global gag rule is on this crisis. And you mention 

it in your written testimony, and I would just like to hear from you 

briefly on it. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, the restrictions against provision of these 

services to women if the organizations concerned provide abortionrelated services, even if they are not being done with U.S. funds, 

is a significant problem. 
59 

Now, the State Department and USAID emergency assistance is 

exempted. However, there is a lot of assistance that goes to the 

building of resilience that is critical for humanitarian emergencies 

that is cutoff. And also of significant concern is the complete cutoff 

of support for the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, which includes, you know, critically important assistance for services related to sexual and reproductive health, for prevention and response to gender-based violence. 

But I also want to comment on your last question. I mean, nobody suggests that the world—that the United States or the countries of the global north—will resettle the majority of the world’s 

refugees. Even at 1.4 million, you are at about 4 percent, 4 or 5 

percent—maybe 4 or 6 percent. But the Government of Turkey is 

hosting 3 1/2 million refugees, the Government of Jordan is hosting 

upwards of a million refugees, the Government of Bangladesh is 

hosting a million refugees, the Ethiopia is hosting 900,000 refugees 

or more, and we are going around the world saying to these governments, this is what you must do. This is your responsibility. 

How in heaven’s name can we not demonstrate that we have 

skin in the game, that we are going to demonstrate a modicum of 

leadership by saying, perhaps we will resettle 100,000 refugees, 

which is a drop in the bucket. And so it is really critically important we do that. 

Finally, I ran the U.S. refugee resettlement program. I do not 

want to take too much of your time, but I would be happy to talk 

about the security issues—— 

Ms. BASS. We need to move on. 

Ms. WILD. Madam chair, my time is up, and it is my fault for 

asking very extensive questions. I pass to—— 

Ms. BASS. Representative Omar. 

Ms. OMAR. Thank you, Chairwomen Bass. 

Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for being part of this important discussion. It is interesting to hear people say, I wonder what 

this process is or what refugees are like in the United States. But 

as a refugee and as someone who has gone through the process of 

vetting, I know the many years my family waited in a refugee 

camp to be able to resettle in the United States. And I know with 

certainty the kind of anxieties that a lot of families have as they 

await the opportunity to get resettled and start a new life. 

I just wanted to kind of look at and follow with the line of questioning that Congresswoman Wild had around what happens when 

we lower the refugee cap here, and how that could lead to other 

countries following pursuit and lowering the cap of refugees that 

they welcome into their own countries, and we are at risk of that 

because when we lead others follow. And I think we are setting a 

really bad example around the world right now. 

But I wanted to also up lift what these particular policies that 

this administration has, it is really all about—according to the refugee processing portal, 68.1 percent of the 22,491 refugees admitted in 2018 were Christians, 15.5 were Muslim, 9.3 were animists, 

Buddhists, or Hindu. Only 369 refugees were admitted from the 

countries included in the modified travel ban or the Muslim ban. 

The breakdown is as such. From Chad, only one refugee was admitted who was Muslim, and in totality only one person. In Iran, 
60 

41 were admitted. Of that 41, 23 were Christians, 8 Muslims, 5 

Baha’i, and 3 Siberian Mandaeans, 1 Jewish, and 1 had not declared a faith. From Libya, we only admitted one person, and that 

person was Muslim. From North Korea, we admitted five, four 

Christians, one Buddhist. From Syria, we admitted 62, 42 were 

Muslim, 20 were Christians. From Somalia, we admitted 257. Venezuela is zero. And two from Yemen. 

So when we think about—and we consider the harsh crack-downs 

on asylum seekers from Central America, the policy that is the 

Muslim ban and the sharp drop in the refugee resettlement during 

this administration, do you, Mr. Schwartz, agree that the President’s immigration policies are not really based on whether we 

favor legal or illegal, whether it is about safety and security, but 

it is rather about the kind of people that we think we should be 

welcoming into this country? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I am deeply concerned, Representative Omar, as 

a former dean of a public affairs school that sits in your district, 

that hosted at our school many Somali students. I am concerned 

about the dramatic decline in resettlement of refugees from Muslim 

majority countries. I think it merits the scrutiny of the Congress, 

and it is a source of concern. 

This is not a mystery. President Trump has said that he does not 

really want the United States to be resettling very many refugees, 

I mean, it is what it is. The reason I think this happens, and this 

relates to the security question, is, look, security screening is very 

important, and the FBI is involved in it, the intelligence community is involved in it, the Department of Homeland Security is involved in it. 

It can be a complete obstacle to resettlement of refugees from 

Muslim majority countries or it does not have to be, and the difference is leadership. If the President of the United States said to 

those agencies, ‘‘this has to work, and I am going to throw the resources necessary in terms of adjudicators, in terms of intelligence, 

et cetera, to meet the objective of resettling reasonable numbers of 

these populations′′, it would happen. 

But it is not happening because this administration, is just not 

interested in that outcome, so it is not prepared to devote the resources necessary to get through the process. That is what is happening. And I think it is very unfortunate. 

As a practical matter, the way Congress can address the resettlement issue, at this point in this administration because of the plenary authority of the President to decide how many refugees are 

coming in every year, the way you can address it is the way I suggested in my testimony. Get consensus on a Central American refugee resettlement program or some resettlement program, and legislate it. And that is how you can effect it. 

But with the President’s posture on this issue and his 

untrammeled authority to decide how many people are going to 

come in, the Congress is not going to significantly alter that process. It is just not going to happen. And it is a tragedy, and it 

speaks poorly about who we are as a country, but it is what it is. 

Ms. OMAR. So sometimes there are a lot of conversations we have 

that are not really rooted in fact. There are people within my home 

State of Minnesota who will say there are thousands of Somalis 
61 

coming in every single day being resettled without your knowledge. 

The President himself was unfortunately in my State and said 

something to that regard. And in the last year, one Somali family 

was resettled in our State. 

But I also want to go back to a statement that was made on the 

committee and just kind of have some facts be used to address 

that. You know, the ISIS bride was mentioned, and it is a fact that 

the ISIS bride was not a refugee that was resettled in this country. 

It is a fact that she was not an immigrant, but an American born 

to a family of diplomats. And so I would love to hear from you, Mr. 

Schwartz, or any of the panelists, when you state earlier that the 

refugees are the most vetted and have not been part of causing terror or taking American lives in this country. 

Can you actually address that with some actual facts? Do you 

have numbers or some things to help us cleanse us of this hateful 

rhetoric that we have developed in thinking that people who are 

coming to this country to seek a new life are the ones that are 

causing us harm, and one that is making our communities unsafe 

and turning us against each other because, you know, for the most 

of Minnesotans who are of refugee background, most of us came as 

children, and we went through years of vetting and went through 

the process of becoming a citizen. I mean, we have been 

fingerprinted, tested, more than any American has ever been who 

was born in this country. 

And so it saddens me and it is frustrating really and angering 

to hear people say that we are a threat to society when we are tested and policed and surveilled more than any member of our society. 

So can you please help me out and put some facts to this? 

Ms. BASS. Well, actually, we have gone over on time, so if one 

of you want to briefly respond, and then I want to make a few comments before I move on to Ms. Houlahan. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, just very briefly. I think security screening 

is legitimate. But I also think policy has to be evidence-based. I 

think if you have an immigration program, and we have an immigration program, you know, some of the people who come into your 

country are going to commit crimes, at lower rates than native 

Americans, but that is going to happen, so policy has to be evidence-based. And I think we have durable and responsible screening procedures. 

The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, estimated that between 1975 and 2015, the likelihood of an American 

losing their lives at the hands of a refugee was one in 3.64 billion, 

which means almost nonexistent. And so I think policy has to be 

evidence-based. We have to have responsible screening procedures, 

but policies have to be evidence-based. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. So before we move on to our last member, 

let me just say that in this hearing we went over beyond 5 minutes 

because it is difficult when one person does it then not to allow everyone else. In the future, though, I do want our hearings to stick 

to 5 minutes, and then after everybody has had a chance to speak, 

if there is time left, then we can have people return for a second 

round. 

Representative HOULAHAN. 
62 

Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you. And thank you to my colleagues as 

well for their impassioned conversation and to you all for coming 

today, and to Mr. Mace and Mr. Schwartz for spending time with 

me last week on the phone, and bringing me up to speed on this. 

I am the daughter of a refugee who came here 70 years ago, and 

these issues are critically important to me as well. I am trying to 

find a solution, just like I think everyone here, to being the Nation 

that we have been promised and the Nation that has given us so 

much, as both of us sitting here on the stage—many of us here. 

And so what I am trying to figure out though also is—I am also 

from a community that is struggling right now, they have jobs that 

are open and they cannot find people to fill those jobs. They are 

in danger in the case of one industry in particular of literally going 

out of business, five generations of people have farmed mushrooms 

in my community, we no longer can find the labor who would like 

to do this, and those businesses are going under. 

What I am trying to understand is in a world where we have 

these caps, which are not being met. In a world where we have 

these jobs, which are being unmet as well, how do I help as a legislator to match the supply and the demand without being, you 

know, crass about human lives, I am just trying to figure out how 

it is that we can figure out how to match what is clearly a group 

of people who would desperately like to fill those jobs and desperately like to be part of the American dream, and a community 

that would desperately like to have them be there? 

I am wondering from you all, have you seen any programs that 

work, that can marry up these two groups with one another? Is 

there anything that you have seen either at the State or local level, 

or frankly, at the Federal level? We spoke about the idea of having 

this special Central American refugee policy, I was really intrigued 

about that. Can you put some bones to that kind of an idea? And 

that I think is largely—the large part of my question. 

Mr. MACE. I would just say briefly that, first of all, when I was 

in the region, one of the very first things people would say, besides 

education, if they had kids it was always education of their kids, 

and that I want to work. I want to have a meaningful job. And 

whether that is in the country they are in or if they are resettled, 

everyone wants to work, they do not want to be reliant on aid. 

In terms of that, I think that it is not surprising you have heard 

from people in your district. All across the country there are so 

many different industries and places that actually benefit from refugees, immigrants, asylees, refugee, immigrants, they contribute to 

our country in so many vibrant ways. 

I think the first thing I would say is in terms of a refugee programing, when we are talking about that, we just need to call for 

an increase in the program. I think that there is other ways of 

looking at it, and I would say that it might be worth exploring. You 

know, at Embassy International we have a community sponsorship 

program where we encourage amnesty members to sign up to be 

sponsors of refugees, aligned with their local resettlement agency, 

like LIRS, IRC, HIAS and I think that there is innovative things 

that we could look to to say maybe there are ways that we can 

work together. 
63 

But I think it is important to note that what makes our program, 

the U.S. refugee admissions program such a good one, is that we 

do not value people based on their education, based on anything except to say who is most in need, who is most vulnerable, and that 

is where the U.S. refugee admissions program should always start. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I presume you are not talking about the regular 

immigration law means of bringing employees in. And so, you 

know, what Mr. Mace said is true. The refugee program has been 

of pristine in that it has focussed on refugee admissions based on 

the five criteria related to persecution, and I honor that. But I 

would not oppose, and I think a special initiative focused on Central America, that broadens the categories to include other types of 

forced migrants. 

Not every forced migrant is a refugee. But people who feel they 

need to leave their homes, and who we all would agree they should 

be leaving their homes due to violence and other factors. Forced 

migrants, you know, are in need. And in this special situation, I 

think there are opportunities for special legislation that captures 

both refugees and other forced migrants. 

I would refer you to a Washington Post piece by Roberto Soro of 

USC and Alex Aleinikoff of the New School, the former INS legal 

counsel, that discusses this particular program in some detail. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you very much. I will yield back. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, I appreciate that. Mr. Smith, 

would you like to—— 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, madam chair. And, again, thank you for 

calling this very important hearing. I did want to ask Mr. 

Schwartz, if I could, you know, you mentioned the GAO report, 

which I have read, but there was a declassified GAO report, as you 

know, that just came out, and that tells a different story. A profoundly different story with, of course, to UNRWA and the textbooks. It does point out that UNRWA and state have taken steps 

to identify and address potentially problematic content of textbooks 

used in UNRWA schools, and there is about 370 of those schools. 

But then it says, due to financial shortfalls, and this is before 

there was any cut, UNRWA officials told GAO that UNRWA did 

not train teachers or distribute the complimentary teaching materials. They point out in their report, this is GAO, again, that there 

was inaccurate information conveyed by the U.S. Department of 

State to Congress, and omitted potentially useful information, and 

bottom line, without a fuller explanation, Congress may not have 

the information it needs to oversee efforts to identify and address 

potentially problematic textbook content. 

So my concern is, are we talking about an initiative that looked 

good? Had a great deal of surface appeal, but when it came down 

to implementation, it was an absolute sham. This GAO report, the 

one that was just declassified, makes it pretty clear that there are 

really serious problems that—I have had hearings myself in this 

hearing room where textbooks that are used to train, to educate 

young Palestinian children, contain the most horrific hate against 

Jews imaginable. And, you know, that is absolutely unacceptable. 

Remember in that great South Pacific, Rodgers and Hammerstein, there is a famous song in there, You Have Got To Be Taught 

To Hate. That it needs, you know, it is inculcated in the minds of 
64 

these young people. Well, if the textbooks are rife with anti-Semitic 

hatred, that needs to be called out and excised, and that is what 

we have been calling for. 

I met with the UNRWA board many times myself in the past and 

it kept calling for that. Now we have a GAO report that makes it 

pretty clear, still a problem. You know, they did what looked like 

on the surface was something, then it was not implemented at the 

school. 

I would just say this for the record, and I know we have a fundamental difference when it comes to the right to life issue. I believe 

that unborn children are—should be respected. That abortion is violence again children, whether it is dismemberment or chemical 

poisoning, the end result is the same. That child, that girl or that 

boy dies. I do believe that there are two victims in every abortion, 

both the mother and the baby. 

That said, in 1984 when Ronald Reagan announced the Mexico 

City policy, there were many people who said, nobody will accept 

these terms and conditions. I offered the amendment in 1984 on 

the floor of the House to protect the Mexico City policy, and that 

argument was made over and over and over again by my very distinguished and respected colleagues, who I like and respect, but 

disagreed on this issue. 

Now, we found out during Reagan, Bush and Bush who had the 

Mexico City policy in place, that just about everybody accepted 

those terms and conditions because we do not want to be in the position of facilitating the killing of unborn children. You know, I 

know you know this, and I think most people know it. Just look 

at what first baby pictures are now all about. The picture of the 

child in utero, the ultrasound. And parents proudly send that out 

to grandparents and friends, and say, here is what the little girl 

or little boy looks like. Abortion is the antithesis of that because 

it either dismembers that little baby or kills that baby with chemical poisoning. 

We are, out of an abundance of concern for children, the New 

Protect Life policy in global health, it is designed to say, let’s look 

at birth as an event. It is not the beginning of life, but as an event, 

and protect to the greatest extent possible those children. The 

original or the current analysis is almost every foreign NGO in the 

world, not all, but almost every one, has accepted the terms and 

conditions that have been promulgated by the administration. 

So the money is flowing, it is flowing to organizations that are 

doing the great work on the ground. So I, do believe some day people will look back upon us, and say, how could a country that so 

strongly protected other human rights could not see that those children had value and worth? I know we disagree, but that is where 

I am coming from. They are children, they deserve our respect, and 

hopefully our protection. And, minimally, not our financial facilitation of their demise. But if you could maybe speak to this one as 

well. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, I have to respond. I just have to comment. 

First of all, Representative Smith, you know how much I admire 

your commitment to humanitarianism and to the rights and wellbeing of refugees, it goes without saying. But we have some differences. 
65 

On the UNRWA issue, I was referring to the classified report. I 

was not referring to an unclassified report. I have a different view 

on that report, because I believe that in an imperfect world we 

have an organization operating in an extremely difficult climate. I 

believe that organization is a force for positive movement on humanitarian issues, and I believe that their removal from that situation, which would be facilitated by a U.S. cut in aid, would have 

dramatic and negative implications for the Palestinian people. 

If I can take off my Refugees International hat for a second, I 

also believe it would have negative political consequences. I think 

it would strengthen the position of radicals in the region. So that 

is my first point on UNRWA. 

On the other issue, I am not advocating U.S. support for abortion-related services, but I am saying that I think this policy, because it prevents assistance to organizations that use other funds 

to undertake such activities, I believe this policy does more harm 

than good. And so we have a difference of opinion about that. 

Ms. BASS. So let me just before I close us out. Oh, Representative 

Omar? 

Ms. OMAR. Could I? 

Ms. BASS. Sure. 

Ms. OMAR. Sorry. Thank you. I just thought of—I had a round 

table on immigration issues for recess week in my district, and two 

of the participants were lawyers who went to go help in our southern border to assist some of the asylum seekers there. They were 

speaking about some of the things that they witnessed. I just noticed that, Mr. Schwartz, you had mentioned that in your testimony—and so I wanted to ask you about this policy of metering 

and whether it is within international law to do that. 

Then I wanted to ask you about our—what has our historic capacity at that border crossing has been and what does processing 

look like right now? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, understanding the lateness of the hour, I 

will try to be very brief. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. The testimony speaks for itself. I think that practices of the administration have run afoul of our commitments 

under the Refugee Convention and Protocol, and under U.S. implementing legislation around that. 

Criminalizing people who cross between ports of entry is in violation of Article 31 of the Convention because it says to somebody 

who crosses, we are going to put you in prison first and charge you, 

and then maybe we will consider whether or not you are a refugee. 

That is not the way to do it. So I have concern about that. 

I have a concern about a policy that returns people to Mexico in 

circumstances where the conditions in northern Mexico are very 

dangerous, where people do not have access to lawyers, where 

there is very little or no due process, and there is the risk of returning to situations where people’s lives or freedom may be 

threatened. 

So for all of those reasons, I think Congress should be acting to 

legislate remedies here, and I think the policy is an unfortunate 

one. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. 
66 

Before I wrap up, I want to thank all of the witnesses for your 

testimony, for your time, and for your recommendations. As my colleague said, we do have differences of opinion. We have differences 

of opinion when it comes to a woman’s right to choose. As a mother 

and as a grandmother, it is kind of difficult to hear the descriptions 

of what an abortion is or an abortion is not. What I worry about 

is is that when we have policies that try to govern what women do 

with their bodies, it really only applies to poor women, and that is 

my concern. 

I worry about women in other countries, that there is cases in 

Central America where women are criminalized, incarcerated, because they had a miscarriage, and it is not clear whether it was 

a miscarriage because of natural reasons or it was an abortion. So 

in 2019, the idea that many countries are still criminalizing women 

is of great concern to me. I just kind of hope when we move forward in this committee that, we acknowledge the differences, but 

sometimes I do not think the graphic descriptions are necessary for 

the point to be made. 

And with that, I adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
67 

APPENDIX 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 

Karen Bass (D-CA), Chair 

February 26,2019 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to be held by 

the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations in Room 

2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on the Committee website at 

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Tuesday, February 26,2019 

2:00p.m. 

A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants and Asylum Seekers 

Panel I 

The Honorable Raul Ruiz 

Member of Congress (D-CA) 

The Honorable Eric Schwartz 

President 

Refugees International 

(Former Assistant Secretary ofStatefor Population, R~fitgees, and Migration) 

Mr. Ryan Mace 

Grassroots Advocacy and Refugee Specialist 

Amnesty International 

Ms. Ann Buwalda 

Executive Director 

Jubilee Campaign USA Inc 

By Direction of the Chair 
68 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON Africa, Global llealth, Global llama« Rights, audlatemallmta!Orgauizn~iom HEARING 

Day_-"T:-'-u"-es'--·d"-£Q,_' __ Datc. ___ 0_21._'2 __ 6_12_0_19 ___ Room __ __:2:.:2:.::0::e;O __ _ 

Starting Time 2:02pm Ending Time 4:49pm 

ReccsscsW<"''P"'toJ,J6pm)L__to __ )L__to __ )L__to __ )L__to __ )( __ to __ ) 

Presiding Mcmbcr(s) 

Rep. Kllreu Bass 

Check all oftltefol/ow/ug tlwt app(t•: 

Open Session 0 Executive ~sed) Session 0 Televised I.ZJ 

TITLE OF HEAIUNG: 

Elcctmnically Reconl!l!!Jt:lpcd) 0 

Stcnogmphic Record W 

A Global Crisis: Refugees, Mig/'(mfs mul Asylum Seekers 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See afl£tched. 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with a11 *if they are not members of(u/1 committee.) 

NIA 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes IZJ No 0 

(If "no", please lis! below 011£1 include title, agency, departme111, or organization) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (Lis! auy s1ateme111s submiltedfor the record.) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE·----

or 

TIME ADJOURNED __ 4_:_49_,.1'-"-'-
69 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

COMMITTEE HEARING 

PRE>ES! A! EMBER PRES!oAT MEMBER 

X Karen Bass, CA X Christopher H. Smith, NJ 

X Susan Wild. PA James F. Sensenbrenncr, Jr., WI 

X Dean Phillips, MN Ron Wright, TX 

X I!han Omar, MN r---:x-CChrissy Houlahan, PA 

~-·· Jl~-~B~ur~ch~e,ctt~,1~·N~----------~ 
70 

Æ