U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–717 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–599 

CANADA’S FAST–TRACK REFUGEE PLAN: 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 

FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

BROOKE N. ERICSON, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

JOSE J. BAUTISTA, Professional Staff Member 

SERVANDO H. GONZALES, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Minority Senior Counsel 

HARLAN C. GEER, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 19 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 22 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 24 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 27 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 30 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 35 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 37 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

Guidy Mamann, Senior Partner, Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell, LLP, Toronto, Canada ....................................................................................................... 4 

David B. Harris, Director, International Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS 

Strategic Research, Inc., Ottawa, Canada ......................................................... 7 

Dean Mandel, Border Patrol Agent, Buffalo Sector, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (testifying on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council) ......... 9 

Laura Dawson, Ph.D., Director, Canada Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ............................................................................... 12 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Dawson, Laura, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Harris, David B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Mamann, Guidy: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Mandel, Dean: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

APPENDIX 

Statements submitted for the Record from: 

Church World Service ...................................................................................... 54 

Disciples Refugee & Immigration Ministries ................................................. 55 

Gary Doer, Canadian Ambassador to the United States .............................. 56 

The Niskanen Center ....................................................................................... 59 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from: 

Mr. Mamann ..................................................................................................... 74 

Ms. Dawson ....................................................................................................... 80 

(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

CANADA’S FAST-TRACK REFUGEE PLAN: 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND 

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Ayotte, Sasse, 

Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome the witnesses and thank you again for changing your flights and being flexible here because of our snowstorm 

in Washington, D.C. It is kind of funny because I am from Wisconsin. We are used to snow. People say, ‘‘Oh, these guys just cannot handle it’’. I mean, let us face it. Twenty-some inches of snow 

is difficult for any part of the country to handle. I am kind of glad 

that it is melting pretty fast. 

But, again, thank you for coming. I read your testimony and I 

appreciate your thoughtful testimony. I am looking forward to a 

good hearing. 

Let me ask that my written statement be entered into the 

record,1 without objection. 

And, I just want to start with a quote. We had a foiled terrorist 

plot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was not Israel. It was not Syria. 

It was not Afghanistan. It was not Iraq. It was not San Bernadino. 

It was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And the foiled terrorist’s name 

was Samy Mohammed Hamzeh. There were a couple of confidential 

human sources—that is how they are referred to—and in the criminal complaint, there are a number of quotes from Mr. Hamzeh to 

these informants, and I just want to read you the quotes. 

‘‘I am telling you, if this hit is executed, it will be known all over 

the world. The people will be scared and the operations will increase. This way, we will be igniting it. I mean, we are marching 

at the front of war and we will eliminate everyone.’’ 
2 

Now, this was a plot in the Masonic Temple in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Further in the complaint, Mr. Hamzeh says that he would 

be 100 percent happy if he is able to slaughter 30 human beings. 

So, the purpose of this hearing is to take a look at the potential 

threat. We have had 13 hearings on border security here in terms 

of our Southern and our Northern Borders as well as our maritime 

border. I think that the conclusion—and I think that most of the 

Committee Members would agree with me—is that our borders are 

not secure. You take a look at the danger—the risk. 

I mean, obviously, we have far more illegal crossings on our 

Southern Border. Canada, generally, is not a threat. I go fishing up 

there. You have great walleyes. I mean, I love Canadians. We have 

a very special relationship with Canada. As a result, we have a 

pretty unsecured border with Canada. It has just never really represented much of a threat. 

Islamic terror represents a threat. This is real. It is growing. 

This is a legitimate concern. 

We are all compassionate. We want to solve these problems. But, 

we also have to, I think, recognize our responsibility, which is 

doing everything that we can to keep our Nation safe and secure. 

And, so, I mean, the fact of the matter is that, when I take a 

look at the history, the number of refugees that are resettled in 

Canada since about 2005, the high-water mark was 35,000—but it 

is averaging somewhere between the 20,000 and 25,000-person 

range. Well, Prime Minister Trudeau now is committed to admitting 25,000, and then 50,000 total, by the end of 2016. That is a 

pretty significant ramp-up and over a pretty short period of time. 

In America, it takes somewhere between 18 to 24 months to 

properly vet a refugee, on average—and that is from all of the 

countries that refugees are coming from. It is far more difficult to 

try and get the information—we have heard this in testimony before this Committee—in a war-torn country, like Syria. So, how can 

you do the proper vetting? How can we assure that there are no 

shortcuts taken? And, that is really the purpose of this hearing, to 

just let us lay out the reality. Will there be shortcuts taken? Is that 

something that really ought to concern Americans here, as Canada 

is really ramping up—and again, all with wonderful intentions, 

being very compassionate—admitting a much higher level of refugees than they normally take in and at a much faster pace. 

So, again, I appreciate the witnesses being here and I look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I will turn it over to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, everybody. It is nice to see you. Thank you for 

joining us today. 

A couple of months ago, in November, our Committee held a 

hearing right here on our country’s ability to screen Syrian refugees, and, at the time, there was a lot of unease over the Syrian 

refugee population and the security risk that some believe that 

they might pose to us in this country. We learned a whole lot at 

that hearing that day. I will just mention a couple of the things 

that we learned. 
3 

1The letter referenced by Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 56. 

We learned that the screening for refugees takes place wholly 

overseas before a refugee ever sets foot on U.S. soil. We learned 

that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) 

narrows down the list of potential refugees long before the United 

States ever considers a single application. We learned that once we 

receive a list of pre-screened refugees from the United Nations 

(U.N.), the State Department (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) still conduct their own extensive vetting, and 

this vetting includes biometric and biographic checks, health 

checks, and in-person interviews conducted by immigration analysts who are trained to spot fraud and deception. 

We also learned that refugees are consistently vetted against the 

full repository of U.S. national security databases. And, we learned 

that our program focuses on the most vulnerable refugees, mostly 

children and families. It is no wonder that the security experts who 

testified before our Committee that day said that the Refugee Resettlement Program (USRP) is probably the last way a potential 

terrorist would try to come to our country. 

What I have said, anecdotally, is that a member of the Islamic 

State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would have to be crazy or stupid to 

try to get here through our most closely vetted program and wait 

2 years to go through the most extensive vetting process. Why 

would you do that when you have other options to pursue—including, maybe, going to Canada. We will find out about that today. 

But, today, we are going to learn more about the Canadian refugee program, and from what I can tell, it looks a lot like ours. 

And, like us, Canada carefully screens potential candidates while 

they are overseas. They also run their own security checks. Indeed, 

those checks include systemic consultation with the United States, 

vetting against our terrorism and national security databases 

under information sharing agreements that we have in place with 

Canada. 

And, it is true that Canada is doing the screening faster than 

usual—but that does not mean that they are doing less screening 

than they previously have done. The Canadian government has 

surged resources to speed up the time of refugee processing and 

states, emphatically, that it is not cutting corners. 

In fact, all of the Members of this Committee recently received 

a letter from the Canadian Ambassador to the United States laying 

out the screening process for these refugees in close cooperation 

with our own security and border agencies. I would like to place 

that letter in the record,1 Mr. Chairman, at this time. I ask unanimous consent for that, please. 

The first group of refugees that Canada is reviewing is restricted 

to families, women, and other at-risk populations. I should also 

point out that, with very few exceptions, almost no single fightingage males are being considered in the first batch of 25,000 refugees. Moreover, nearly half of the refugees are privately sponsored—that is, families or organizations in Canada have committed 

to helping them adjust to life in that country and have even agreed 

to pay to support them for that first year. That kind of arrange-
4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mamann appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

ment can be, I think, very helpful in integrating new arrivals and 

helping to safeguard against alienation or radicalization. 

Like our country, Canada has a long, proud history of helping 

refugees. In fact, some of the Southeast Asian refugees who were 

resettled in Canada in earlier decades are now stepping up to sponsor Syrian families. 

And, finally, it is very important to point out that it would take 

4 years before refugees living in Canada would be potentially eligible for citizenship and the right to travel visa-free to the United 

States. Until then, they would still need a visa to come to our country and then they would be subject to fresh screening against U.S. 

criminal intelligence databases before they can cross our border. 

In short, I think that we should support Canada, our ally, in 

doing the right thing in the most secure manner possible when it 

comes to Syrian refugees. And as we do that, let us keep our eye 

on the ball. Vilifying refugees coming to our country or to Canada 

only serves as a distraction from the real challenges of defeating 

ISIS on the battlefield and combating homegrown violent extremism (HVE) here, on our shores. Providing safe haven for a few of 

the millions of people victimized by ISIS and the Syrian war will 

not hurt that cause. I actually believe that it helps us. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. We welcome all of you. Thank you for joining us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper, and that letter 

from the Ambassador will be entered into the record, without objection. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is the tradition of this Committee to 

swear in witnesses, so if you will all stand and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. MAMANN. I do. 

Mr. HARRIS. I do. 

Mr. MANDEL. I do. 

Ms. DAWSON. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Guidy Mamann. Mr. Mamann is a Canadian 

immigration lawyer and the foundering partner of Mamann, 

Sandaluk and Kingwell, LLP. Previously, he worked for Canada’s 

Department of Citizenship and Immigration and served as Immigration Officer at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. Mr. 

Mamann. 

TESTIMONY OF GUIDY MAMANN,1 SENIOR PARTNER, MAMANN, 

SANDALUK & KINGWELL, LLP, TORONTO, CANADA 

Mr. MAMANN. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. Senator 

Johnson, distinguished Members of the Committee, and ladies and 

gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for inviting me here 

today to discuss the security implications of and unanswered ques-
5 

tions about Canada’s recent plan to resettle Syrian refugees in 

Canada. 

As I am sure you are aware from my biography, I am a Canadian 

immigration lawyer who has dedicated his 30-year career to bringing all kinds of newcomers to Canada, including thousands of refugees. I very much believe that all countries should do their utmost 

to help provide safe harbor to those in genuine need of protection. 

You have not asked me here today to champion the cause of refugees, but to address your concerns about the security implications 

of Canada’s plan. To understand the security risks associated with 

this plan, you must first understand the context in which this plan 

evolved. 

In the months prior to our Federal election this past October, 

Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party made it a major part of their 

election campaign to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the 

end of 2015. He won the election and became Prime Minister on 

November 4, 2015. This left him only 57 days to process and land 

25,000 refugees as promised. 

I was asked on national television if this was doable and I expressed great doubt that it was. I knew that such applications normally take about 62 months, and sometimes even longer, to conclude. So, not surprisingly, the target was missed when only 6,000 

refugees arrived in Canada prior to the December 31 target date. 

To date, to complete the shortfall of 19,000 applications, the target date has now been extended by 2 months. However, the government has also announced that an additional 25,000 refugees will be 

brought in by December 31 of this year. Accordingly, the initial 

plan for 25,000 is now doubled to 50,000 and the original estimated 

cost of 100 million has now been revised to over 1.2 billion. 

This is not a rescue mission—this is a resettlement mission. The 

people who we are helping have already escaped the conflict zone 

and have already reached safety in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. 

We are only relocating them and offering them permanent resettlement. We are making no attempt whatsoever to rescue people who 

are actually in Syria and who are in imminent danger. 

Accordingly, there is no apparent urgency to the situation. Nonetheless, the self-imposed deadlines have been adopted. This will undoubtedly put tremendous pressure on our security personnel to 

complete their background checks by the target dates. 

Let me address some of the main security issues arising from 

this plan, as you have requested. The Liberal government has assured the Canadian public that no security steps will be skipped 

and that all applicants will be fully screened before arrival. The 

Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA), the Royal Canadian 

Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have all stated that they are up to the 

task. This was affirmed by the Canadian ambassador to the United 

States, Gary Doer, who wrote to this Committee last week in response to the scheduling of this hearing. I have no reason, whatsoever, to doubt any of them. I have worked opposite—but closely and 

cooperatively—with these agencies for my entire career and I do 

not doubt that they will not intentionally cut corners in order to 

deliver a politically expedient result. 
6 

However, they will be under tremendous pressure to deliver an 

unprecedented volume of work in record time. The performance of 

overseas security checks is a highly specialized field and it is difficult—if not impossible—to grow that skill in a short period of 

time. Our government has already deployed 500 officials to Jordan 

and Lebanon to help with medical and background checks. However, it is unclear what expertise these people might have and 

might bring to the table as well as what databases they may have 

to reference. 

Furthermore, Canada closed its embassy in Damascus in 2012. 

The information that we have is old and many of the government 

offices in Syria that had reliable records have been destroyed or 

have been compromised. In any event, background checks cannot 

eliminate risk. They simply cannot tell us what will happen in the 

future. 

Second, to contain risk, the Canadian plan excludes single men. 

The plan is only open to families, women, and children. Again, this 

measure will certainly help to reduce security risks, but it will not 

eliminate them. Case in point, the Boston Marathon bombing in 

2013 was committed by two adult brothers who immigrated to the 

United States as refugees when they were just children. As for 

women, women are increasingly becoming involved in acts of terror. 

Again, consider the case of Tashfeen Malik and her husband, who 

sponsored her to the United States on a fiancee visa and who, together, killed 14 people in San Bernadino in December, 2015. 

Third, I have been asked by your staff whether Canada’s private 

sponsors might help to mitigate security risks by providing monitoring of the families that they have sponsored. These private citizens are not trained nor selected for such a role. They are simply 

good Canadians looking to provide financial help and settlement 

assistance. They are not expected to play any surveillance function. 

Fourth, I have also been asked about the access that this group 

of 50,000 might have to the United States. As you mentioned, as 

permanent residents of Canada, they will not qualify for your Visa 

Waiver Program (VWP), but will qualify to become Canadian citizens in 4 years. Like all other Canadian citizens, they will then be 

able to present themselves at the U.S. border and seek admission 

right at the port of entry (POE). 

Having said all of this, as you may know, our respective borders 

remain quite porous. Our checkpoints are only effective with respect to people who choose to use them. Many going in both directions successfully avoid our checkpoints every day. 

Fifth, Canada passed some very controversial legislation in 2014 

known as Bill C–24. It currently allows our government to revoke 

anyone’s Canadian citizenship for serious acts against Canada, provided that the person is a dual national and is convicted of offenses 

relating to spying, treason, or terrorism. I do not believe that the 

United States has similar legislation. However, Prime Minister 

Trudeau has now promised to repeal those provisions once elected—and I anticipate that this will be happening very soon. 

The last, but certainly not the least, source of potential concern 

is the demographics of this particular group of refugees. When compared to other groups of refugees, one can easily argue that this 

group represents a relatively high-risk demographic. Syria is wide-
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Harris appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

ly considered to be a major hotbed of international terror. Large 

parts of the country are controlled by ISIS, which, sadly, enjoys 

some considerable local support. Virtually the entire country supports one of the three warring factions: either ISIS, the Assad government, or the rebels. All three groups have been associated with 

assorted atrocities and violations of human rights. 

By definition, refugees do not necessarily come to our countries 

because they share our values. They come to our countries because 

they often have no other choice. Whether or not they possess or 

adopt our values is something that only time will tell. 

I would like to identify some unanswered questions for Americans to think about, but I think that, due to time, I will wait until 

the question period. 

In conclusion, Senators, the extent to which we help refugees and 

those in need defines who we are as a country. Canada has decided 

to accept 50,000 refugees from the millions displaced by the Syrian 

conflict. While I think that there was a better way of handling 

some aspects of this initiative, the cause of helping genuine refugees is a good one. 

Having said that, there are unavoidable costs and risks associated with this type of endeavor. Our government believes that 

those risks are manageable. I know that we have experienced and 

dedicated men and women in our security agencies who are working feverishly to meet our government’s timelines. Whether or not 

our efforts will work out well in the end, only time will tell. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is David Harris. Mr. Harris is the Director of 

the International Intelligence Program at INSIGNIS Strategic Research, Inc. Mr. Harris is a lawyer located in Ottawa, Canada with 

decades of national security intelligence affairs experience. Mr. 

Harris. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. HARRIS,1 DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM, INSIGNIS STRATEGIC 

RESEARCH, INC., OTTAWA, CANADA 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honorable 

Senators. 

As the Committee clearly appreciates, the new Canadian government took office committed to fast-tracking the resettlement of 

25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada between early November 2015 

and the end of that year. Complications led the government to adjust the intake goals to 10,000 before the end of 2015 and another 

15,000 prior to March 1, 2016. By last week, about 15,000 Syrian 

refugees had entered Canada. Recent reports indicate that Canada 

is expecting to raise its target level and take in 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. I will focus on the core 25,000 number for 

the sake of expediency in the course of this statement. 

Given the threat picture in Syria and the scale of intake, security 

considerations, of course, require thorough attention. First, recall 

that the U.S. population exceeds by nine times Canada’s 35 million 

population. Therefore, 25,000 refugees in Canada would be the 
8 

equivalent of 225,000 refugees in the United States—all of this by 

March 1. Britain—almost twice Canada’s population—will take 

several years to admit 20,000. 

And the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Director, James 

Comey, has highlighted the screening difficulties that America 

would face by admitting 10,000 Syrians. He warned that information gaps could lead to inadequate screening. If the extensive U.S. 

intelligence system would have trouble security screening 10,000 

Syrians in a year, how likely is it that Canada—even with valuable 

U.S. assistance—could adequately screen 21⁄2 times that number in 

4 months? 

Canada’s special fast-track processing of 25,000 Syrians in 4 

months should be compared to the standard, non-fast track process 

13-month timeline for government-assisted Syrian refugees and 27- 

month timeline for the privately sponsored. Note that this 25,000 

figure is roughly equal to Canada’s entire annual refugee intake, 

traditionally. 

And, remember the risk context. Apart from the accounts of suspected ISIS members, that ISIS aims to penetrate international 

refugee streams, a Lebanese cabinet minister warned in September 

2015 that at least 2 percent of the 1.1 million Syrians in Lebanon’s 

refugee camps—about 20,000 people—were connected to ISIS extremism. Canada takes refugees from Lebanese UNHCR camps. 

More generally, the Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies’ 

polls determined that 13 percent of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, 

Jordan, and Turkey—source countries for Canada’s Syrian migrants—had positive views of the Islamic State. How many more 

might have favorable views of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Hezbollah, the 

Assad militias, and other non-ISIS threat groups? 

In some cases, evidence for screening might be available if, for 

example, a migrant’s traces have been found on an improvised explosive device (IED) in Syria or Iraq or where a time-consuming investigation has connected the dots. But, how readily can one gain 

access to a migrant’s history when that migrant is from a hostile 

or chaotic country? We cannot reliably confer with authorities of 

such jurisdictions—assuming authority exists— about many prospective refugees. 

It is suggested, in Canada, that risk can be mitigated by barring 

unaccompanied adult Syrian males. But, people lie about age. Additionally, many males and females below the age of majority are in 

ISIS’s ranks. Also, what effect would an adult male embargo have 

on at-risk, adult gay and other males targeted by terrorists? 

Meanwhile, when favoring women with children and men with 

families, do we know who is actually married to whom and whose 

children are accompanying whom? Are some ISIS fighters’ families 

involved? Would they, in turn, sponsor relatives or ostensible relatives? 

Are there safety issues for existing North American minorities in 

a mass movement from a homeland where the demonizing of Jews 

is national policy and life-threatening lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 

transgender (LGBT) persecution is a crisis? And what of the importing of people from a region where anti-black racism is an especially serious matter? 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mandel appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Beyond this, secret German government documents reportedly 

claim that refugee numbers should be multiplied by a family factor 

of between four and eight to determine how many more migrants 

will ultimately be sponsored by current refugees. What could future 

refugee to refugee chain sponsorship mean for Canadian stability 

and border security? 

We must also ask what security resources are being diverted to 

the fast-track project at a time when security is already burdened 

by an existing annual immigration intake of almost 300,000 people—one of the biggest per capita figures in the world and at least 

double per capita American immigration. 

In the past, there have been few newcomers to Canada who were 

crossing the U.S. border for terrorist purposes. But, failed millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam as well as Ghazi Ibrahim Abu 

Mezer’s 1997 arrest in his Brooklyn bomb factory remind us of the 

cross-border risks. Concern also exists that extremists could move 

north from the United States—about the chronic problem of migrants with U.S.-granted visas from Syria, and elsewhere, turning 

up in Canada and making refugee claims. 

Greater transparency in Canada’s Syrian refugee security process would reassure Canadians and their allies. Fortunately, the 

current Canadian government’s stated commitment to transparency gives hope that details of the Syrian refugee security process will be made public. Indeed, the Canadian government, through 

its Ambassador in Washington, may have begun the process with 

a recent statement. The security-related details should include the 

security criteria used during Syrian migrants’ security interviews, 

statistics regarding the acceptance and the rejection rates, and the 

record of time spent on the security investigation and screening per 

refugee. 

There is little doubt that those in Canada tasked with the job of 

screening refugees are doing the best that they can, given the constraints. But, the constraints are significant and we must be realistic about that fact. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Harris. 

Our next witness is Dean Mandel. Mr. Mandel is a U.S. Border 

Patrol Agent currently serving in the Buffalo Sector. Mr. Mandel 

has served as a Border Patrol Agent since 2006, and prior to his 

position, he served as Petty Officer Third Class for the United 

States Navy. Mr. Mandel. 

TESTIMONY OF DEAN MANDEL,1 BORDER PATROL AGENT, 

BUFFALO SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BORDER 

PATROL COUNCIL) 

Mr. MANDEL. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper, 

thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). It is truly an honor. 

The NBPC represents the interests of 16,500 line agents with the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) Border Patrol. My 

name is Dean Mandel. I am an active duty Border Patrol Agent as-
10 

signed to the Buffalo Sector. I joined the Border Patrol in 2006, 

after having served in the U.S. Navy for 4 years. 

We live in a highly connected world, and the tragedy in Paris is, 

unfortunately, an example of how one country’s policies can impact 

its neighbors. As someone stationed on the Northern Border, I 

want to be clear, what happens in Canada matters to the United 

States. Whether it be Canadian policies toward refugees or immigration, their decisions impact U.S. security, given the size and nature of our shared border. 

I started my career on the Southern Border, in Nogales, Arizona. 

In Nogales, we had air support, fencing, cameras, and a solid network of ground sensors. Although we never had sufficient manpower, in an emergency, we almost always had backup. 

On the Northern Border, it is entirely different. Of the 21,000 

agents in the Border Patrol, only 2,100 are assigned to the Northern Border. When you take into account supervisors who are not 

in the field, annual leave, sick leave, days off, training days, and 

the fact that we work with a three-shift rotation, we only have 

about 300 line agents guarding the Northern Border at any one 

time. I would estimate that there are approximately as many Capitol Police on duty right now protecting the Capitol complex as 

there are on the entire 4,000-mile Northern Border. 

On the Southern Border, we have one agent for every linear mile. 

Each of these agents is made more effective by the entire infrastructure of fencing, cameras, air support, and sensors. On the 

Northern Border, we have one agent for every 13.5 miles and we 

have much less of this infrastructure. 

On the Southern Border, if you ask an agent, they will probably 

tell you that, at best, we are 40 percent effective in apprehending 

illegal aliens and drug smugglers. On the Northern Border, I would 

estimate that the effectiveness rate is a fraction of this figure. 

I know that there is significant controversy regarding Canada’s 

recent decision to admit 25,000 Syrian refugees. In my opinion, it 

is very difficult to gauge the risk posed by these refugees and much 

of the risk will depend on the screening process utilized by the Canadians. 

Candidly, of greater concern to me, from a border security perspective, are the over five million foreign visitors that enter Canada, annually. Canada is a diversive nation and has a per capita 

Muslim population three times our own. As a result, they have 

major inflows from tourists and business travelers throughout the 

Middle East. 

Canada has a visa waiver system similar to ours, with 51 countries. The visa waiver system is a huge security gap because it is 

operated under an assumption that if you are, for example, from 

France, then you would pose no security risk. Given the number of 

terrorist cells uncovered in Europe, alone, this assessment of risk 

is completely false. 

Starting in March, Canada will require visa waiver travelers to 

obtain an electronic travel authorization before being admitted. 

This is an important first step toward closing the security gap and 

will decrease our vulnerability. However, database checks are only 

as effective as the database, itself. As we saw in San Bernadino, 
11 

many terrorists simply are not on law enforcement’s or the intelligence community’s radar. 

For visitors from non-visa waiver countries, Canada again has a 

system similar to ours. Applicants are required to submit photos, 

proof of financial support, a return ticket, and a police certificate 

from the country of residence. Although Canada takes its immigration laws seriously, like the United States, it also lacks a comprehensive visa-tracking system that ensures that individuals leave 

the country. 

Finally, there is the issue of homegrown terrorism. Unfortunately, no country—including Canada and the United States—is 

immune from this threat. Given that Canadian citizens do not require a visa for visits less than 90 days, we are relying heavily on 

Canadian law enforcement and intelligence agencies to identify potential threats. 

Canada is a valued partner when it comes to border security. 

Personally, I wish that we had such a partner on the Southern Border. However, we have failed to properly invest in our Northern 

Border. As a result, we are gambling that Canadian law enforcement and intelligence effectively uncover domestic terror cells and 

screen over five million visitors, annually, for threats. As an American, the idea that we would rely so heavily on a foreign government—even one as friendly, professional, and competent as Canada—concerns me. 

Please remember that the Paris attackers organized their operation in Belgium, right under the noses of the Belgian security 

services. They were able to do this because the Belgian security 

services had been underfunded for years—despite the fact that it 

was common knowledge that, on a per capita basis, Belgians supplied more foreign fighters to ISIS than any other European Union 

(E.U.) country. 

Northern Border Patrol Agents apprehend over 3,000 individuals, 

annually. Given that we only have about 300 agents per shift covering almost 4,000 miles of border, I think that we are doing a good 

job with what we have. The problem is that we simply do not have 

enough manpower. We have more agents in El Paso than we have 

on the entire Northern Border. 

The NBPC believes that the current force level of 2,100 agents 

needs to be augmented by another 1,500 on our Northern Border. 

This additional manpower will help to decrease our almost complete reliance on Canadian law enforcement and intelligence agencies for our security. 

Thank you again. I look forward to answering any questions that 

you may have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Mandel. 

Our final witness is Dr. Laura Dawson. Dr. Dawson is the Director of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center. Previously, she 

served as a Senior Advisor on Economic Affairs at the United 

States Embassy in Ottawa. Dr. Dawson has taught U.S.-Canada 

relations at the Canadian School of Public Service and at Carleton 

University. Dr. Dawson. 
12 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Dawson appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURA DAWSON, PH.D.,1 DIRECTOR, CANADA 

INSTITUTE, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER 

FOR SCHOLARS 

Ms. DAWSON. Thank you so much, Senator Johnson, distinguished members of this panel, Members of the Committee, and ladies and gentlemen. 

As pointed out in the introduction, I have worked on CanadaU.S. relations for more than 20 years as a professor and as a policy 

analyst. I have advised the United States and Canadian governments on Canada-U.S. relations. For 3 years, I worked as a Canadian analyst at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, so I watched every 

day the extent of Canada-U.S. cooperation on a range of issues. 

And, most recently, I became the Director of the Canada Institute 

at the Wilson Center, where our work is focused on Canada-U.S. 

relations. And, while I work at the Wilson Center, I live in Washington, D.C., so I am going to apologize in advance because I am 

going to say ‘‘We Canadians,’’ even though I am a very proud D.C. 

resident now. 

Canada has no greater friend or ally than the United States, and 

that is a responsibility that Canada takes very seriously. Canadian 

policies are going to differ from those of the United States from 

time to time. We are two sovereign countries. It is certain to happen. But, where we are aligned is the attention to shared security 

and to the safety of all citizens in our territories. That is a guiding 

principle of Canadian policymaking. 

U.S.-Canada information sharing and security cooperation is unmatched between any two countries in the world—hearing about 

Belgium and hearing about France. With our framework of agreements on security, border, and law enforcement, Canadian-U.S. officials communicate directly with each other every single day and 

have well-developed institutional and personal relationships. They 

are picking up the telephone. There is not a diplomatic note required. You do not need to send a diplomatic envoy. They are picking up the phone and they are talking to each other many times 

a day. 

At the embassy, it is required that foreign visitors—U.S. Government officials from the United States—register with the U.S. Embassy in the foreign country that they are going to visit—and they 

get tens or hundreds of visits a year. In Canada, there are thousands and thousands of U.S. officials who come every year for cooperation, for meetings, for dialogues, and for joint programming. 

Please keep in mind that it is a different relationship with Canada. 

September 11 (9/11) was a catalyst for a new security and cooperation paradigm in Canada. Canadians recognize very seriously 

that an attack on one is an attack on all. The post-9/11 security 

measures that were implemented, like the 2007 Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), were taken very seriously. Canadians did not question new security mechanisms, new security 

screening, and new equipment that was required by the United 

States. They just went ahead and did it because that was what we 

needed to do. And under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, 
13 

no one crosses our borders without a passport or an equivalent 

proof of security. 

We have heard about the porous border—and you are right. We 

have great lakes and great fishing, and hundreds of miles of the 

Canada-U.S. border is actually underwater. I do not know how you 

build a wall underwater. We have pieces of the border that stretch 

through mountains. 

So, what do we do about securing that border? What do we do 

about ensuring our security north and south? And, so, the principle 

of perimeter security is really important to keep in mind—and we 

do not hear about this enough. The 2011 ‘‘Beyond the Border Initiative’’ that was launched by Prime Minister Harper and President 

Obama is based on securing our joint perimeter. Rather than having to do so much at the land border—and, I agree, Mr. Mandel 

needs more reserves—we push out our joint screening and joint 

verification to our shared territory, so to our air, marine, and rail. 

We want to have full interoperability so that you, as Americans, 

can be sure that someone coming into Vancouver or someone coming into Halifax has the utmost level of screening and that this security reaches your level. 

So, I have been really impressed by this ‘‘Beyond the Border Initiative’’ and I would like to see it continue. I would like to see Congressional attention paid to it to ensure that the ‘‘Beyond the Border Perimeter Initiative’’ is a matter of priority. New technologies 

in biometrics and data analytics have made this level of cooperation possible, but it is the highest level of commitment from both 

governments that have made it a reality. 

It is a myth that the 9/11 attackers entered the United States 

through Canada. In fact, Canadian officials work really closely with 

American officials every single day. ‘‘Operation Smooth’’ was a joint 

initiative that led to the arrest of two men with al-Qaeda links, 

who were plotting to derail a train running between Toronto and 

New York in 2013. 

Let us talk about refugees. Canada’s Syrian refugee policy may 

differ from that of the United States, but the level of attention to 

security is no less vigilant. No refugee can enter Canada before all 

biometric and biologic data is checked against U.S. criminal, immigration, and security databases. This is an automatic process. This 

is not something officials can decide to do or decide not to do if it 

is a busy day. This must take place. It is an automatic process. 

According to the State Department, of the 785,000 refugees admitted to the United States, only a tiny fraction have been arrested 

or removed from the United States due to terrorism concerns—and 

none of these refugees were Syrian. If someone wishes to harm the 

United States or Canada, entering the country as a refugee is a 

very inefficient way to achieve this. 

But, let us talk about Canadian safeguards against this 

possibility. We have heard that Canada is focusing on low-risk 

groups—families with children, single mothers, and LGBT men 

who have taken refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Sixty percent are women. Twenty-two percent are children. This is not the 

demographic of ISIS. 

Cases are first vetted by the UNHCR and other organizations. I 

apologize, in my written testimony, it says just UNHCR. They are 
14 

vetted through other processes, as well. This is a typical process, 

though. Refugees are then—Canadian officials determine which of 

these candidates meet vulnerability criteria and those who do are 

invited to an admissibility interview. If they satisfy officials during 

the interview, then applicants are subject to a full health and security screening. 

Ralph Goodale, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety and the counterpart to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, has made it 

clear that if there is any doubt about an applicant or about any of 

the data, that application will be put aside. And, all screening 

takes place before an individual gets on an airplane. 

Yes, 25,000 is a very big number, but it is consistent with Canada’s historic response to refugee crises. Canada accepted more 

than 250,000 refugees after World War II, 37,000 Hungarian refugees after 1956, 10,000 Czechs after 1968, and more than 50,000 

Vietnamese boat people in the late 1980s. Before it was even an 

independent country, Canada was a haven for African Americans 

fleeing slavery. We have a history of accepting refugees and making a home for them. 

The government has set a target, but there will always be delays. 

Resettlement is a complex process. But, the Prime Minister has 

been very clear: we will meet our target, but we will make sure 

that we do it right. 

It looks like I am running over the time limit, but I wanted to 

let you know, I was a member of a refugee committee—resettlement committee—at my church in Ottawa, Canada. It was really 

hard work. It was not just a matter of signing some documents. We 

were engaged with the refugees every single day. We made sure 

that that family got to doctor’s appointments and dental appointments, that the kids had babysitters, and that they had appropriate winter clothing. We made sure that they were a part of the 

Canadian community. It was not just, ‘‘Oh, here are some more refugees. Let us drop them in a ghetto in the city’’. They became part 

of our community and, as a result, have now contributed to Canada. 

Lastly, to return to where I started, Canada is the United States’ 

closest ally and largest trading partner. There is no relationship 

that Canada takes more seriously, and I urge the members of this 

Committee to treat that relationship with equal seriousness. Canada is not the weak link in the fight against terrorism. Rather, it 

is part of a shared security perimeter with the United States. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Dawson. 

Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining us here 

today. This is an important hearing. As a result of the attendance—it worked pretty well yesterday and we did not reduce the 

time limits. We will keep it at 7 minutes—but I will use my gavel. 

So, I want everybody—witnesses and Senators—aware of that 7- 

minute time limit and let us just keep to that so that everybody 

has a chance to ask questions. 

Dr. Dawson, I just want to comment that I think that we all 

agree that the relationship with Canada is very special and highly 

valued. And, I agree that we all want to make sure that we do employ the utmost level of screening—and that is our concern. Presi-
15 

dent Obama has the legal authority to let in 10,000 Syrian refugees. That increases the number of refugees in this country by 21 

percent, which puts a potential management strain and possibly 

some short-circuiting—or taking shortcuts—within that process. 

Canada is looking at—again, if you look at the history of resettling 25,000 refugees annually—increasing that by a factor of, basically, double. You are going from 25,000 to 50,000 to potentially 

75,000 in one particular year. That could put on enormous strain. 

Mr. Mamann—and, by the way, am I pronouncing that properly? 

Mr. MAMANN. Mamann like salmon. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. You mentioned that, on average, it normally takes 5 years to go through this process. Please just speak 

to that. 

Mr. MAMANN. There are two processes. If you were on another 

day—not when we are in the middle of an election or involved in 

this particular project—you would be spending about 52 to 62 

months bringing people in, in this fashion, from Afghanistan, Somalia, Congo, and Sudan. That is how long it would take. 

The inland process—that is where someone comes on our shores 

and declares themselves a refugee and they have a hearing before 

the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB), a hearing to determine that 

they are a refugee. Then they apply for permanent residence. They 

fill out all of the forms. That process easily takes 2-and-a-bit years. 

It is done in two stages. The first is a selection decision, so that 

we make sure that you have all of the forms ready, that everything 

is done. And then comes the background checks and the security 

checks. Only after that is completed do we have a person who is 

granted permanent residence. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, Mr. Mamann, because you mentioned 

that Canada has deployed 500 personnel to the Middle East to 

start vetting people over there—that expanded perimeter—which I 

think we all agree is a good way of doing it. Are those new hires 

or is that just taking people from the interior and moving them 

overseas to push out the perimeter? 

Mr. MAMANN. They are taking people from the interior. In fact, 

my firm does all kinds of immigration work. We are not just refugee specialists. It is just a small part of what we do. We are getting letters now saying, ‘‘This officer has been reassigned to the 

Syrian project’’, so you are not getting an answer for the next few 

months while they tackle those things. Those are officers who 

would be normally doing sponsorships, investor applications, and 

all kinds of professional immigration work. 

I should say, if you were to ask me what I think of the 500, I 

would tell you that it does not really matter, because they are not 

going to Syria. They are outside of the country. The question here 

is the ability to verify information—and sometimes the only way 

that you can do that is by putting boots on the ground. Somebody 

tells you, ‘‘I am from this town’’ or ‘‘I am from this country’’. How 

do you validate that from outside of the country? That is the concern, I think, that security agencies have. You do not have anything to measure it. The fact that someone had an iris scan or had 

fingerprints done and nothing showed up tells you nothing about 

what they were doing during the conflict and on whose side they 

fought. 
16 

Chairman JOHNSON. I have been seeing—and I might be 

wrong—but I have been seeing in the testimony, basically, that the 

manpower that Canada has in these immigration services—does 

anybody on the panel have any feel for how many personnel generally do the vetting of the approximately 25,000, on average, refugees that Canada lets in? Mr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. No, it is not entirely clear. It can involve all kinds 

of cooperation between different governments and agencies. So, as 

I said, it is not entirely clear, and this situation currently throws 

an enormous random variable into the overall challenge, I guess, 

that we are facing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Mandel, do you have any idea of what 

our counterparts in Canada have, in terms of personnel, to properly 

vet these folks? Or Dr. Dawson? 

Mr. MANDEL. I do not. I do not have—— 

Ms. DAWSON. I do not have a number for you, but I can tell you 

that the Consular Service in Canada is different from that of the 

United States, so that officers who are trained as consular officers 

for all sorts of processing can also process refugee applications, 

whereas in the United States, I understand, you need a specialized 

refugee officer. My understanding, as Mr. Mamann was saying, is 

that a lot of folks are being deployed from other offices and that 

retired officers are being brought back into service as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, you acknowledge, in any kind of process, when you increase your workload by double or triple, that is 

going to put pressures on the process, correct? 

Ms. DAWSON. I agree entirely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. One of the things that I have been intrigued 

about with Canada’s refugee program is their private sponsorship 

program. I would kind of like to have people just speak to that. I 

mean, to me, that does make an awful lot of sense, to bring people 

in that are sponsored by individuals who can support them financially and help them assimilate and integrate into society—which 

is another of my concerns. When you dramatically increase the 

number of people coming in, how good is the assimilation process 

undertaken going to be? Mr. Mamann. 

Mr. MAMANN. The private sponsorship is actually an excellent 

device. It deflects costs, first of all, from the government’s shoulders. It also allows people to integrate and to feel like they have 

some sense of family here in Canada. As Professor Dawson was 

saying, the process is quite intimate. The families get together. 

They go to doctor’s appointments, etc. So, it is a very good way of 

making sure that people land on their feet. 

As I said before in my prepared statement, refugees do not necessarily come to Canada, or come to the United States, because 

they have a desire to be here, or resources here, or family here. 

They have no choice. They are running and they have to go somewhere safe. So, when you have someone there showing you where 

you apply for a driver’s license, where you can get English as a second language instruction, when you have a place to stay, a doctor 

you are referred to, or whatever, it is a lot better than just having 

the government sponsor someone and putting them on the street. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What percent of refugees are in that program versus a government-sponsored program? 
17 

Mr. MAMANN. I would think about half—more or less half. 

Ms. DAWSON. I have seen currently 10,000 of the 25,000—about 

half. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So, again, let us assume that you have 

10,000. The rest will go through a government program, probably 

then, correct? 

Ms. DAWSON. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I mean, you do not have enough private 

sponsors to handle the 25,000 now. Mr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Just as a matter of facts, it may be useful to bear 

in mind that the private sponsorship concept goes back to the Vietnam boat people era—and there was a great deal of demand to 

bring in various people. Enormous numbers of individuals were 

brought in, as Dr. Dawson has indicated. But, it should be remembered that these people were brought in over about a decade. So, 

that is a significant distinction, perhaps, from the current situation. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Again, thank you all for your testimony. 

I was interested, Dr. Dawson, when you mentioned that your 

church has taken some interest in the plight of these folks. Why 

is that? 

Is there something about your faith that suggests that you have 

an obligation to do this kind of thing? 

Ms. DAWSON. Yes. The United Church of Canada, which is a middle-of-the-road Protestant faith—as a community, we felt that we 

had an obligation to be part of refugee resettlement. To be clear, 

I was not involved in Syrian refugee resettlement. I was working 

on African refugee resettlement at the time. 

But, I think that it comes down to the larger sense of Canada’s 

identity. Canada has not been perfect in its dealings with refugees. 

Canada turned away Jewish refugees on the MS St. Louis during 

World War II. Nine-hundred-and-eight people were returned to the 

Holocaust. Canadians looked at the images of Alan Kurdi, the little 

boy on the beach this summer, and said, ‘‘This is not who we are. 

We are a community of diversity. We are a community who accepts 

newcomers, and we are all newcomers—unless you are a member 

of a First Nations people’’. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Let me interrupt you. 

Ms. DAWSON. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Sometimes, in this Committee, I 

quote Pope Francis, who quotes Matthew 25, which says something 

about, ‘‘When I was a stranger in your land, did you take me in? ’’ 

Does that have anything to do with the fact that your church and 

the people in your church have an interest in being a part of this? 

Ms. DAWSON. Very much so—— 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. DAWSON [continuing]. And also—— 

Senator CARPER. That is all you have to say. 

Ms. DAWSON. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Why is Canada so interested in taking 

in so many people? What is it about Canada? I asked the same 

question—we had a Consul General from the consulate up in New 

York—the Canadian—and I said, ‘‘Why do you guys want to take 
18 

so many people in? ’’ And he said, ‘‘Well, we need more people and 

we do not have that many people.’’ How many people do they have 

in Canada? 

Ms. DAWSON. 34 million. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, 34 million. But, what is that, about oneninth of our population? So, they are interested in having more 

people, and, I think—so there is more of a willingness to take a 

look at these folks. 

I want to come back to something that you said, Dr. 

Dawson—and something that I said, actually. If I am an ISIS-affiliated person and I am trying to get into this country and do mayhem, why would I take 2 years to get here? Why would I go 

through the most intrusive vetting process that exists to get here? 

What is the logic or rationale for doing that? 

Ms. DAWSON. It seems to me that it is a very inefficient way to 

do it, as I mentioned. And, also, I would like to note that there is 

an urgency in bringing these people to Canada or to anywhere else. 

These are children who have not been in school for years now. 

These are families in crisis. If you want to radicalize young people, 

that is the way to do it. But, bring them to a community, put them 

in school, and reintegrate them into society—that is the best hedge 

against radicalization. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. I served in the Vietnam War and had some 

interest in trying to normalize relations between our country and 

Vietnam back in the 1990s. We have a lot of Vietnamese Americans, a lot of Vietnamese, who come here and have done remarkably well in their lives and they have been great citizens. I am 

struck by the fact that some of the—what is it, 50,000?—people 

that you all took in from Southeast Asia are now serving as host 

families for the Syrians. Is that true? 

Ms. DAWSON. Yes. Serving as host families for Syrians and leading some of the refugee programs. And, also, if you go to any small 

town in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, middle of nowhere—I hope you 

do not have to go to the doctor, but if you do, it could very well 

be a Vietnamese adult who arrived as a child as a boat person. The 

integration into Canada’s small towns has been very important. 

Senator CARPER. That kind of reminds me of the Golden Rule. 

How do we want to treat other people? Well, the way that we 

would like to be treated. And, so, the Vietnamese certainly have 

had a piece of that. 

Mr. Mandel, you were a Navy Petty Officer. I just want to thank 

you for your service. I did 23 years active and reserve, retired Navy 

Captain. We are grateful for that service as well. 

Another question, if I could, for Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawson. 

When Canada screens refugees or other immigrants for possible 

ties to terrorism, my understanding is that it does not just rely on 

its own security holdings. Rather, as I understand it, there is a systematic consultation—this is one of the things that was asserted to 

me by the Consul General the other day—with U.S. officials and 

databases—just as the U.S. Government consults with Canadian 

resources when conducting its own checks. Could each of you just 

describe this information sharing a little bit. Mr. Harris, would you 

just go first, please? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, indeed. 
19 

The cooperation and collaboration, as has been indicated, is not 

merely extensive, it is almost astonishing—and astonishingly successful in the context of world history. This is not hyperbole. This 

is absolutely the way that things are. 

The challenge that we face is, of course, reality, which means 

that we are only as good as our databases. And, you may recall 

that in his October 2015 testimony before the House Judiciary 

Committee, the FBI Director Comey was pressed on some of these 

related questions and he was asked about databases—whether 

there were sufficient ones in the U.S. inventory—which, of course, 

we will, at least indirectly, from the Canadian perspective, look forward to relying on. He said, ‘‘The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, 

they have never crossed our radar screen, they have never been a 

ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it 

will be challenging.’’ 

And, on some other occasion, he went on to have pointed out that 

a number of people who were a serious concern, to use his expression, slipped through as Iraq war refugees, including two who were 

arrested on terrorism-related charges. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Harris, I am going to ask you to hold it 

there because I want to give Dr. Dawson a chance to respond to 

the same question, and then I have a real quick one for Mr. Mandel. Just very briefly, Dr. Dawson. 

Ms. DAWSON. I just want to reiterate that there is an automatic 

check to U.S. databases—criminal, immigration, and security databases. It is not an option, it is a mandatory check and they are 

databases that are established and maintained by the United 

States. Canada does not want anyone—any incident in the United 

States—to be linked to a lack of vigilance on Canada’s part. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Mandel, one last, quick question. From your perspective, as 

a Border Patrol Agent on the Northern Border, how extensive is 

the cooperation and information sharing between our two governments, please? 

Mr. MANDEL. With the task forces our agents are assigned to, the 

relationship has just been fantastic. Good feedback. We actually 

have been task forced with an International Border Enforcement 

Team (IBET). That was successful. The relationship has been good, 

outside what we have received on the Southern Border. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I would just say, as one Navy guy to another Navy guy—there is a friendly rivalry between Army-Navy in 

this country, as you know, in football games and stuff like that, 

and I always say to my Army friends, ‘‘Well, we may wear different 

uniforms, but we are on the same team.’’ And, I think that with 

the Canadians, we may wear different uniforms, but clearly, we are 

on the same team. 

Mr. MANDEL. Absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really appreciate, Dr. Dawson, what you were saying. I mean, 

there are about 4 million refugees between Jordan, Syria, and Leb-
20 

anon. 50 percent of them are about 18 years old or younger. These 

camps can be breeding grounds for radicalism. Just imagine a Middle East with that many young people who are not connected to society—not grounded—and what kind of radicalization could happen 

over their lifetimes and what kinds of problems they could have. 

This resettlement of those refugees into communities that are nurturing and supportive can actually be a preemptive strike against 

future radicals. So, I really appreciate you bringing that up. 

And, I just want to clarify. Perhaps, Dr. Dawson, I can start with 

you. There are a lot of people that keep describing the Canadian 

resettlement process or vetting process as expedited, and I am wondering if that is an appropriate term to use—that somehow you 

guys are fast-tracking people or cutting corners when it comes to 

the security of your nation as well as, obviously, your partner 

across your Southern Border, the United States. 

Ms. DAWSON. Thank you, Senator. I agree, ‘‘expedited’’ is the 

wrong word. Enhanced or expanded—absolutely. But, no corners 

are being cut. All of the resources that are necessary, as I understand it, are being deployed to ensure that every level of scrutiny 

and verification has been met. Are they bringing resources from 

other areas of government? Absolutely. Maybe my taxes will not 

get processed this year. But, I know that they are paying appropriate attention to Syrian refugee review. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Mamann, do you agree with that? Is this 

expedited or—— 

Mr. MAMANN. It is going very fast. I think that we can talk about 

what exact word describes it, but we are asking people to do things 

that they have never done before and in a timeframe that they 

have never used before. As I said before, I have worked with CBSA, 

RCMP, and CSIS—dealt with all of those agencies. They are good 

men and women. They are not going to let somebody in because it 

is 5 o’clock and they want to go home. I think that they are going 

to do their jobs. 

But, when you do that kind of work under that kind of pressure—keep in mind that we have a Prime Minister who just got 

elected and this was the crown jewel of his election platform—this 

is a mark that he has to hit and these guys, these men and women, 

are going to be under tremendous pressure to get the job done, because the leader of the country has asked them to do a job and they 

are going to do their best to do that. 

My concern is that when people are fatigued or when they are 

tired, they are not as effective—and that is something that you 

have asked me to talk about, security implications. That would be, 

in my opinion, the security implication—not that our guys are 

going to cut corners. I do not think that they are going to do that. 

They are just going to be tired. 

Senator BOOKER. Dr. Dawson, are you worried about fatigue? 

Ms. DAWSON. What I am most encouraged by is that, even 

though this is a new government, they have some really senior people in Cabinet that they have assigned to the task. The Minister 

of Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship, John McCallum, he 

is a real veteran in government. Stephane Dion, the Minister of 

Global Affairs Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ralph Goodale, these are people who have 
21 

been around for many years. They know what the right thing to 

do is and how to do it. 

Senator BOOKER. And, so, Dr. Dawson, you were talking about 

the databases that are being queried. Are you concerned that there 

is some database sharing that is not going on, that there is any cooperation between our two countries, when it comes to vetting, that 

is not happening that should be happening? Do you have any concerns in those areas? 

Ms. DAWSON. I do not have concerns, but I always would like to 

see an expansion of the level of cooperation and expansion of our 

interoperability as well as greater investment to increase security 

and vigilance. 

Senator BOOKER. What does that mean, the expansion of our 

interoperability? Is there something that we should be concerned 

with in the Senate, in terms of funding or helping to facilitate that? 

Ms. DAWSON. Sure. Well, right now, we are looking at expanding 

a pre-clearance program, which would move more vetting out to 

air, marine, and rail. With congressional support for that and Canadian Parliamentary support for that, that means, basically, that 

there are U.S. eyes on every Canadian port, and I think that that 

is important. 

Senator BOOKER. That is great. 

And, finally, Mr. Mandel, thank you for your service. I am really 

grateful for what you do for our country. And you have a haircut 

much better than Senator Tester, so I appreciate that, as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MANDEL. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Better than yours. [Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. You are just jealous, Tester, and wait your 

turn. [Laughter.] 

So, I just want to know, how critical are a lot of the new technologies? We have such a low number of manpower, person-power, 

on our Northern Border, and I really want to know about what investments you think are critical for us to be making to better secure our Northern Border, which, if you are trying to run anything—from drugs to sex trafficking—this is something that really 

concerns me overall. I do not think that we are making the investment. So much attention is on our Southern Border. Could you give 

me, in the less than 2 minutes that I have left, some of your ideas 

about the things that Congress should be really focusing on to secure the Northern Border? 

Mr. MANDEL. Augmentation of more agents. Personnel always 

helps. The tools and intel to use the tools. For example, we have 

a radar up in Buffalo that was just implemented. It pings off of 

waves, even, and it is just a standard operating procedure (SOP). 

It is just sitting. We need it—and it can track something, but it has 

to be told to track it and there is no intel as of right now. 

So, to me, I think that the answer would be the augmentation 

of the agents—how we are implemented. I think that more of us 

should be in plain clothes. We should be doing source, building 

sources—having force multipliers, reaching out to community, and 

starting community programs, which would, in turn, give us intel 

to use our tools, to use the sensors, to use the radar, and to use 
22 

our manpower. Get those intel agents to build sources, and hopefully we can be proactive instead of reactive. 

Senator BOOKER. So, this lack of adequate manpower and some 

of the inadequate technology that you are talking about, as an 

American, what are your fears? What are your concerns that this 

could be leading to as we are speaking right now? 

Mr. MANDEL. My worst fear is a terrorist attack. I mean, I wake 

up, I wake up at night about it. After incidents that I have seen 

in San Bernadino and in France, it rocks me, and it is my job. I 

put the uniform on every day. I feel the weight of it. I feel the responsibility of it. That is my nightmare. I have a family and I have 

family and relatives across the United States. It would impact me 

greatly. 

Senator BOOKER. All right. Sir, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Harris, I wanted to ask you—I think that the testimony here 

today, and my understanding of it, is that this process is being significantly expedited to admit these refugees. Do you believe that 

there are some risks that are created when you rush this kind of 

program, because what I have seen in terms of some of the quotes 

of some individuals who are current Canadian intelligence officials—they are saying that there is a clear risk given the pace at 

which security screeners would have to work to interview, select, 

and process such high volumes of applicants. And then I have 

heard other quotes saying that that could create vulnerabilities. 

Our own intelligence officials in the United States have expressed 

concerns about what information we have to be able to vet. So, I 

wanted to ask you about some of the risks here. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the risks are 

manifest, as has been indicated, and, of course, as many experts 

and many of those who have been explicitly involved in the exercise 

have reflected—I believe that there were remarks made by a Mr. 

Gerry Van Kessel that have been published—and he had significant responsibility on the Canadian immigration side of things and 

was concerned about the speed of things and some of the priorities 

and influences that could, in theory, be brought to bear. There is 

the issue of efficacy, as my colleague, Mr. Mamann has indicated. 

When there are so many people who are so rushed and might, 

rightly or wrongly, feel under pressure, things can happen. 

And, it may be useful, in this context, to reflect on work, not so 

much by a security specialist, as by an economist. They do have 

their uses, we are told. Irwin Stelzer, who has actually done an appraisal on the generous assumption that the assessment, for security purposes, of people coming in might be, for the sake of argument, 99 percent accurate and reliable. What he said, reflecting on 

the American context of a 10,000 person intake from Syria, was 

that, if ‘‘only one percent of the 10,000 entrants, or 100 applicants, 

will have slipped through the vetting net,’’ then it might be estimated that the—I think that he was saying that the units that at-
23 

tacked France in November each had about 8 to 20 people on 

them—involved in them. 

And, so, if you work on that assumption, you would have, for a 

group of 10,000, at just a 1-percent failure rate, between 5 and 8 

terrorist units, each capable of doing to one of our cities what they 

had done to Paris. And if you then multiply those numbers to the 

25,000 contemplated in Canada, you could be looking at between 

12 and 20 terrorist units of the very kind that tore apart portions 

of Paris earlier this year. 

If I may add to this a related humanitarian consideration. It has 

been said that Canada, of course, is rightly proud of its traditions 

with regard to assisting people. However, the respected Center for 

Immigration Studies in Washington has made a very interesting 

point. It says that, now, again, using the United States context, 

and I quote, ‘‘For what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for 5 years, about 12 refugees can be 

helped in the Middle East for 5 years, or 61 refugees can be helped 

for 1 year.’’ 

And when one considers some of the difficulties that one might 

be dealing with worldwide in the refugee crisis that, depending on 

definitions, could extend to 60 million people on the planet, it is 

even theoretically possible, I suppose, that many of those other refugees who will not have the privileged treatment that the relative 

few going to Canada might have, might expect something akin to 

an apology from us for not diverting funds from certain Canadian 

programs to international assistance. That, in turn, is relevant in 

security terms because, of course, that kind of diversion of funds 

would allow for more concentration on the security side in Canada 

and, indeed, would allow funds for security per se in Canada. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

I wanted to also follow up on the issue—I represent New Hampshire and we are a State, of course, that borders Canada. By the 

way, we do a lot of important economic trade with Canada. I trace 

my own roots to Canada a bit, with ‘‘Ayotte’’ as a last name. 

So, I wanted to ask about this issue in the context of the border. 

With tens of thousands of newly arrived individuals, what are ways 

that Canada can ensure that there is close information sharing and 

that refugees are not able to cross the border into the United 

States? Do you think that there are going to have to be any 

changes made there on the U.S.-Canadian border? Is that going to 

put some more pressure on local agents there, who, I know, work 

very hard? So, I wanted to get your thoughts on that. 

Mr. MANDEL. I would like to venture that we need to get communication—more communication. I talked about intel earlier. There 

is intel, but there could be more. And, it will not take much—one 

or two to come across, sneak across, and do a lot of damage. So, 

I think that the communication lines need to be bolstered. The relationships that we have have been good, but I think that everything could just improve—and possibly more task forces, as well. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, it is something that we are going to have 

to focus on and—— 

Mr. MANDEL. Absolutely. The awareness of what is going on 

there, the daily happenings—I think that our agents need to be 
24 

aware of the intel—keeping the agents up to date, up to speed on 

what is going on. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, that is helpful, because Senator Heitkamp 

and I have a bill that is focused on our Northern Border and making sure that we are focusing on ensuring that that border gets attention and that we are properly ensuring that that communication 

exists. So, we passed it out of this Committee. I am hoping that 

we might get that passed in the Senate this year, and so I appreciate all of you being here today. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Senator Ayotte, when you said ‘‘bit,’’ it was a dead giveaway 

with the Canadian connection, I have to say. [Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. I want to thank you folks for being here today. 

I very much appreciate your testimony and I very much appreciate 

our friends to the north. Coming from Montana with a 550-mile 

border, I can tell you that I often have more connections with the 

folks in Alberta and Saskatchewan than I do with the folks east 

of the Mississippi. So, we thank you very much for living in a great 

country, because, quite frankly, I have a great appreciation for 

Canada. 

I do not know if any of you can answer this question, but we 

talked about 300 agents on the Northern Border, from a U.S. perspective, at any one moment in time. Can you tell me how many 

agents Canada has on its Southern Border at any one moment in 

time? Yes. 

Mr. MANDEL. From personal experience, once in a while we have 

someone who is running out of status in the United States who will 

go across the border. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. MANDEL. Canoe, raft, or swim across the International Railroad Bridge and the reaction time has been good. It could be better, 

but they do not have anybody there. Usually, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. MANDEL [continuing]. Get over. But, sometimes, the time 

could be—— 

Senator TESTER. But, what about the number of agents serving 

on that Southern Border? Do we have any idea how much Canada 

invests in that? 

Mr. MAMANN. I would suspect it is a lot less than that. 

Senator TESTER. Less than 300? 

Mr. MAMANN. I would think so. 

Senator TESTER. No kidding? That is surprising. Well, that is 

good to know. 

Mr. Mandel, you talked about how, in March, Canada was going 

to institute some changes to their Visa Waiver Program. Could you 

go through that, again, briefly, because I just want to catch it 

again, because you had it in your remarks. What are they going to 

do? 
25 

Mr. MANDEL. The Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA). So, 

electronically, you have your application prior to coming in and 

during your travels. So, hopefully, that would decrease the amount 

of risk. 

Senator TESTER. OK, and you said that that is a first step, correct? 

Mr. MANDEL. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. So, tell me what they are going to do come 

March compared to what we do with the visa waivers. Is it as good 

a system? A better system? A worse system? 

Mr. MANDEL. I think it—— 

Senator TESTER. Go ahead. 

Mr. MANDEL. Comprehensive—it lacks comprehension. For instance, we have different databases that I use daily. They do not 

tell me when someone overstayed a visa. So, it does not give a red 

flag and I need to go find them or—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. MANDEL [continuing]. Keep track of their accountability. It 

just goes, and they have overstayed. They are doing something nefarious. It does not alert me. So, I think that the lack of comprehensiveness is the issue at hand. 

Senator TESTER. From our side? 

Mr. MANDEL. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. MANDEL. Yes, and working with Customs and Border Protection—— 

Senator TESTER. I know that it would be unfair for you to talk 

about—and, by the way, we need to deal with that to make sure 

that those database red flags come up. 

Dr. Dawson, can you talk about it from the Canadian side, as far 

as the visa waiver program and how concerned you would be about 

that and also whether Canada has taken the proper steps to ensure 

security through that program? 

Ms. DAWSON. From my perspective, Canada has been working 

hard to ensure that it can line up its programs with that of the 

United States. So, for example, the Electronic Travel Authorization 

(eTA) program—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. DAWSON [continuing]. That is a really good addition for Canada. I know that in the context of Mexico, Canada had a very strict 

visa requirement—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. Good. 

Ms. DAWSON [continuing]. And now they are recognizing a U.S. 

visa plus the eTA for Mexicans coming to Canada. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Mr. Harris brought up the point that, when 

we do this vetting, if there are no records, how do we know that 

the wife is really the wife and that the kids are really the kids. 

Could you respond to that? In the case where there are no 

records—— 

Ms. DAWSON. Sure. All I can respond to is that they are already 

dealing with very low-risk demographic groups, women and children. They are dealing with folks who have been in refugee camps 

for a long period of time. So, these are the people least likely to 
26 

be radicalized. You can never eliminate risk, but you can use sound 

risk-assessment models. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you. 

And, we will stay with you, Dr. Dawson. Can you tell me, and 

‘‘expedited’’ may be the wrong word, but can you tell me how much 

time is being reduced? There were figures thrown out of 55 to 65 

months to begin with, and then inland was 2-plus years. What are 

we looking at? 

Ms. DAWSON. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Can you, Mr. Mamann? 

Mr. MAMANN. Yes. The process for which, Senator? 

Senator TESTER. Well, for vetting the refugees. 

Mr. MAMANN. The current refugees? 

Senator TESTER. Yes, the 25,000 that are going to be brought in. 

Mr. MAMANN. So, here is the situation. By December 31, we had 

6,000 come in. The target was 25,000. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. MAMANN. They did not go from start to finish. Those are people who were sitting around waiting for the finalization of their applications. So, we are just talking about the very last little piece 

of it. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. MAMANN. So, that is how we got 6,000 in. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. MAMANN. But, you could not draw from that the conclusion—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. MAMANN [continuing]. That it only took 57 days—— 

Senator TESTER. Got you. 

Mr. MAMANN [continuing]. To do from start to finish. So, now, 

the tough part is going to begin, because all of the easy cases, the 

ones that were sort of 90 percent of the way down the pipe, have 

already been processed and they brought them in as quickly as we 

can. Now, the question is, the remainder are people who may or 

may not have even been selected—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. MAMANN [continuing]. Or had the background checks started. 

Senator TESTER. Got you. 

Mr. MAMANN. So, we really do not know what it is going to be. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Sounds good. 

Just one quick comment for Mr. Mandel on the points that you 

mentioned that we need on the Northern Border. I agree 100 percent. I think that the interoperability portion is also one that we 

need to include in that. But, we need more agents. We need radar. 

We need more technology. We need more cooperation with local 

government agencies and we need community programs. And, I appreciate you saying that because you took the words right out of 

my mouth, so thank you. 

I would just say one thing in closing. First of all, thank you all 

for your testimony. We invaded Iraq some 15 years ago looking for 

weapons of mass destruction. The result of that has been, quite 

frankly, a Middle East that is a mess. These refugees do not have 

any homes. They have been destroyed. And, I especially want to 
27 

bring up the point that Dr. Dawson made, and that is that the best 

way to radicalize people is to not reintegrate them into a society. 

We have an obligation to figure out how to do this and how to do 

this right for the safety of this country, but we cannot ignore it, 

because if we do, we are not doing anybody any favors on this 

earth. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do not have quite the border that Senator Tester has with Canada. We have 149 miles. We are proud of that. And we have a 

great relationship with Canada, and I agree with what Senator 

Tester said about the need for us to do more to protect that border. 

Our 149-mile border, as you know, is a water border, and so it 

is a little different than a land border, but it has substantial risks. 

Right now, the way in, which you help to enforce, is, I think, problematic. If you come across Lake Erie with a boat, you are supposed to enter into what is called the Outlying Area Reporting System (OARS). You dial into one of eight OARS landing locations that 

are in Ohio. 

And, I have talked to your colleagues, Mr. Mandel. They cannot 

tell you how many people actually comply with that or not. We 

have thousands of places for people to dock, and then we also have 

people that can just dock in shallow water. So, only having eight 

makes it hard. 

They are also able to fill out what is called the Form I–68, which 

provides information and then is filed. The problem with both of 

these is that you do not capture the people who are on board the 

boat, either. So, the OARS system, you do not know if the person 

that calls in is reporting the crew or the content of the vessel. 

So, it is riddled with holes and one way that you check it is 

through air assets—and I am told that your CBP air assets have 

been reduced in the Lake Erie region, so it is harder to monitor. 

So, again, you talked about only having roughly 10 percent, as 

I heard your numbers, of agents on the Northern Border compared 

to the Southern Border, even though the Northern Border is about 

twice as large. And, I would just say that, even in Ohio, where you 

would think that you have this great body of water to deter people 

from coming over, we have a lot of traffic back and forth—commercial traffic, recreational traffic, and so on. It is very difficult for us 

to be able to monitor that. 

So, part of my question to you, Agent Mandel, if you do not mind 

and if you have any comments on this, are the ways in which we 

could do a better job of ensuring that we do not have a problem 

coming across our water. Do you think that the I–68 Form and the 

OARS System can be improved? And, do you have any comments 

about what we face in Ohio? 

Mr. MANDEL. The difference between the Southern Border and 

the Northern Border, to start, is that the Northern Border, with 

the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls—the border is the attraction— 

so we get a lot of clutter, as you spoke of. The reporting—they come 

over with visas, using the Visa Waiver Program, and there is so 
28 

much clutter. So, if you have a lookout, you are doing some surveillance, and you also want to consider those people being reporters 

and force multipliers—they see something, they say something. 

So, I weigh out my suspicion level, basically, versus aggravating 

someone and making someone not report something and making 

law enforcement an enemy again. So, I weigh all of these things 

out. 

I think that the communication could always improve between 

the Canadians and us. It is fantastic. But, the clutter and the 

amount of people that are there—it is very hard to track. So, I 

think that the answer is the infrastructure, the radar, and more 

augmentation of agents, our posture changing into more intel-related. These organizations communicated through social media— 

encrypted. They get on video game sites and talk while playing 

video games. It is a different animal than it is down South, where 

they are making money up North—even down South. But, up 

North, with these possibly radicalized people, they are not looking 

to make money. They are interested in creating terror and chaos. 

Senator PORTMAN. I think that what you are describing—— 

Mr. MANDEL. I hope that I answered your question, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. No, it is very helpful. You are giving some 

context to it. And, you are right. A lot of those, let us say, visa 

waiver holders, visa holders, or tourists who would come, as you 

say, to an attraction like Lake Erie—or you mentioned Niagara 

Falls—so, that makes it even more challenging for you. I mean, you 

just laid out the huge challenge that we have. And, I am for more 

resources along the border. I think that that would be helpful. But, 

as you are saying, even with that, it is going to be very difficult 

for us to know what is going on on this vast border—even our 

water border. 

And, I guess that that gets to the point that, if Canada does have 

a more aggressive refugee program and they are accelerating that 

program—or not doing the vetting that we might do—that puts us 

more at risk. That is sort of our point here this morning and why 

we wanted to have this hearing. 

The one thing that we have not talked about as much, Mr. Chairman, and I know that this is not a hearing to talk about the international side, but it is all relevant, I think, and Mr. Harris, I think, 

made a really good point. I never heard the economic analysis before. He said that you can support one refugee here—and I would 

assume that that would be true for Canada or the United States, 

and that the resources are probably similar—Mr. Mamann can tell 

us that, if they are similar—versus 12 refugees overseas by supporting international efforts on refugee resettlement. 

And, I have supported this ‘‘no fly’’ zone, for instance, in Syria. 

Someone talked earlier about the 4 million refugees. We are talking about 4 million people fleeing their homes and we are talking 

about how we can come up with a security system to be able to 

deal with 10,000 in the United States or 25,000 in Canada. So, it 

is a drop in the bucket. And, could you help much more internationally? Canada does help already. The United States does help. 

Probably per capita, Dr. Dawson, Canada is at the top of the list, 

I would think. They have been traditionally. 
29 

But, I think that this is something that we have to focus on 

more. How do you resettle people in these other countries in the 

region, Arab countries, in an appropriate way? How do you ensure 

that these refugee camps are not places where you are spawning 

more radicalization? 

And, finally, how do you keep them at home? There was an interview not long ago. They interviewed one of these refugees from 

Syria and said, ‘‘Would you rather go to the United States or Europe?’’ hoping that they could figure out where this person would 

rather go. And, of course, the answer was, ‘‘I would rather go 

home.’’ I mean, these people do not want to leave their homes, and 

they—I do not know, Mr. Mamann or Dr. Dawson, you might want 

to comment on that, but how do you keep people from this 

radicalized environment by getting them resettled overseas? I think 

that that is the bigger challenge that we face, if you really want 

to help the people who we are talking about today. 

Mr. Mamann, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. MAMANN. A very small percentage of the applicants that 

were contacted by Canadian officials actually took up the offer to 

come to Canada. It is only about, when the poll was taken, maybe 

6 percent. You are absolutely right. People do not necessarily want 

to leave their home, their culture, the sounds of their home, the 

food of their home, and the language of their home. It is not their 

first choice. 

With respect to the economic argument that my friend, Mr. Harris, was talking about, this began with a $100 million pledge to 

help a certain group of people. We are now talking about a $1.2 billion project—and we have not even ramped up. We have no idea 

where that is going to go. 

So, if you were to ask me, would that money, as Mr. Harris suggested, be better used overseas to help even more people to stay 

where they want to be, in the regions that they want to be in, to 

find a regional solution, to provide proper shelter, proper schooling, 

and proper education with our friends in the United States—and 

put that together, work together, and eliminate whatever ideological risks—terrorist risks—that Officer Mandel talked about, there 

is a discussion to be had there. I am not sure if that is the way 

that we should go or the way that we want to go, but that is a discussion that I think needs to take place as allies and partners. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

I am over my time, but thank you all for your testimony. I appreciate it. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And again, I agree. That is a very important 

point. Take a look at that $1.2 billion. Another point we are not 

really making—— 

Mr. MAMANN. Well, that is Canadian. I am not sure it is worth 

much up here, but—— [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is a lot of money. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Take it times 70. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is a lot of money. 

The other point that we really do not make enough is that Sharia 

law is not particularly compatible with Western democracies, and 

part of assimilation is coming in and assimilating into our rule of 
30 

law. And, that is, again—it is kind of something that is never really mentioned, but it is a real problem. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. I frequently get mistaken for a Canadian, so 

you will recognize the accent. No mistake there. North Dakota has 

a long border. We have the Grand Forks District, which houses one 

of the regional operations. In a previous life, I was the Attorney 

General (AG) responsible for running something called the Bureau 

of Criminal Investigation (BCI), which held, on a regular basis, 

intel sessions all across the State of North Dakota on the topic of 

the border. Royal Canadian Mounties were invited, as were the 

local Canadian officials, border security, and Border Patrol. So, I 

want to give a fairly accurate picture of the great collaboration and 

work that is being done on the Northern Border. 

But, with that said, we have taken our eyes off of the Northern 

Border. It was painful during the discussion on immigration reform, when I tried to take some of the discussion to the Northern 

Border, only to be shut down in terms of resources. This is why 

Senator Ayotte and I got together to, basically, introduce a piece 

of legislation to let us look at what the challenges are. 

Now, I have just a couple of questions. The refugees that come 

get a permanent resident card, correct? And that permanent resident card, if you are going to come into the United States, would 

require a visa application. Is that correct, Dr. Dawson? 

Ms. DAWSON. That is correct. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, on the POE, if, in fact, that is a Syrian 

or a refugee from a country that we think may have radicalized 

that person before they entered the Canadian refugee system, that 

person would not be given entry into the United States unless they 

went through the visa application process. 

Ms. DAWSON. That is correct. And it would be U.S. officials that 

would make that determination. 

Senator HEITKAMP. That is correct. So, they would look at any 

information. And, so, as we are talking about visa waivers—and, 

obviously, one of the great security gaps that we found is the Visa 

Waiver Program. Every panelist who has come before us and 

talked about refugee radicalization has basically said that refugee 

resettlement is a process that is long enough and is robust enough 

that it is not something somebody who wants to do harm would do. 

They would find a way to get in under a visa waiver program. And, 

so, it is good to hear that the Canadian officials are now undertaking the same kind of scrutiny that we are looking at. 

So, Dr. Dawson, can you tell me what the equivalent to the Visa 

Waiver Program is in Canada? What are you guys doing? You, obviously, are part of our Visa Waiver Program, one of 51 countries. 

Let us say that you have somebody who wanted to come to study 

in Canada—or said that they wanted to—or came on a wish to be 

a tourist. They qualified, if they are French, for a visa waiver, 

right?—or to not require a visa? What are you doing now that 

would be a comparable increased security provision like we did 

with the Visa Waiver Program? 

Ms. DAWSON. I am going to defer that question to possibly Mr. 

Mamann as an expert in—— 
31 

Mr. MAMANN. If you are a French national or a British national, 

you just hop on a plane and come to Canada. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And you guys have not changed that system? 

Mr. MAMANN. No. We have a list of countries that are visa exempt. Those are usually friendly countries, countries that are more 

developed countries, and richer countries, because we make the assumption that a person coming from that country is welcome and 

is going to return to that country because there is no economic reason to overstay and work here. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And that is one of the concerns that I have. 

I mean, let us take the refugees—same scenario here. Who is more 

likely to want to come to Canada and then find access to the 

United States, somebody who comes in as a refugee or somebody 

who came in with a visa waiver? 

Mr. MAMANN. Right. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, is Canada looking at doing something 

like we did, which is say that, if you have been in Syria or if you 

have been in Iraq within the last 5 years, you actually have to 

apply for a visa?

Mr. MAMANN. Right. So, we do not really have that system. The 

eTA system, from what I understand, is going to be—of course, I 

have no experience with it because it has not been implemented 

yet—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. It is new, yes. 

Mr. MAMANN [continuing]. But the idea is that, when a person 

comes to the border, like when I used to work at the airport, you 

are seeing them for the first time. You are sort of caught off-guard. 

You look at their passport, you do whatever checking that you can 

do, and you have to move them along. I mean, you cannot keep 

people held up all day. 

So, the eTA program is going to require you to register online, 

and hopefully, that will give the Canadian authorities some advanced notice that this person is coming. Maybe we will check with 

our American partners and say, ‘‘Hey, do you have anything on 

this? ’’ Maybe it will happen electronically or manually. I am not 

sure. 

Senator HEITKAMP. We will probably follow up with the Canadian officials, because ‘‘maybe’’ is not good enough for me. 

Mr. MAMANN. Right. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I want to know exactly what that means. Is 

that just a step that you think will be a deterrent to somebody 

coming because they think that they might get caught? Or is that 

something where you are actually going to scrutinize the people 

who come to the country? 

Mr. MAMANN. I do not think that it is going to be a deterrent. 

It is going to give you a little bit more time to think things 

through. Why would I be deterred? I will go on my computer. I will 

put in my name and my passport number—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, but if you think that you have a record 

somewhere where, actually, they could trace back your bad behavior—— 

Mr. MAMANN. Right. But, most people—if you take a look at even 

the 9/11 situation—no one had negative records. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right. 
32 

Mr. MAMANN. I believe that people who have negative records 

are less of a threat to a company for a major terrorist attack because they are easily detectable. A person who has a clean record, 

that is the person that—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Who is going to be—— 

Mr. MAMANN [continuing]. Who is going to create problems. 

Senator HEITKAMP. No, I get that. I am just saying that that is 

one of the fallacies of all of this, that we are going to know for sure 

whether, in fact, somebody is intending to do harm, basically, by 

looking at biometrics, and basically, looking at all of the advanced 

data. And, so, that is our concern. 

And then the point becomes, what happens at the border? I 

mean, I sat down with a county sheriff from Minnesota, the same 

situation that Senator Ayotte was telling me is in New Hampshire. 

It is wooded. Anyone can walk across the border. I flew Senator 

Carper up to the Northern Border and people farm around the border lines. I mean, it is very porous. 

But, I also want to make one final point, which is that, because 

we are dealing with a neighbor that is trusted, that culturally is 

similar, it is not similar, in that way, to the Southern Border. We 

have an opportunity to double force by working closely with our 

Canadian neighbors. We are doing that in Portal. We are doing 

that in Grand Forks and Pembina. But we need more people and 

we need more resources if we are going to have situational awareness on the border. 

And, so, thank you for your work. You are welcome any time in 

our district. Officer Mandel, we would love to put you in Portal. If 

you do not know where that is, it is next to Montana. [Laughter.] 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And then, he could just walk across the border. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator Carper has one question that hopefully he can ask quickly and that can be answered quickly. And then, I will give each of 

you about 30 seconds for just a final comment before we close out 

the hearing. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, our 

thanks to each one of you for joining us today and for your testimony. 

The Chairman and I, as well as some other colleagues, had 

breakfast yesterday with Secretary Jeh Johnson, and among the 

things that he reviewed with us were the priorities of the Department—the priorities of the Administration—and their ask in terms 

of authorizing legislation and appropriations. One of the initiatives 

that we talked about was a community partnership countering violent extremism (CVE), and it would be an agency within the Department of Homeland Security whose job it would be to work 

out—to reach out, particularly, to the Muslim community in this 

country, the faith-based organizations, through NGOs, and others 

to try to find ways to partner—not locking people up, but actually 

to partner and encourage people not to become radicalized, especially young people. They would help develop almost like a messaging campaign for young people who have no interest in being 
33 

radicalized, a message to those who might be sensitive to that or 

attracted to that. 

Doctor, when you talked to us about how these families actually 

adopt and welcome families, that is a great way to assimilate people into a country and make them feel comfortable and part of a 

community. I do not know how much of that we do in this country. 

I think that that is a good thing that we could learn, maybe, from 

you. If we are not doing enough, we could do more. 

Do you have any thoughts or comments on this idea, the idea of 

a community partnership countering violent extremism as a unit 

within the Department of Homeland Security? You or anybody else, 

please comment just very briefly. 

Ms. DAWSON. I think that it is an excellent idea. I think that it 

begins at the community level. We have talked about faith-based 

communities. The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities in 

Canada have been very active in this. New technologies and young 

people have all contributed to making it easier and better in Canada. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Mandel, last comment. 

Mr. MANDEL. Yes. I am actually one of the instructors at the 

Citizens Academy up in Buffalo, and we are thinking about an explorer program, as well. I recently went to a mosque and we 

brought ourselves, CBP, and the Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO). It was a fantastic experience. It went well. 

Knowledge and getting to know each other—I was over in the 

Middle East, in Bahrain, being a gate guard with Middle Easterners. It just comes down to being good people and getting to 

know each other. Here, we are on the same team and on the same 

side. It builds tolerance. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. MANDEL. And understanding. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Thank you both. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you again. 

Briefly, a final comment in 30 seconds. Mr. Mamann, do you 

have a closing comment? 

Mr. MAMANN. Sure. We started off, Senator Johnson, by talking 

about an ideology. We were talking about radical Islam. Ideology 

is not something that you can stop at a border. I think that we 

really need to rethink this whole idea of how you fight an ideology. 

You can go on the Internet and pick up an ideology without ever 

crossing a border. 

An undue emphasis on building walls and visa requirements is 

not going to stop that. You can grow this ideology at home. You can 

transmit it via the Internet. You are going to have to develop more 

modern tools than just issuing visas, because visas—getting no 

negative hits on a background check does not tell you anything 

about what is in someone’s mind. So, you need to rethink how to 

approach this thing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is a long-term, complex problem. Mr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that it 

is time for us, in Canada, to really revisit our immigration and refugee numbers, at large, so that we can ensure that we have the 

kinds of integration that really will count. I work very closely with 
34 

any number of Canadian Muslims, including through the Council 

for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. I am on their advisory board, 

though I do not speak for them. 

And members of that organization have counseled enthusiasm 

and encouragement on the idea of outreach, but also a great caution to media, to politicians, and to police and security to do their 

due diligence, because there have been some signal failures in Canada, as in the United States, where undesirable organizations have 

been able to have legitimacy conferred upon them through their 

being beneficiaries of outreach. 

So, I would simply offer that caution and the reminder that, of 

course, Canada and the U.S. have the closest imaginable relationship where security—and not just security—is concerned, and it 

has been a very successful one. One expects it to continue. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Agent Mandel. 

Mr. MANDEL. I have been to Canada countless times. I grew up 

in Buffalo—born and raised—and across the border, and I have 

been up through Toronto. We plan on going up to Montreal this 

summer, my wife and I. I have had a long relationship with Canada. I absolutely love the country. I hate to see anything horrible 

happen on either side. 

I think that the Syrians—if there is a threat that comes out of 

there—it is just the tip of the iceberg, as compared to the criminal 

element that is around that could radicalize them—or in the 

United States, as well. So, personally, I hate to see anything happen across our border—our shared border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Dawson. 

Ms. DAWSON. Without being cute, the United States is more of 

a risk to Canada than Canada is to the United States. The only 

way to get into Canada is across the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean 

or across the Pole. So, while the border will continue to be porous 

because of necessary geography, we really need to work together— 

Canada and the United States—to ensure that our shared space is 

defended and secured. And please, in your endeavors, make Canada your partner in this work. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for your time and testimony, and for your thoughtful answers to our questions. Again, I think that we have kind of laid out 

a reality here, which is important. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until February 

18 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 
36 

I thank all the witnesses, some of whom have traveled from Canada. to shed light on this serious 

matter. and !look forward to your testimony. 
37 

Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

"Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and Implications for U.S. 

National Security" 

Wednesday, February 3, 2016 

As preparedfor delivety: 

In November, this committee held a hearing on our country's ability to screen Syrian refugees. 

At the time, there was great unease over the Syrian refugee population and the security risks 

some believed they might pose. 

We learned a lot at that hearing. 

We learned that the screening for refugees takes place wholly overseas before the refugee ever 

sets foot on U.S. soil. 

We learned that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees winnows down the list of 

potential refugees long before the United States ever considers a single application. 

We learned that once we receive a list of pre-screened refugees from the United Nations, the 

State Department and the Department of Homeland Security still conduct their own extensive 

vetting. This vetting includes biometric and biographic checks, health checks and in-person 

interviews conducted by immigration analysts trained to spot fraud. 

We also learned that refugees are consistently vetted against the full repository of U.S. national 

security databases. 

And we learned that our program focuses on the most vulnerable refugees, mostly children and 

families. It is no wonder that the security experts who testified before our committee said the 

refugee resettlement program is probably the last way a potential terrorist would try to come to 

our country. 

Today, we will learn more about the Canadian refugee program. From what I can tell, it is a lot 

like ours. 

Like us, Canada carefully screens potential candidates while they are overseas. They also run 

their own security checks. Indeed, those checks include systematic consultation with the United 

States and vetting against our terrorism and national security databases under information 

sharing agreements we have in place with Canada. 

It's true that Canada is doing this screening faster than usual, but that does not mean it is doing 

less than they previously had done. 

The Canadian government has surged resources to speed up the time of refugee processing, and 

states emphatically that it is not cutting corners. 
38 

In fact, all the members of this Committee recently received a letter from the Canadian 

ambassador to the U.S. laying out the screening process for these refugees and the close 

cooperation with our own security and border agencies. I'd like to place that letter in the record 

now. 

The first group of refugees Canada is reviewing is restricted to families, women, and other atrisk populations. I should also point out that, with very few exceptions, almost no single, 

lighting-age males are being considered in this first batch of 25,000 refugees. 

Moreover, nearly half of the refugees are privately sponsored that is, !ami lies or organizations 

in Canada have committed to helping them adjust to life in that country and even pay to support 

them for the first year. 

That kind of arrangement can be very helpful in integrating new arrivals and helping safeguard 

against alienation or radicalization. 

Like our country, Canada has a long, proud history of helping refugees. In fact, some of the 

Southeast Asian refugees resettled in Canada in earlier decades are now stepping up to sponsor 

Syrian l~1milies. 

Finally, it is very important to point out that it would take four years before refugees living in 

Canada are potentially eligible for citizenship and the right to travel visa-free to the United 

States. Until then, they would need a visa to come to our country and, then, be subject to fresh 

screening against U.S. criminal and intelligence databases before they can cross our borders. 

ln shmi, I think we should support our ally Canada in doing the right thing in the most secure 

manner possible when it comes to Syrian refugees. 

And as we do that, let's keep our eye on the ball. Vilifying refugees coming to the United States 

or Canada only serves as a distraction trom the real challenge of defeating ISIS on the battlefield 

and combatting homegrown violent extremism here on our shores. 

Providing safe haven for a few of the millions of people victimized by ISIS and the Syrian war 

will not hurt that cause, I believe it can actually help us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look forward to learning more from our 

witnesses. 
39 

Statement of Guidy Mamann 

Senior Partner, Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell, LLC 

Toronto, Canada- February 3, 2016 

Senator Johnson, distinguished members of this committee, ladies and gentlemen. 

I want to thank you very much for inviting me here today to discuss the security implications and 

unanswered questions about Canada's recent plan to resettle Syrian refugees in Canada. 

As I am sure you are aware from my biography, I am a Canadian immigration lawyer who has dedicated 

his entire career to bringing all kinds of newcomers to Canada including, thousands of refugees. I very 

much believe that all countries should do their utmost to help provide safe harbour to those in genuine 

need of protection. 

You have not asked me here today to champion the cause of refugees but to address your concerns 

about the security implications of Canada's plan. 

To understand the security risks associated with this plan, you must first understand the context in 

which this plan evolved. 

Background 

In the months prior to our federal election just this past October, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal party 

made it a major part of their election campaign to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of 

2015. He won the election and became prime minister on November 4, 2015. This left him only 57 days 

to process and land 25,000 refugees. I was asked on national television if this was doable and I 

expressed great doubt that it was. I knew that such applications normally take up to 62 months, and 

even longer, to conclude. Not surprisingly, the target was missed when only 6,000 refugees arrived in 

Canada prior to the December 31 target date. The date to complete the remaining 19,000 applications 

has now been extended by two months. However, the government has also announced than 

an additional 25,000 will be brought in by December 31st of this year. Accordingly, the initial plan for 

25,000 has now doubled to 50,000 and the original estimated cost of $100 million has now been revised 

to $1.2 billion. 

This is not a rescue mission. This is a resettlement mission. The people we are helping have already 

escaped the conflict zone and have already reached safety in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. We are only 

relocating them and offering them permanent resettlement. We are making no attempt, whatsoever, to 

rescue people who are actually in Syria and who are in imminent danger. Accordingly, there is no 

apparent urgency to the situation. Nonetheless, self-imposed deadlines have been adopted which will, 

undoubtedly, put tremendous pressure on our security personnel to complete their background checks 

by the target dates. 

Let me address some of the main security issues arising from this plan. 

1. The liberal government has assured the Canadian public that no security steps will be skipped and 

that all applicants will be fully screened before arrival. The Canada Border Services Agency, the 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service all stated that they 
40 

are up to the task. This was affirmed by the Canadian ambassador to the US, Gary Doer, who wrote 

to this committee last week in response to the scheduling of this hearing. I have no reason to doubt 

any of them. I have worked opposite, but closely and co-operatively, with these agencies for my 

entire career and have no doubt that they will not intentionally cut corners in order to deliver a 

politically expedient result. 

However, they will be under tremendous pressure to deliver an unprecedented volume of work in 

record time. The performance of overseas security checks is a highly specialized field and it is difficult, if 

not impossible, to grow that skill set in a short period of time. Our government has recently deployed 

500 officials to Jordan and lebanon to help with medical and background checks. However, it is unclear 

what expertise these people might bring to the table and what databases they may have reference to. 

Furthermore, Canada closed its embassy in Damascus in 2012 and the information we have is old, and 

many of the government offices in Syria that had reliable records have been destroyed or have been 

compromised. In any event, background checks cannot eliminate risk. They simply cannot tell us what 

will happen in the future. 

2. To contain risk, the Canadian plan excludes single men. The plan is only open to families, 

women, and children. Again, this measure will certainly help to reduce security risks but won't eliminate 

them. Case in point, the Boston marathon bombing in 2013 was committed by two adult brothers who 

immigrated to the USA as refugees when they were just children. Also, women are increasingly 

becoming involved in acts of terror. Consider the case in point, Tashfeen Malik, and her husband who 

sponsored her to the USA on a fiancee visa, and who together killed 14 people in San Bernardino in 

December 2015. 

3. I have been asked by your staff if Canadas private sponsors might help to mitigate security risks 

by providing monitoring of the families that they have sponsored. These private citizens are not trained 

nor selected for such a role. They are simply good Canadians looking to provide financial help and 

settlement assistance. They are not expected to play any surveillance functions. 

4. I have also been asked about the access that this group of 50,000 might have to the United 

States. As permanent residents of Canada, they will not qualify for your visa waiver program but will 

qualify once they become Canadian citizens. They will be eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship after 

residing in Canada for four years. Like all other Canadian citizens, they will be able to present themselves 

at the US border and seek admission right at the port-of-entry. Having said all of this, as you may know, 

our respective borders remain quite porous. Our checkpoints are only effective with respect to people 

who choose to use them. Many successfully avoid our checkpoints everyday going in both directions. 

5. Canada passed some very controversial legislation in 2014 known as Bill C-24. It currently 

allows our government to revoke anyone's Canadian citizenship for serious acts against Canada, 

provided that the person is a dual national and is convicted of offences related to spying. treason or 

terrorism. I do not believe that the US has similar legislation. However, Prime Minister Trudeau has 

promised to repeal those provisions once elected. I anticipate that this will be happening very soon. 

6. The last, but certainly not the least, source of potential concern is the demographics of this 

particular group of refugees. When compared to other large groups of refugees, one could easily argue 

that this group represents a relatively higher-risk demographic. Syria is widely considered to be a major 

hotbed of international terror. Large parts of the country are controlled by ISIS which, sadly, enjoys 
41 

some considerable local support. Virtually the entire country supports one of the three warring factions, 

i.e. ISIS, the Assad government, or the rebels. All three groups have been associated with assorted 

atrocities and violations of human rights. By definition, refugees do not necessarily come to our country 

because they share our values. They come to our country because they often have no other choice. 

Whether or not they possess or adopt our values, is something that only time will tell. 

I would like to address some unanswered questions for Americans to think about in relation to this 

particular plan. But for the sake of time, I will reserve comment until the question portion of this 

hearing, and only, if asked. 

1. Does it make sense to impose strict timelines to complete background checks when dealing with 

people who have successfully fled the conflict zone? 

2. How can Canada or the US ensure effective background checks in countries where we have no 

assets and have no reliable personnel on the ground to verify claims of identity, nationality, 

place of residence, family relationships, political affiliations, and any role in a particular conflict? 

3. Should preference be given to those who are specifically targeted for persecution over those 

who face the normal dangers associated with a conflict? 

4. Should we be taking in people from recent conflicts ahead of people who are still waiting in 

refugee camps as a result of earlier conflicts? 

5. What impact will the reallocation of resources have on other immigration lines like family 

sponsorships, professional, and investor immigration? 

6. Finally, is it time to rethink our international convention on refugees and start to consider 

temporary rather than permanent resettlement; regional solutions rather than international 

solutions; and perhaps recognition of refugees even if they have not been able to escape their 

country of persecution? 

In Conclusion, the extent to which we help refugees, and those in need, defines who we are as a 

country. Canada has decided to accept 50,000 refugees from the millions displaced by the Syrian 

conflict. While I think there was a better way of handling some aspects this initiative, the cause of 

helping genuine refugees is a good one. Having said that, there are unavoidable costs and risks 

associated with this type of endeavour. Our government believes that those risks are manageable. 1 

know that we have experienced and dedicated men and women in our security agencies who are 

working feverishly to meet our governments' time lines. 

Whether or not our efforts will work out well in the end, only time will tell. 

Thank you very much. 

Guidy Mamann, JD 

Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell LLP, Toronto, Canada 
42 

Opening Statement 

David B. Harris 

Embargoed Until Delivery 

Check Against Delivery 

Director, International Intelligence Program 

INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc 

Ottawa, Canada 

United States Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

Hearing on 

"Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and 

Implications for U.S. National Security" 

SD-342 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Wednesday, 3 February 2016 
43 

1 

Opening Statement 

David B. Harris 

Director. International Intelligence Program 

INSIGN/S Strategic Research Inc 

Ottawa, Canada 

United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs 

"Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: 

Unanswered Questions and Implications for U.S. National Security" 

Wednesday, 3 February 2016 

Mr Chairman, Honourable Senators, 

My name is David Harris. I am a Canadian lawyer and Director of the 

International Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., with 

decades of experience in national-security affairs. My remit is to address 

security matters involving Canada's Syrian-refugee influx and its implications for 

the United States and Canada. 

The new Canadian government took office committed to fast-tracking 25,000 

Syrian refugees into Canada, between early November 2015 and the end of that 

year. Complications led the government to adjust the intake goals, to 10,000 

before the end of 2015 and another 15,000, prior to 1 March 2016. By last week, 

about 15,000 had entered Canada. 1 Recent reports indicate that Canada might 

raise its target-level and take in 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. 

SECURITY 

Given the threat-picture in Syria and the scale of intake, security considerations 

require thoughtful attention. 

First, recall that the US population exceeds by nine times Canada's 35-million 

population. Therefore, 25,000 thousand refugees in Canada would be the 

equivalent of 225,000 refugees in the US. All this, by 1 March. 

Note: Content of sources cited in this presentation, or available through associated links, does not necessarily reflect the 

views of David B. Harris, INSJGN!S Strategic Research Inc. or affiliated individuals or organizations. 

1 Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, "#We!corneRefugees: Milestones and key figures.p 

cic.gc.ca, b.!!.Q.1L~~&!Y..:g_g_~}.Q!!9.lish/refugees/we!come/mi!estones.asg (accessed 31 January 2016}. 
44 

2 

Britain, almost twice Canada's population, will take several years to admit 

20,000. And FBI Director James Corney has highlighted screening difficulties 

America would face in admitting 10,000 Syrians. He warned that informationgaps could lead to inadequate screening. 

If the extensive US intelligence system would have trouble security-screening 

10,000 Syrians in a year, how likely is it that Canada, even with valuable US 

assistance, could adequately screen two-and-a-half times that number in four 

months? 

Canada's special fast-track processing of 25,000 Syrians in four months, should 

be compared to the standard, non-fast-track process's 13-month timeline for 

government-assisted Syrian refugees and 27 months for the privately 

sponsored. 2 Note that this 25,000 figure is roughly equal to Canada's entire 

average annual refugee intake. 

And remember the risk context. 

Apart from accounts of a suspected ISIS aim of penetrating international refugee 

streams, a Lebanese cabinet minister warned in September 2015 that at least 

two percent of the 1.1 million Syrians in Lebanon's refugee camps - about 

20,000 people- were connected to ISIS extremism. 3 Canada takes refugees 

from Lebanese UNHCR camps. 

More generally, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies polls determined 

that thirteen percent of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey- source 

countries for Canada's Syrian migrants- had positive views of IS.4 How many 

more might favour al Qaeda, al Nusra, Hezbollah, Assad militias and other nonIS threat-groups? 

In some cases, evidence for screening might be available. Where, for example, 

a migrant's traces are on an lED in Syria or Iraq. Or, where time-consuming 

investigation connects dots. 

7 As of 27 January 2016, category selections on Canada's immigration department's website computer calculated "13 

month(s)" for category selections "Refugee~, "Government-assisted refugees" and "Syria". For categories ~Refugees~, 

"Privately sponsored refugees" and ·syria", the result was "27 month(s)" This meant that Syrian refugees subject to the 

established, standard process, rather than the fast-tracked one, faced a 27-month processing time if they were privately 

sponsored, and a 13-month processing time, if government-assisted. Sec Government of Canada, Citizenship and 

Immigration Canada, "Check application processing times,· Update of 27 January 2016, 

httR1iw>\LW.cic.9f£ilfELngiishiinJQ'ITl?JiQDillirJQlWnliex.as£!/ (accessed 29 January 2016). 

'l Jack Blanchard, ''Officials warn 20,000 ISIS jihadis 'have infiltrated Syrian refugee camps'," mlrror.co.uk, 14 September 

2015, h!!RJL"!'£'w.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-ney;s/Qfficials-warrt~O.QO.Q:Ls],sjLh.<J9lscf2.412.8..G. (accessed 17 September 2015). 

4 Ryan Mauro, "13 Percent of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS: Poll," clarionprojectorg. 1 November 2015, 

[lttp:llwww.c@rjQnprQjQ~_t.grg/anaJysis/13-percent-syria,n-refug_~~!:!PJ29rt-t~ 

poll?utrn sourcQ=dJ\JJJtl!.lJJf]1_11]jldiur1J.oJl'iltl?I (accessed 3 November 2015). 
45 

3 

But how readily can one gain access to a migrant's history, when that migrant is 

from a hostile or chaotic country? We cannot reliably confer with authorities of 

such jurisdictions- assuming authority exists- about many prospective 

refugees. 

It is suggested in Canada that risk can be mitigated by barring unaccompanied 

adult Syrian males. But people lie about age, and many males and females 

below the age of majority are in ISIS ranks. And what effect would an adult-male 

embargo have on at-risk adult gay and other males targeted by terrorists? 

Meanwhile, in favouring women with children, and men with families, do we know 

who is actually married to whom and whose children are accompanying whom? 

Are some ISIS fighters' families involved? Would they, in turn, sponsor relatives 

or ostensible relatives? 

Are there safety issues for existing North American minorities, in a massmovement from a homeland where the demonizin~ of Jews is national policy5 

and life-threatening LGBT-persecution is a crisis? And what of the importing of 

people from a region where anti-black racism7 is an especially serious matter? 

Beyond this, secret German government documents reportedly claim that 

refugee numbers should be multiplied by a "family factor" of between four and 

eight, to determine how many more migrants will ultimately be sponsored by 

current refugees. 8 What could future, refugee-to-refugee "chain sponsorship" 

mean for Canadian stability and border security? 

We must also ask what security resources are being diverted to the fast-track 

project, at a time when security is already burdened by an existing, annual 

immigration intake of almost 300,000, one of the biggest per capita figures in the 

world- at least double, per capita, American immigration. 

In the past, there have been few newcomers to Canada crossing the US border 

for terrorist purposes. But, failed millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam, and Ghazi 

5 United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Contemporary Global Anti~ 

Semitisrn: A Report Provided to the United States Congress, state.gov, 13 March 2008. 

http://www.state.iJ9.YiiLcl[l!rls11QZ4Ql),.bt1111LI9!2?485.j~(i (31 January 2016): United States Department of State. Bureau 

of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Syria, state.gov, 8 April 2011, 

hJtp;/fl'i'Y.."',§t"1e~9Q:difdrl/rls/b.o:PJLf.9jOinea.L1_5447.3J]tl]1 (accessed 30 January 2016). 

6 Dan Uttauer, "Syria's attack on gay people must end," theguardian.com, 7 July 2010, 

!:l!!R1Z:.:Y~V{,_t~.?rdian.com/cQ!!lmentisfreeL~QJ9Jj~J[Q..Z/bQ!:!l9~S.@XY.aJ:.~Yri.~.::R~@£\:!li9l1_:!g_Qt:D.9.J.!.li! (accessed 31 January 

2016); Haley Bobseine, "Out and Down in Syria's Civil War,N foreignpolicy.com, 4 December 2013, 

I]J!QJLf.o~ejg!J.QQ[ify.com/2013/12/04/out-and-do'Yl'cLQ21'Cias-ciyit,v;aJ/ (accessed 31 January 2016) 

7 See, for example, Michael Curtis, '·Racism in Arab Lands," gatestono1nstitute.org, 28 June 2016, 

b.!ill.JLY'Lift!~l~QJ1Qtnstit~,:~JQ~Qig_Qj]_qzr~9l§m~5!@!:tL?ILt;t§ (accessed 30 January 2016). 

5 David Charter, The Times, "Angela Merkel hit by leaked forecast of 1.5 million migrants," theaustralian.com, 7 October 

2015, Dl!P-1!W.W.v.[Jt}~_?_l:!§tr~Ji.91J-conJ,.?~{n~Y!'~Qrld/af'!g~.!st::rnerkill:~JLRY.:lE:Ja_~~9:-fm9~9..§!:_Qf:_LQ·:JJlillion.:I!JlgrJ:!D_~ewsillliY/f18bj_()Jl.54_~2_41Q:±;'fQ.:i_4'!B.g_Qgjl_f§~[?c (accessed 27 January 2016) 
46 

4 

Ibrahim Abu Mezer's 1997 arrest in his Brooklyn bomb factory, remind us of the 

cross-border risks. Concerns also exist that extremists could move north from 

the US,9 and about the chronic problem of migrants, with US-granted visas, from 

Syria and elsewhere, turning up in Canada and making refugee claims. 

Greater transparency in Canada's Syrian-refugee security process would 

reassure Canadians and their allies. Fortunately, the current Canadian 

government's stated commitment to transparency gives hope that details of the 

Syrian refugee security process will be made public. Indeed, the Canadian 

government, through its ambassador in Washington, may have begun the 

process, with a recent statement. These security-related details should include 

security criteria used during Syrian migrants' security interviews; statistics 

regarding acceptance and rejection rates; and the record of time spent on the 

security investigation and screening, per refugee. 

There is little doubt that those in Canada tasked with the job of screening 

refugees are doing the best they can, given the constraints, but the constraints 

are significant and we must be realistic about that fact. 

Thank-you, Mr Chairman. 

9 For an exploration of illicit border~crossing into and from the United States, including travel with various degrees of 

connection to terrorism, see Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree, "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United 

States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants.'' Final Report to the Office of University Programs, Science 

and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security {College Park MD: National Consortium for the Study 

of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START]. 2012), 

b!!Q://www.starLJJrrlfl_._~du!si!.t?.?N.~fillJl!Lf_U?_;lf_flJ~l!.b!ications/STAFT BQLderCros~,ing~T?lrQcristAttqQs_§_j2Qf (accessed 31 

January 2016), including Appendix element, "Descriptive Analyses of Data on Border Crossings by U.S. Terrorists," March 

2012, 

h!!Q)/www .st?rLumd .edulslt<l_s/defa.ylj!fY~il!I§!J:Jublic:atio!l§/.§l ARU.QI.c!.«r:C:ro.ssings T errori'iJi\ttiJ<;)<_§__I\I:>JJ~I]_dit;.<t'hQQ! 

(accessed 31 January 2016). In this Appendix. see also Jaime Shoemaker, "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the 

United States: Case Studies," Report to Science and Technology Directorate. U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(College Park, MD: START, 2012). 
47 

National Border Patrol Council 

Testimony of Dean Mandel 

On behalf of the 

National Border Patrol Council 

In front of United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

February 2016 

Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper, thank you for providing me the opportunity to 

testify on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). 

The NBPC represents the interests of 16.500 line Agents at the Border Patrol and my name is 

Dean Mandel. I am an active duty Border Patrol Agent assigned to the Buffalo Sector. I joined 

the Border Patrol in 2006 after having served in the U.S. Navy for 4 years. 

Canadian Border 

We live in a highly connective world and the tragedy in Paris is unfortunately an example of 

where one country's policies can impact their neighbors. As someone stationed on the Northern 

Border I want to be clear, what happens in Canada matters to the United States. Whether it be 

Canadian policies toward refugees or immigration, their decisions impact U.S. security given the 

size and nature of our shared border. 

I started my career at the Southern border in Nogales, Arizona. In Nogales, we had air support, 

fencing, cameras, and a solid network of ground sensors. Although we never had sufficient 

manpower, in an emergency you almost always had backup. 

On the Northern border it is entirely different. Of the 21,000 Agents in the Border Patrol only 

2, I 00 arc assigned to the Northern border. When you take into account supervisors who are not 

in the field, annual leave, sick leave. days off, training days, and the fact we work a three shift 

rotation, we only have about 300 Agents guarding the entire Northern border at any one time. I 

would assess that there arc approximately as many Capitol Police on duty right now protecting 

the Capitol complex as we have on the entire 4,000 mile Northern Border 

On the Southern border, we have one Agent for every linear mile, Each of these Agents is made 

more effective by the entire infrastructure of fencing, cameras. air support, and sensors. On the 

Northern border. we have one agent for every 13.5 miles and we have much less of this 

infrastructure. On the Southern border, if you ask an Agent, they will probably tell you we are at 

best 40 percent effective in apprehending illegal aliens and drug smugglers. On the Northern 

border, I would estimate the effectiveness rate is fraction of this figure. 
48 

Canadian Immigration, Refugee and Visa Policy 

I know that there is a significant controversy regarding Canada's recent decision to admit 25,000 

Syrian refugees. In my opinion, it is very difficult to gage the risk posed by these refugees and 

much ofthc risk will depend on the screening process utilized by the Canadians. 

Candidly of greater concern to me from a border security perspective, are the over 5 million 

foreign visitors that enter Canada annually. Canada is a diverse nation and with a per capita 

Muslim population three times our own. As a result, they have major inflows from tourist and 

business travelers from throughout the Middle East. 

Canada has a visa waiver system similar to ours with 51 countries. The visa waiver system is a 

huge security gap because it is operated under the assumption that if you were, for example, ti·0111 

France that you posed no security risk. Given the number of terrorist cells uncovered in Europe 

alone this assessment of risk was completely false. 

Starting in March Canada will require visa waiver travelers to obtain an Electronic Travel 

Authorization before being admitted. This is an important first step toward closing this security 

gap and will decrease our vulnerability. However, database checks are only as effective as the 

database itself. As we saw in San Bernardino, many terrorists simply are not on law 

enforcement's or the intelligence community's radar. 

For visitors from non-visa waiver countries, Canada again has a similar system as ours. 

Applicants arc required to submit photos, proof of financial support, a return ticket and a police 

certificate from their country of residence. Although Canada takes its immigration laws 

seriously, like the U.S. it also lacks a comprehensive visa tracking system that ensures that 

individuals leave the country. 

Finally. there is the issue of homegrown terrorism. Unfortunately, no country, including Canada 

and the United States. is immune from this threat. Given that Canadian citizens do not require a 

visa for visits less than 90 days. we are relying heavily on Canadian law enforcement and 

intelligence agencies to identify potential threats. 

Conclusion 

Canada is a valued partner when it comes to border security. Personally, I wish we had such a 

partner on our Southern border. However, we have failed to properly invest in our Northern 

border. As a result we arc gambling that Canadian law enforcement and intelligence effectively 

uncovers domestic terror cells and screens over 5 million visitors annually for threats. As an 

American, the idea that we would rely so heavily on a foreign government, even one as friendly, 

professional and competent as Canada, concerns me. 

Please remember that Paris attackers organized their operation in Belgium right under the noses 

of the Belgium Security Services. They were able to do this because the Belgium Security 

Service had been underfunded for years despite the fact it was open knowledge that on a per 

capita basis Belgium supplied more foreign lighters to ISIS than any other European Union 

country. 
49 

Northern Border Patrol Agents apprehend over 3,000 individuals annually. Given that we only 

have 300 Agents per shift covering almost 4,000 miles of the border, I think we are doing a good 

job with what we have. 

The problem is that we simply do not have enough manpower. We have more Agents in El Paso 

than we have on our entire Northern border. The NBPC believes that the current force level of 

2, I 00 Agents needs to be augmented by another I ,500 Agents on our Northern border. This 

additional manpower will help to decrease our almost complete reliance on Canadian law 

enforcement and intelligence agencies for our security. 

Thank you again and I look forward to answering any questions that you might have. 
50 

Testimony by Laura Dawson, PhD 

Director of the Canada Institute, 

Wilson Center 

February 3, 2016 

Good morning, 

I have worked on U.S.-Canada relations for more than 20 years, as a professor, as a 

policy analyst advising both the U.S. and Canadian governments, and most recently 

as Director of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center. 

Canada has no greater friend or ally than the United States, and that is a 

responsibility that Canada takes very seriously. While Canadian policies may differ 

from those in the United States, attention to shared security and the safety of all 

citizens in our shared territory is a guiding principle of Canadian policy making. 

U.S.-Canada information sharing and security cooperation is unmatched among 

any other two countries in the world. Within a framework of agreements on 

security, border and law enforcement, Canadian and U.S. officials communicate 

directly with each other every single day through well developed institutional and 

personal relationships. 

September 11 was a catalyst for a new security and cooperation paradigm. 

Canadians recognize that an attack on one is an attack on all. They took post 9/11 

security measures very seriously. The 2007 Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

ensures that no one crossed our borders without a passport or equivalent proof of 

identity. 

The principle of perimeter security was institutionalized in the 2011 Beyond the 

Border initiative, ensuring that travellers and cargo entering Canada or the United 

States through any port- air, land, marine, or rail -- is subject to the same high level 

of scrutiny. Information is shared swiftly and seamlessly to relevant security and 

law enforcement agencies. New technologies in biometrics and data analytics make 

this level of cooperation possible, and the highest level of commitment from both 

governments have made it a reality. 

It is a myth that 9/11 attackers entered the United States through Canada. In 

fact, Canadian officials- in cooperation with U.S. counterparts have been 

responsible for identifying and stopping potential attacks on the United States 

before they occur. One well known joint mission is Operation Smooth, which led to 

the arrest of two men with 1\l-Qaeda links who were plotting to derail a train 

running between Toronto and New York in 2013. This mission was the result of 

successful collaboration between U.S. and Canadian security and law enforcement 

teams. 

1 
51 

Canada's Syrian refugee policy may differ from that of the U.S. but the level of 

attention to security is no less vigilant. No refugee can enter Canada before all 

biometric and biologic data is checked against U.S. criminal, immigration, and 

security databases. This is an automatic process, not something that officials can 

decide to do or not do. 

According to the State Department, of the 785,000 refugees admitted to the 

United States only a tiny fraction have been arrested or removed from the 

United States due to terrorism concerns and none of these were Syrian. 1 If 

someone wishes to harm the United States or Canada, entering the country as a 

refugee is a very inefficient way to achieve this, but let's talk about how Canada 

safeguards against this possibility. 

First, refugees coming to Canada are from low risk groups - families with children, 

single mothers, LGBT men- all of whom have taken refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, 

Turkey. Sixty percent are women and 22 percent are children. This is not an ISIS 

demographic. 

Cases are first vetted by the UNHCR and then referred to Canada. Canadian officials 

determine which of these candidates meets vulnerability criteria and those who do 

are invited to an admissibility interview. lf they satisfy officials during the interview, 

then applicants are subject to a full health and security screening. 

Biometric and biographical data is collected and checked against Canadian and U.S. 

criminal, immigration, and security databases. As I mentioned above, the decision 

to check every applicant against U.S. databases is not optional. It is mandatory and 

automatic. Ralph Goodale, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and counterpart to the 

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security has made clear that if there's any doubt about 

an applicant, or any of the data, that application will be put aside. 

And, all security and health screening must be completed before anyone boards an 

airplane. 

25,000 is a large number of refugees for Canada but it is consistent with 

Canada's response to historic crises. 

• Canada accepted more than 250,000 refugees after World War II, 

• 37,000 Hungarian refugees after 1956, 

• 10,000 Czechs after 1968, and 

• More than 50,000 Vietnamese boat people in the late 1980s. 

Before it was even an independent country, Canada was a haven for African 

Americans fleeing from slavery in the United States. 

1 U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing (November 18, 2015). 

http· 1/www state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/11 /249655 btm 

2 
52 

The Prime Minister, the premiers of Canada, and the Governor General are fully 

onside with the decision to admit 25,000 refugees. There has been a tremendous 

outpouring of support from business and community groups, especially the faith 

community- Muslim, Christian, jewish. 

The government has set a target but there will be delays. Resettlement is 

complex bit the government has committed to ensure that nothing gets overlooked 

in the process. The Prime Minister has been very clear, "we will meet our target but 

we will make sure we do it right." 

One ofthe ways that Canada facilitates integration into communities is 

through the private sponsorship program. About 10,000 of the 25,000 refugees 

are expected to be sponsored by community groups. To be admitted to the 

sponsorship program, groups must meet a number of criteria including agreeing to 

cover all living expenses for the sponsored family for a year. Moreover, they are 

responsible for helping to find housing and assist with language, education, and 

anything the family might need to make a successful transition. 

I was involved in the refugee committee at my church in Ottawa, Canada. It W<JS a 

big commitment. We were on call 24/7 making sure the family had everything they 

needed from winter boots to babysitting while the Mom took language classes. It 

was difficult but incredibly worthwhile. We were connected to the family as they put 

down roots in our town. If you look across communities in Canada, the refugees of 

the past <Jre the citizens who are today giving back to their neighbors. Refugees who 

arrived as children are now doctors, teachers, and even Cabinet ministers. Many of 

them are leading in today's refugee resettlement efforts. 

To return to where I started, Canada is the United States' closest ally, largest trading 

partner, and there is no relationship that it takes more seriously. I urge the 

members of this committee to treat that relationship with equal seriousness. 

Canada is not a weak link in the fight against terrorism; rather it is a part of a shared 

security perimeter with the United States of America. 

Thank you. 

The Canada Institute is dedicated to advancing cooperation and understanding 

between the United States and Canada. The Canada Institute is part of the Wilson 

Center. Chartered by Congress as the official memorial to President Woodrow 

Wilson, the Center is the nation's key non-partisan policy forum for tackling global 

issues through independent research and open dialogue to inform actionable ideas 

for the policy community. 

Further reading: 

3 
53 

Michael Friscolanti, "Saving Family 417: The journey of one Syrian mother, her three 

children-and the complete strangers who made it their mission to bring them to 

Canada," Macleans (January 13, 2016). http:/ jwww.macleans.cajsaving-family-no417/ 

4 
54 

CWS Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs pertaining to its 

hearing Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and Implications for U.S. National Security 

Wednesday, February 3, 2016 

As a 70-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox communions and 33 refugee 

resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service urges the Committee to affirm the importance of the current 

U.S. refugee resettlement program, which has the most robust national security and screening procedures in the world. 

CWS urges all Senators to reject any proposals that would stop, or otherwise hinder, refugee resettlement or put at risk vital 

funding for refugee protection overseas and resettlement in the Umted States. 

To be considered a refugee, individuals must prove that they have fled persecution due to their nationality, ethnicity, 

religion, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Refugees face three options: return to their home 

country, integrate in the country to which they first fled, or be resettled to a third country. For the millions who are unable 

to return home due to significant threats to their safety and rejection by the country to which they first fled, resettlement is 

the last resort. While less than one percent of the world's estimated 19.5 million refugees are resettled to a third country, 

the United States is one of 28 countries that resettles refugees.' The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (US RAP) is a 

public-private partnership that helps rescue refugees who have no other means of finding safety, prioritizing refugees who 

are especially vulnerable. Of the Syrian refugees who have been resettled in the United States, 77 percent are women 

and children. 2 

Security measures are intrinsic to the integrity of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, which is the most difficult way to 

enter the country. All refugees undergo thorough and rigorous security screenings prior to arriving in the United States, 

including but not limited to multiple biographic and identity investigations; FBI biometric checks of applicants' fingerprints 

and photographs; in-depth, in- person interviews by well-trained Department of Homeland Security officers; medical 

screenings; investigations by the Nat1onal Counterterrorism Center; and other checks by U.S. domestic and international 

intelligence agencies. In addition, mandatory supervisory review of all decisions, random case assignment, forensic 

document testing, and interpreter monitoring are in place to maintain the security of the refugee resettlement program. 

Due to technological advances, refugees from Syria are also undergoing iris scans to confirm their identity. As a result, 

refugees are the most vetted individuals to travel to the United States. 

Similar to the United States, Canada's Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program prioritizes resettling the most 

vulnerable refugees, including women; families with children: unaccompanied children with family ties in Canada; and 

individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTI).3 All refugees undergo robust security 

screening procedures to ensure nat1onal and regional security. As the Canadian Public Safety Minister has explained, 

security screenings "involve individual interviews, the collection of biometric data and thorough checks of U.S. and 

Canadian security databases."4 Refugees go through multi-layered screenings that involve individual interviews by visa 

officers, document verification from Jaw enforcement and national security partners, biometric and biographic collection 

including fingerprints, identity verification by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and health screenings. 5 It can 

take up to 36 months to process an application before a refugee can arrive in Canada.6 Border Services Officers welcome 

and process refugees 1

, and the Canada Border Services Agency, Department of National Defence / Canadian Armed 

Forces; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, among others, work together to 

ensure the security of Canada's borders, including those shared with the United States.8 In addition, refugees need to 

acquire a special Refugee Travel Document to travel from Canada into the United States, and applicants must provide a 

letter from the Immigration and Refugee Board, confirmation of permanent residence, and a Verincation of Status 

document. 9 

CWS affirms the need for all countries, including the United States and Canada, to increase the resettlement of the most 

vulnerable, especially Syrian refugees currently facing the worst humanitarian crisis the world has seen for 20 years. 

Refugees contribute to their new communities with their innovative skills, dedicated work, and inspiring perseverance. 

CWS stands committed to working with both chambers of Congress and the Administration to resettle refugees as part of 

the implementation of our foreign policy and humanitarian responsibilities. We urge all Senators to support these efforts 

to provide safety to vulnerable refugees from Syria and beyond. 
55 

\\IQH,Disciples 

'G' M Home ..._....,, Missions 

DISCIPLES REFUGEE & IMMIGRATION MINISTRIES STATEMENT 

TO THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 

pertaining to its Wednesday, February 3, 2016 hearing: 

Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and Implications for U.S. National Security 

As a North American Christian faith movement of over 600,000 which was birthed on the American frontier, our heritage of 

congregations assisting refugees goes back more than over 75 years. We are grateful to be part of a faith tradition that 

has spoken agam and again of our key faith value of welcoming the stranger despite religious or cultural background. 

Since WWII, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada has worked through our Disciples Home 

Missrons office of Refugee & Immigration Ministries, in partnership with Church World Service, to resettle over 40.000 

refugees in the past six decades 

Now. in these days when our world is facing the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of World War 1!, we re-affirm 

strongly our readiness to continue to embrace refugees, and to welcome them without exclusion. We are ready to do so 

because we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. Indeed, in light of the reality of over 60 million displaced 

persons and 20 million refugees in the world, we strive for a greater goal of hospitality-one which our history has shown 

is attainable through strong public-private partnerships. 

We believe that, just as the U.S. admitted over 650,000 European refugees during WWII, and between 100,000-200,000 

Southeast Asian refugees for over a decade and a half after the Vietnam War, we are capable now to safely admit even 

greater numbers of refugees fleeing violence. We recognize that the multiple existing levels of refugee security 

screenings mean refugees are the most heavily scrutinized of all arrivals into the United States. As one of 28 countries 

which resettles refugees, we are grateful for each of these secunty screenings pre-arnval; including many biographic and 

identity screemngs, FBI biometric checks of fingerprints and photos, detailed interviews with trained DHS officers, medical 

screenings. identify research through the National Counterterrorism Center, as we!! as additional domestic and 

international intelligence checks. Visa processing is separate and unique from the U.S. refugee resettlement process. 

Syrian refugees likewise undergo additional iris screenings and tests to determtne their non-affiliation with any terrorist 

group. This amount of security is appropriate and of greatest importance. Additionally, for U.S. born and foreign born 

youth in the U.S., we emphasize the continuing need for youth programs wh1ch educate youth about the dangers of 

affiliating with any efforts of recruitment into terrorist activities 

As our denomination likewise has congregations located within Canada, we are aware that the Canadian government also 

offers multiple security and health screenings for its refugees, including biometric checks, personal interviews, and 

screening through Canadian databases, as well as interviews by visa officers, law and security partner fingerprint 

verifications, and identify screenings and border protections (includmg along the U.S. border) by the Canada Border 

Serv1ces Agency, the Department of National Defense/Canadian Armed Forces, Immigration, Refugees & Citizenship 

Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Pollee, and others. Further, no refugees in Canada are allowed to travel into the 

U.S without first acquiring refugee travel documents, which include a letter from the Canadian Immigration and Refugee 

Board wh1ch confirms their permanent residence and verifies their status 

Together with multiple faith partners, we urge that a negotiated solution to the Syria crisis be made a top U.S. diplomatic 

pnonty, and that armed involvement of partners must cease, together with provis1on of arms, and training of opposition 

groups. We encourage the Canadian government to support the same goals. As we build relationships of peace and 

solidarity across religious divides internationally, in our own nation we must counter anti-Muslim sentiment at every turnallowing us to offer protection to refugees in great need. Our congregations are constantly expressing their willingness to 

help house, teach English, mentor, employ, and surround the world's most vulnerable people--and we are ready to 

continuing to partner in welcoming all who come to our shores 

See this site for documentation of Canada's refugee processing and security screenings: 

bttp"//www cic qc ca/enqllsh/refug_ees/we!come/overview asp 

See these articles related to Canada's commitments to welcome Synan refugees· 

http://www.Jat!mes.com/wor!d/mexico-amencas/la-fg-canada-refugees-20151211-story.htm! and 

http·//www.latimes com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-canada-refugees-20151124-story html 
56 

I'll<~ llonorahlc Ron Johnson 

h1ited Stat.:s Senate 

328 I !art S.:nat<: Orlic<: Building 

\\'ashington. DC 2051 0--!905 

January 20,2016 

Th<: llnnorabk Tom Carper 

United States Senate 

513 !!art Senate Oflice Building 

\\'asbington. DC 20510-0803 

Dear Chairm<Jn Johnson and Ranking \!ember Carpc·r. 

I note with interest that the I !omcland Securitv and (io,·crnmental Am1irs Committ<:c \\ill d<:Yot..: 

its January 271h m<:eting to discuss Clnada·s r~sponse to the rcl'ugcc crisis in Syria. I hop<: the 

inl(mnation included here\\ ill help inl(mn your discussion and ansm~r any questions you may 

han~. 

Canada and the United States both han: a proud humanitarian tradition that includes a strong 

commitment to refugee resettlement. Our t\\n countries ha,·e long "orkcd together in 

r<:sponding to humanitarian crises. as we did in the Inlier half of the 20111 century m.~lcoming 

rcfuge<:s lkeing opprcssin~ n~gimes in 11ungary. Vi<:tnam and Cambodia. \\'e hm·e also worked 

together on the airlii't of KDso\ar refugees in !999. and more n:ccntiY follo,ving the llaiti 

earthquake in 20 I 0. 

Protecting the seeurily of Canadians. and by e.xtension our American neighbours. while also 

proYiding protection to indi,·iduals \\ho haw been deYastated by the war in Syria arc key l~1ctors 

guiding the Cim·crnment of Canada· s refugee resettlement plan. Rest assured that no corners. 

including security scrc\.'ning. arc being cut in order to achieve the Ciowrnment's objccti\"CS. 

Rather. the g<l\"crmm~nt has dnotcd signi licant resources to this effort. \\·hich includes the 

dcrloymcnt oftnilitary.law en!(H-ct..·menL immigration and hordcr securit) officers. ln keeping 

\\ith our l(tcus on security. you should kno\\ that: 

• h1ch refugee undergoes multiple security screenings at one of our O\crscas operations 

centers. 

This includes the collection ofbiographic inlimnation and biometrics. \\·hich arc 

checked against Canadian and t:.s. immigration. hm cni(Heerncnt and security 

databases. 

Each applicant is also inter\iewed by a prolcssional. experic•nccd ,·isa ofliccr. 

• If Canadian t>nicials have any concerns ''lwtsoe\'cr. an applic:rtion is set aside--- zero 

tolerance. 

• :\pplicants idcntilication and biometrics arc checked and re-checked throughout the 

screening p_roccss. including before boarding planes fi:1r Canada anJ again upt1n arri\·al. 
57 

Canada is prioritizing Ytdnerahle refugccs who arc a ltlW security risk. such as \\·on1cn at 

risk and compl<:te families. This is consistent with Canada's oYcrall approach to refugee 

resettlement. 

Once in Canada. the refugees will not be free to tra1·cl to the l :nited States. They will 

require a 1isa to tra1clto the l:.s. 

:\s refugees arri1·c in Canada. the) arc pruYidcd 11 ith immediate. essential scn·iccs and long-term 

settlement support to ensure their successful integration into Canadian society. Since ~o1·emhcr 

~-1. 2015. Canadians hmc 11clcomcd onT 10.000 rdttgccs. 

I would like to take this opportunity to also point out the existing strong conperation bctw..:..:n our 

two countrio:s on inf(mnation sharing. making operational improvements at the border. and 

denying terrorists the ability to usc either wuntry as a transit point or to citumwcnt restrictions 

imposed hy the other. Together. we ha1·e implemented a number of measures to support the 

safct) and integrity of our shared border. including: 

• :\n automat.:d capability to exchange ,·isa and immigration inf(mnation. which reduces 

identity fl·aud and enhances digibility and admissibility decisions bc!(m: applicants arri1·c 

in ~orth ,\mcrica: 

• Cross-bord.:r maritime hm cn!(lrcem.:nt t.:ams. "Shipriders". consisting oflJ.S. Coast 

(iuard and RC\11' officers. that transit back and J\1rth across the intc·rnational bnundar) 

line to enforce the law on both sides of the border: 

• Integrated llordcr Fn1(1rcement Teams that bring tog.:ther Canadian and l :.s. 1<111 

cn!(lrcement in 2-1 locations along our border to jointly manage land. air and marine 

environments between ports of entry: :md 

!'he sharing of entry 'exit int(mnation along our shared land bordcT on non-citi~ens in a 

sccurc and systematic !~tshion. 

It's important to remember that the 9.'1 I Commission. creatc:d by Congress and the President. 

concluckd that none of the hijackers entered the \ '.S. through Canada. Securing our North 

Am~rican neighborhood against securit; threats is a shared responsibility anJ a permanent 

priority !(1r both countries. 

Should you hm·.: any questions on our security cooperation with the\ :nited States. pkase do tl<lt 

hesitate to be in touch. 

Gary Doer 

:\mhassador 
58 

cc: The llonorahlc Kelly i\~ol!c 

!'he llonorabk Tammy Bald" in 

The llonorabk Cory A. Hooker 

!"he I lonorahlc \lichacl H. l·:nzi 

The I !onorable Joni Ernst 

Th.: I Ionorablc I kidi I kitkarnp 

The I Ionorablc Jarn.:s !.ankliml 

The I Ionorablc John tv!cCain 

Th.: I lonorab!e Clair.: \lcCa,;kil! 

Th.: llonorablc Rand Paul 

The llonorabk Gary Peters 

The: llonorabk Rob Portman 

The l lonorabk lkn Sasse 

The llonorabk Jon Tester 
59 

Statement for the Record of the Niskanen Center' 

Submitted to 

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Hearing on 

"Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and Implications for 

U.S. National Security" 

February 3, 2015 

The worldwide refugee crisis has reached a level not seen since World War II.' The 

current international refugee system has proven inadequate to deal with this historic 

challenge. Government-led efforts have been delayed and insufficient to handle the 

unprecedented influx of displaced persons. Fortunately, Canada has operated a program 

that allows private philanthropists and volunteers to cover the costs of resettling displaced 

persons and integrating them into Canadian society. 

This approach has been highly successful and celebrated as a model for nations around 

the world. The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) has urged 

nations to adopt private sponsorship of refugees as an "innovative way to increase 

opportunities for Syrian refugees."' Peter Sutherland, the UN Special Representative to 

the Secretary General for International Migration, has said: "A global response also must 

harness the extraordinary potential of civil society and the private sector.'' 1 

Some important nations, such as Germany and Australia, have already responded to this 

call." Canada's private sponsorship program, however, is an established and successful 

model from which the U.S. can learn. It is the main reason that America's northern 

neighbor has responded more quickly and forcefully to the worldwide refugee crisis than 

the U.S. has. This statement provides the details of Canada's program as well as the U.S. 

history of private resettlement. The final section provides recommendations for the 

implementation of future privately funded refugee initiatives in the United States. 

Canadian Private Sponsorship of Refugee Program 

On December 10, 20 I 5, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcomed 163 Syrian 

refugees arriving at the airport with hugs and winter jackets.5 Canadian immigration 

services plan to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees in total by the end of February 2016.6 A 

substantial part of the country's resettlement operation is private refugee sponsorship, 

where groups and individuals in Canada provide refugees with care, lodging, and 

resettlement assistance.7 Private refugee sponsorship has proven very successful in 

Canada for over 30 years-with a total of 225,000 refugees resettled from 140 countries.R 

As of January 26, a total of 14,003 Syrian refugees have arrived in Canada. Of that 

number, 8,004 have been government sponsored and 5,112 have been privately 

sponsored.9 An additional 887 were part of the blended program, which combines the 

The Niskanen Center is a libertarian 50 I (c)(3) nonprofit think tank located in Washington. D.C. founded 
60 

two. Furthermore, 5,886 Syrians have been approved and are awaiting transport.'" That 

would bring the total number to about 20,000 since November. 

By the end of February, government officials now claim that it is likely that 17,000 

Syrian refugees will have been resettled in Canada through government and mixed 

sponsorship, while 8,000 Syrians will be resettled using private refugee sponsorship.'' 

From February to the end of the year, Canada intends to add an additional 10,000 

refugees-2,000 private and 8,000 public-increasing the total 35,000. 

The key to private sponsorship is the link between compassionate Canadians and refugees 

resettling to a new country. Churches, charities, and groups of citizens provide 

resettlement assistance, community-based networking, and friendship to refugees- which 

improve their rate of assimilation, work opportunities, and satisfaction in a new land. 

Since 1979, Canada has permitted Canadians to sponsor refugees or individuals in 

refugee-like situations and fund their resettlement in Canada. The Private Sponsorship of 

Refugees (PSR) program was created, according to the then-Minister of Manpower and 

Immigration J .L. Manion, to "offer the possibility of increasing refugee admissions over 

and above the total achievable through government financed initiatives."'' Manion also 

believed that PSR would enable refugees to "receive settlement services beyond those 

normally furnished through the federal and provincial government" and "enjoy more 

individual care and attention than would normally be available."" 

Pressure to start the program came from churches and civil society who wanted the 

Canadian government to do more to provide relief during the Indochinese refugee crisis 

of the time. 14 The program was immediately tested by 60,000 refugees came to Canada in 

1979-1980. 15 More than half of these refugees were sponsored privately .

16 For their 

efforts, the 1986 UN Nansen Model, an award given to groups for excellence in service 

to refugees, was given to "the people of Canada."" 

In 2014, Canada admitted 4,560 privately sponsored refugees exempt from the usual 

refugee limits.'" In 2013, more refugees entered through private sponsorship (6,269) than 

through government assistance (5,661 ). 19 At its peak in 1989, 21,631 refugees were 

resettled through private sponsorship. Since the program began in 1979, more than 

225,000 refugees have been resettled privately, 42 percent of the total number of refugees 

resettled since 1978 .

21l 

Canada's Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program Specifics 

Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) allows for sponsorship by three groups. First, 

private charitable refugee organizations known as Sponsorship Agreement Holders 

CSAHs") can sponsor large numbers of refugees in any given year. Second, a group of 

five or more adult Canadian citizens or permanent residents who live in the area of 

settlement can join together to create a "Group of 5" and jointly sponsor a refugee. Third, 

any other group, nonprofit or otherwise, that "is willing and able to commit the 

sponsorship" in accordance with PSR requirements can register to sponsor.21 
61 

The Private Sponsorship of Refugees program does not limit SAHs beyond the 

requirement that they be "reputable local groups or chapters of larger organizations active 

in the community where the refugee will be settled and that they have resources to meet 

their commitments.'' In 2014, there were 85 SAHs, with 72 percent church connected.'' 

In 2016, there were 97.23 Any organization or G5 can form a partnership with any other 

individual (such as a refugee's family member) or with any other organization. 

The prospective sponsors arc assessed to ensure they have the financial means to support 

a refugee family for at least twelve months. Sponsors must have a detailed plan for 

helping the newcomers adapt to Canada, with specific points such as who in the group 

will handle which aspects of the family's integration. 24 In 2015, the average cost per year 

for a single refugee is roughly 7,320 USD. For a family of four, the cost is $14,900.25 

The government holds these funds and draws on them if the refugee requests government 

assistances. Sponsors are required to support refugees for up to one year by: 

providing the cost of food, rent and household utilities, other day-to-day living expenses, 

clothing, furniture and other household goods; locating interpreters; selecting a family 

physician and dentist; assisting with applying for provincial health-care coverage; 

enrolling children in school and adults in language training; introducing newcomers to 

people with similar personal interests; providing orientation with regard to banking 

services, transportation, etc.; and helping in the search for employment."' 

Sponsors may also be asked to repay government loans that refugees received to cover 

their travel to Canada.27 All sponsors must submit a "settlement plan" to the Canadian 

government for approval prior to sponsorship to illustrate in detail how they will meet the 

program requirements." 

Under the Sponsorship Agreements private sponsors retained the right to identify a 

particular refugee or refugee family they wished to sponsor. In such instances the 

overseas visa office would contact the named individuals and review their admissibility 

criteria. Sponsors can also submit "un-named sponsorships", in which case the sponsor 

would be matched with a refugee by an immigration officer. The sponsor was also 

permitted to indicate their preference in terms of family size, and source country.'9 

Private Sponsorship of Refugee Program Outcomes 

The Private Sponsorship of Refugees program has also had successful social and 

economic outcomes. A 2007 government report found that privately sponsored refugees 

(PSRs) enter the labor force quicker than government-assisted refugees and are more 

likely than employment earnings in the first few years after arrival. 10 However, over 

time, those differences diminish. Furthermore, it found from 1998 to 2002, the most 

recent available numbers, 71 percent of PSR refugees were employed, which was about 

25 percent higher than government assisted refugees. 
62 

PSR refugees also have higher earnings (C$30,855) than GARs (C$28,90 I ).31 In 2007, 81 

percent of PSRs received no social assistance after the initial period of sponsorship 

compared to 51 percent of GARs. 32 Private sponsors provide less direct financial support 

to PSRs than the government provides to GARs, although sponsors often provide 

refugees with "in-kind" support that would otherwise have to be purchased, and 81 

percent of SAHs, CGs, and G5s said that the provision of basic living needs and 

providing orientation to the community was "not difficult." Nonetheless, 92 percent of 

refugees reported that sponsors were "very successful in providing basic living needs." 

The system has, however, seen some difficulties in recent years. Processing times have 

ballooned, leading some sponsors to discontinue their participation. In a recent survey, 

every church-connected SAHs expressed concern about PSR processing times.33 Second, 

cuts to the Interim Federal Health program for refugees have driven up costs for 

sponsors. Almost a third of church-connected SAHs reported that their sponsoring groups 

decreased or ended their involvement due to greater liability for health costs.3

" 

The U.S. Tradition of Private Refugee Resettlement 

The U.S. has a long history of privately funding the integration of immigrants and 

refugees. For most of the last 200 years, the government actually prohibited public aid to 

most immigrants, so private parties stepped up. Families and friends have always been 

the most important source of assistance, but private organizations, such as the Hebrew 

Immigrant Aid Society to the Catholic Church have also facilitated integration of 

immigrants for more than a century .

15 

Even today, the vast majority of non-refugee immigrants are initially integrated without 

access to federal funds for means-tested benefits or other forms of assistance. Academic 

studies have shown that this private integration has been as successful as the public 

alternatives.'" While refugees pose unique challenges due to their forced rather than 

voluntary flight from their homes, this history demonstrates that civil society is willing 

and able to contribute significantly to the resettlement process. 

Until 1945, all immigrants, including refugees, were admitted only with an individual 

sponsor who promised through an affidavit to care for them should they need assistance, 

assuring that they would not become a "public charge." But a 1945 directive from 

President Harry Truman allowed private organizations to act, for the first time, as the 

sponsor of a refugee if the groups covered the cost of resettlement to the United States.'7 

President Truman was adamant that his plan would produce the best outcomes. "The 

record of these welfare organizations throughout the past years has been excellent," he 

said in his announcement. "The transportation of these immigrants across the Atlantic 

will not cost the American taxpayers a single dollar."" In addition to the transportation, 

these organizations paid the full cost of resettlement and were "responsible for assisting 

refugees with employment, housing, and other basic needs.'"9 
63 

The experiment was deemed a success, and over the following three decades, these 

private organizations played the most important role in resettling refugees in the U.S. In 

those days, the government still required that they, like all other immigrants, would not 

be a "public charge," and this assurance was fulfilled through private sponsorship 40 After 

the U.S. resettled nearly 40,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956, a congressional report found 

that "rapid integration of the Hungarians was due to the mobilization of the private 

sector: voluntary resettlement agencies and their local affiliates.""' 

After a large inf1ux of refugees following the Vietnam War, the State Department entered 

finally into formal resettlement agreements. But the ad hoc agreements created disparities 

between different refugee groups. The Vietnamese refugees received greater benefits and 

were exempt from the "public charge" provision whereas other refugees who received 

public assistance after admission were barred from permanent residency." The 

agreements built up a network of public-private partnerships to resettle refugees that 

formed the basis of the current system, but the disparities led to calls for a reform that 

brought uniformity and consistency to the process. 

Private Involvement in Current U.S. Refugee Resettlement 

The reform came through the Refugee Act of 1980. For the first time, the U.S. created a 

uniform process of refugee resettlement for refugees from all nations. The new system 

built on the existing network of private organizations and, therefore, is still heavily 

dependent on the private sector. The private resettlement groups known as voluntary 

agencies (Vo!Ags) of which there are currently nine handle the actual integration of 

refugees in the U.S. instead of the federal government."' 

The Vo!Ags sign agreements-memoranda of understanding (MOUs)-help integrate 

refugees into American life by linking them to private partners, including churches, 

community organizations, individual volunteers, and family members. These private 

partners often supply a residence, teach English, provide initial transportation from the 

airport or to work, or find initial employment opportunities. Private partners sometimes 

sign memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to agree formally to help with the 

resettlement of refugees. Despite the lack of penalties for failure to follow through on 

these MOUs, defections are apparently rare, according to Vo!Ag representatives. 

However, many refugees lack any private partner other than a case manager at the 

VolAg. Trained case managers locate, if possible, a private partner or otherwise 

guarantee that the refugees' needs are being provided for. Case managers pass along 

direct cash benefits from the government to the refugee, help the refugee apply for 

government benefits as necessary, aid in the refugee's job search, and attempt to find 

volunteers to teach English or provide additional services, such as transportation. 

The federal government covers most costs related to the VolAgs' resettlement efforts and 

grants more than a half a billion dollars to these groups each year. Nevertheless, the 

private sector provides more than a quarter of the VolAgs annual revenue, and the private 
64 

contributions rise to as much as half when the monetary value of volunteer hours and 

private in-kind contributions.·'' 

Refugees entering under this process arc also exempted from the "public charge" 

exclusion under the Immigration and Nationality Act and are immediately eligible for all 

the same public benefits as U.S. citizens.45 Case managers at the voluntary agencies walk 

refugees through benefit applications, leading to relatively high application and use rates 

among recent refugee groups compared to the native-born population. 

President Reagan's Private Sector Initiative 

The Refugee Act placed no statutory limit on the number of refugees who could be 

admitted, but the number was limited in fact by the amount of money set aside by 

Congress for resettlement. For this reason, President Ronald Reagan began exploring 

ways to increase refugees beyond the number that congressional appropriations could 

support. In 1983, James Purcell, the new Director of the Bureau of Refugee Programs, 

started to explore the idea of privately sponsored refugees after the administration failed 

to obtain sufficient congressional funding to expand the refugee admission program. 

Purcell, along with Secretary of State George Schultz, presented the idea of private 

sponsorship to President Reagan. According to Purcell, the president was "excited" about 

the idea and told them to "take it as far as it would go." The concept, says Purcell, was 

initially implemented for Vietnamese refugees in fiscal years 1984 to 1986 and included 

about two or three thousand refugees.46 After this initial proof of concept, President 

Reagan announced the creation of the Private Sector Initiative, a privately funded refugee 

program in 198647 

In addition to the normal quotas for each region of the world, the Presidential Directive 

that established the refugee limits for 1987 created "an unallocated reserve" of refugee 

slots that could be used by people from any region. "The Congress shall be notified in 

advance if there is a need to use numbers from the unallocated reserve," the president 

said in his announcement in October 1986. "The admission of refugees using numbers 

from this reserve shall be contingent upon the availability of private sector funding 

sufficient to cover the essential and reasonable costs of such admissions."48 

In renewing the program for FY 1988, President Reagan emphasized "that no federal 

program funds shall be expended for such admissions."'" He also added that "privately 

funded admissions may be used for refugees of special humanitarian concern to the 

United States in any region of the world at any time during the fiscal year.""' 

According to Jewel LaFontant-Mankarious, the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs 

under President George H.W. Bush, the program was "founded on the belief that, in a 

time of significant constraints on all public budgets and expenditures, a privately-funded 

program would enable some refugees to enter and be resettled in the United States who 

might not otherwise be admitted because of limitations on the funded programs."51 A 

desire to prevent welfare dependency may have also motivated President Reagan. His 
65 

outline for immigration reform in 1981 included a promise to ··seek new ways to integrate 

refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare."52 

The Private Sector Initiative (PSI) allowed U.S. ethnic organizations to enter into 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the State Department's U.S. Coordinator of 

Refugee Affairs to resettle refugees.51 There was no limit on the number or type of 

organizations eligible to apply. MOUs between the State Department and private 

organizations were-and still are-the basis for all U.S. refugee resettlement. But under 

PSI, organizations that signed up to perform resettlement would actually impact the 

number of refugees being admitted. Rather than just helping resettle refugees who would 

have been admitted anyway under the normal refugee limit, organizations were directly 

responsible for refugees coming to the United States. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service vetted the sponsors.5

'

1 PSI sponsoring 

organizations also helped refugees prepare refugee claims and advise them on how to 

handle interviews with U.S. refugee officials overseas.55 Some refugees were designated 

as "unfunded" after they arrived in the United States based on their likelihood of success 

in the labor market. The MOUs required sponsors provide food, housing, medical 

insurance, and cash assistance 56 According to the MOU signed by CJF and HIAS, 

sponsoring organizations must be: 

responsible for the cost of admission (processing, transportation, documentation, 

medical examination), Reception and Placement and resettlement of all privately 

funded refugees for two years after admission of those refugees to the United 

States, or until they attained permanent residency status (i.e. green cards), 

whichever came first. 5

' 

Resettlement costs for the organizations varied widely from $1,500 to $9,000 per refugee 

in 1992 ($2,550 to $15,300 in 2015 dollars)." Publicly funded refugees cost the U.S. 

government about $7,000 in 1989 ($13,500 in 2015 dollars).'" 

PSI-refugees did not "financially qualify for publicly funded medical, food, or cash 

assistance for two years after their admission to the United States or until they attain 

lawful permanent resident status."60 They were also ineligible for special refugee-related 

service programs.61 Refugees with sponsors were deemed to not meet income-thresholds 

for means-tested benefits. Refugees who applied for benefits would present their 1-94 

INS Arrival-Departure Record as identification. The 1-94 form for PSI indicated that the 

refugee was privately sponsored and that private resources may be available. 

Welfare offices called the sponsors to identify whether resources were available.62 If a 

refugee applied, the sponsor was required to "counsel" the refugee and supply any 

support that they nced.61 Theoretically, however, PSI refugees who needed benefits were 

eligible,6

" though it is unclear whether any accessed them. The Rhode Island Department 

of Human Services (DHS) Manual, for example, told offices that: 
66 

The sponsorship statement. .. should be regarded as lead information concerning 

possible income and resources that are available to the refugee. DHS and FS 

agency representatives are obligated to follow-up with the sponsoring agency to 

ascertain the actual availability of any income and resources and to use such 

verified information in the final decision on whether or not the refugee is eligible 

for assistance. It is inappropriate to simply deny an application filed by a 

sponsored refugee solely because of the statement on the I-94.05 

If the sponsor failed in its responsibilities, the refugee was entitled federal benefits, and 

the PSI MOU stated that "the sponsoring agency must reimburse the federal, state, and 

local governments for any assistance the refugee may receive."66 

Between 1987 and 1993, at least five organizations signed PSI MOUs: Cuban American 

National Foundation (CANF), the Zoroastrian Association of North America, the 

Vietnamese Resettlement Association, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the 

Conference for Jewish Federations (CJF).67 According to Princeton Lyman, Assistant 

Secretary of State for Refugee Affairs from 1989 to 1992, Pentecostal Christians were 

also privately resettled in 1990, though no public record of this was found. 6

R 

In 1991, the State Department officials testified that Assyrian Christians were going to 

bring in a certain number of privately sponsored refugees and indicated that they were 

attempting to recruit Ethiopian Christians."" While there is no clear evidence whether this 

occurred, the New York Times reported in 1992 that "refugee groups-Cubans, 

Vietnamese, Ethiopians, and the Zoroastrians of Iran-have gone beyond volunteer and 

social work to sponsor and subsidize refugees the Government will not admit ... [i]n an 

unusual private-sector immigration program."70 

The vast majority of PSI-refugees were Cubans and Jews from the Soviet Union. In an 

effort dubbed "Project Exodus," CANF began to use PSI in 1988 to bring Cubans who 

the Castro regime had stranded abroad. CANF registered as a VolAg and funded Cuban 

resettlement to the U.S. Nearly 8,000 Cubans were resettled from Panama, Venezuela, 

Spain, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic from 1988 to 1993.71 

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union began to liberalize emigration. The U.S. responded by 

expanding admissions of refugees from the Soviet Union, with a preference for religious 

minorities.72 The numbers quickly reached unprecedented levels. The Soviet allotment 

jumped from 15,000 to 50,000 from 1987 to 1990 and benefits for refugees were cut 

dramatically. In 1990, the Bush administration recruited HIAS and CJF to fund the onetime admission of 10,000 Soviet Jewish refugees. Nearly 8,000 ended up coming, 

roughly 20 percent of all Jewish refugees in 1990.71 

Private Sector Initiative Results 

Despite concerns that there would be a tradeoff between additional private entries and 

additional public ones,74 PSI and federal numbers moved in the same direction. From 

fiscal year 1988 to 1993, PSI resettled at least 16,016 refugees, 2,700 per year from FY 
67 

1988 to FY 1993. There were 7,802 Soviet Jews, 7,905 Cubans, and 45 Vietnamese and 

Iranians, though there may have been others, like the Jews, which were not included in 

the official PSI quota.75 These numbers were still far less than the 51 ,000 eligible to enter 

under PSI from 1987 to 1995, but leading officials and refugee organizations at the time 

strongly supported the program and considered it a successful endeavor. 

In 1990, the State Department told Congress that the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee 

Affairs was ··very proud" of the program, and that it has made a "substantial contribution 

to our refugee program." Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger also called the 

program "successful" in 1990, and ORR's 1990 report to Congress stated that it "strongly 

endorses the Private Sector Initiative and is committed to encouraging the involvement of 

the private sector in refugee resettlement wherever possible."'" 

In 1991, U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs Jewel LaFontant-Mankarious told 

Congress that PSI was "excellent" because "it gives people an opportunity to 

contribute .... reaching out and helping others like themselves to come in and enjoy the 

fruits of this country." Even some of the traditional Yo lAgs were receptive to PSI. 

Richard Ryscavage, USCCB Executive Director of Migration and Refugee Services, told 

Congress in 1991 that PSI "work[s] for more well-established ethnic communities and 

can incrementally increase admissions."" 

The Clinton administration, however, did not renew PSI in 1996, stating that it was too 

"difficult for many organizations to meet the financial requirements.''78 This was really 

only true for health insurance. The Senate Judiciary Committee found in 1992 that 

"private sector organizations resettling refugees have grown reluctant to commit 

themselves to private sector resettlement initiatives because of unpredictable and 

inflationary medical costs."'" The issue became so difficult for CANF that the 

Department of Health and Human Services granted the nonprofit $1 ,700 per refugee for 

the last I ,000 refugees that it resettled under PSI.'" 

Another difficulty was that sponsors were required to continue to support refugees under 

PSI, even if the refugee rejected a "reasonable" job offer. The CJF review of the pilot 

program called this requirement a "major problem" for the program.R1 Nonetheless, 84 

percent of those placed in small communities (where the only systematic tracking was 

done) were employed after a year." 

PSI's underuse. however, was not solely a matter of cost. The process to enroll as a PSI 

organization was arduous with many groups deterred from even applying." Moreover, 

Freedom of Information Act requests revealed that some officials considered the program 

unfair because it created a preference for certain established immigrant populations."" But 

the private sponsors argued that PSI was open to all groups and that it opened up public 

slots for less established immigrant groups." 

After failing to approve a single application for PSI, the Clinton administration allowed it 

to sunset in 1996, despite lobbying from Iraqi Christians who wished to usc the 

program.R" President Reagan's "unallocated reserve" was converted to a publicly funded 
68 

quota that could be used by refugees from any region of the world.'7 All subsequent 

administrations have followed this precedent." 

Implementing U.S. Privately Funded Refugee Resettlement Today 

The United States should learn from Canada's experience as well as its own and create a 

privately funded refugee category as President Reagan did under PSI. The Canadian 

experience demonstrates the feasibility of a consistent flow of privately funded refugee 

resettlement. Both experiences show that increases in admissions of privately sponsored 

refugees correspond to increases in admissions of publicly funded refugees. Public and 

private admissions complement, rather than displace, each other. 

The U.S. can implement private refugee resettlement without completely jettisoning the 

current system. An important lesson from PSI was that requiring private sponsors to 

recreate the resettlement capacity on a limited or temporary basis is expecting too much. 

The U.S. should continue to rely on the YolAgs to coordinate resettlement and act as 

oversight over private partners who wish to sponsor and support a refugee. People can 

already sign up to volunteer to aid refugee resettlement, but the goal should be to 

incentivize the private sector to donate and volunteer to expand the current process. 

As an initial step toward private sponsorship, the president should create a privately 

funded refugee category with a separate quota-in addition to the quotas for geographical 

regions-for refugees that arc privately funded. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 

Migration (PRM) and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) should create a private 

resettlement account to receive donations from the public and philanthropists who wish to 

fund additional refugee resettlement. The White House could promote donations to the 

VolAg-held account, as it did following the Haiti earthquake in 20 l 0 for the ClintonBush Haiti Fund, a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit.'9 

ORR and PRM should work with the YolAgs to determine what President Reagan 

labeled the "reasonable and essential cost" of resettling an additional refugee. Each time 

the private resettlement account crossed that predetermined threshold, the State 

Department would be required to admit an additional refugee under the private quota in 

the following fiscal year. The refugee would be admitted under the same procedures and 

with the same access to benefits as any other refugee. The only difference would be that 

the VolAgs would work to integrate them into U.S. society using the funds from the 

private resettlement account. 

This system has a variety of benefits, including some advantages over PSI and the 

Canadian system. First, it would not require any changes to the resettlement process, 

which would make it the easiest to implement. Unlike PSI and Canada's system, it would 

not require getting new people to sign up to perform resettlement or additional 

bureaucracy to process sponsorship applications or to enforce their agreements. It would 

also create consistency in the cost of resettlement, which was a major problem for PSI. 
69 

The only drawback to the privately funded only approach is that it would lose the direct 

and often personal connection between the sponsor and the refugee, which is a powerful 

motivator to become involved. Fortunately, a transition to private sponsorship could be 

easily built upon this initial system. Individuals who are family members of refugees can 

already submit an affidavit of relationship to the State Department and, in effect, 

"sponsor" their family member for refugee status in the United States without the typical 

UNHCR referral.90 

The State Department should expand this procedure-known as the Priority-3 programby removing a variety of constraints on the program. Sponsors are currently eligible only 

if they were themselves admitted as a refugee or asylee in the previous five years and are 

family members of the refugee-a definition that excludes adult or married children, 

adult siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins.91 Eliminating these restrictions 

would expand the eligible sponsor pool dramatically. 

An expanded Priority-3 program could be combined with a private resettlement account. 

This would require family members who wished to access both programs to file an 

Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) with the nearest local VolAg affiliate along with a 

contribution to the resettlement account equal to the threshold for triggering an additional 

admission. Family members would then undergo DNA testing to verify the family 

relationship and sign a memorandum of understanding with the V o!Ag to engage in the 

resettlement process with the VolAg. After the requisite fraud and other criminal 

background checks were finished, the refugees would be admitted the following fiscal 

year, if they had also cleared the current security checks. 

Expansions to permit churches and other organization to be sponsors would require 

congressional action. But such an expansion would be an easy addition to this system. 

Churches or other community organizations would be required to sign up with the 

VolAgs as many currently do. Individuals at these churches or other organizations would 

obviously also need to clear background cheeks. They would then submit a contribution 

to the resettlement account in the amount necessary to meet the threshold requirements 

that the resettlement of whatever number of refugees that they wished to sponsor. 

Conclusion 

With a worldwide refugee crisis, the United States has a duty to not block the escape of 

refugees fleeing persecution and violence abroad. But with limited federal funds, the U.S. 

government will need to create an avenue for private citizens to fulfill this moral 

imperative. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has advocated privately funded 

refugee programs, and some important nations, such as Germany and Australia, have 

already responded to this call. The United States should follow their lead and open its 

philanthropic doors to save more refugees from violence, persecution, and poverty. 
70 

1 UNHCR. "Worldwide displacement hits all-time high as war and persecution increase." June 18,2015. 2 http://www .refworld .orgldocid/53b69f57 4 .htrn I 

'Peter Sutherland, "Europe's Bad Example," Jordan Times, October 4, 2015. 

http :1/www jordan ti rnes .corn/ opi nionlpeter -d -sutherlandleu rope '7c. E2% 80% 99s-bad -example 4 Germany: http:; I\\'\\'\\ ,rt:fwnrld.org.:d(JC!d/.')3h69r5 7-1-.lltm! 

Australia: ll! tp:/.:w \\'\\ . ian: .a"in.au/_ blog.'I Ill 111 ig r~ll ioll_~l'\\'~/p{ 1\t/l)l'la i h_ 0 r_pri \' dtCCOlll mull i I) _:-.poll 'il)P.;h 1 p 

ht!J;>;Liwww .nytimes.com/20 15112112/world/amcricasl'i,Yih1-refugecs-arrive-in-canada.html 

'' http://www .cbc .ca/newslpolitics/liberal-plan-syrian-refugees-1.3333623 7 bt!Jl.:l/w_,v,y_.(:i".gc,calenglishlresourceslpublic_e_tigu~.ir.!'bspo_Q!\9J:!5~c\ion-;?,~illl])Jt.il:fJ2 

'hl!Jl:llcs:n~eQ,c'!/s_i!cs!ccr'v"-b_,c,(lO'ile,;l_psr:!'-Y>'Hi.e_\v_:.:_h_allcru:<::;;,Q.<li 

'' Jlj!Jl_:/ lw 1yw .to ron tosu n .com/20 l 6/0_!L28_/ho_w :_rna ny :Jlriv_ate ly:SJlOfl';ored.:: syrian_s: canada-wi 11-acccptremains-.Qp~-gucfil!Q!! 

"'Ibid. 

1 1 lillJl :1/w w 1;:_.h u ft}n,g(()n_p_qs L£J1Lf(_)_If1/Q_lfljJ_cilll_a_,;l_a.:;;_y ria n-re_flli;_ecs: 

<,:h_ilslrcn n 9045590 .h_trnl?!ltrn_hp_r\'J=flllll!Q.il:Jl_o]itics>l{jr_=_C_anacla+f'Qiit_is:~ 

"Cameron, 2013. 

u Cameron, 2013. 14 Ashley, Chapman. "Private Sponsorship and Public Policy." Citizen for Public Justice. 2014. 

http :1/w ww .cpj_._ca/ sites/ de fa u I tlfi lesldQ<;,'</Jiles/_Pri v a t<;,Spom;grs_llj_Qand Pub I ic Po I icy ReQort .pdf 11 Government of Canada. "Guide to the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program." 2015. 

lll!Jl:llww\yc_9£,g<:;,,:a/english/pc!f/.Jllilllr~Qnsor.pill 

"' Chapman. 20 14. 

"Chapman, 2014. 
71 

"Steven Meurrens. "The Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program After Alan Kurdi." Policy Options. 25 

September 20 15 .JmrrJlJ?.9li£YQJ.>!ions .iq;>JLQrg,'£0 15/09/2)/thg_::JJJ:ivate-§DQlll'QI~hip:Qf:rS'fugc_~=RIQgrmlJafter-alan-kurdi/ 

''C:t;;;-r-;,~,;~~2ol4. 

"'Nicholas, Keung. "Canada's Refugee Sponsorship Program Under Threat." Toronto Star. 22 September 

2014. 

b.t.tp,;/i.'?t2Y.)Y.thcstar.com/newsflmmigr.a.tionL2QJ:iiQ9!22jc;m.adas refugee_m()n,s.or!ibiR program under threa 

UJ.tml 

"Government of Canada. ·'Private Sponsorship of Refugees Application Guide." 

http://www .cic .gc .cill'!;.ngl.i~Ninformation/appl icationwides/5413 ETOC .aspl1J!pp_<l 12 Ibid. 

'' I])Jp;ljww~~l!:i.rrn.c~ .. orgiieJ?91:tiJQ23QQ[canacla:~P.dvate-refugee-spQ.ns_gr§:il1:Lhe-spotlighJ 

"Ibid. 

21 Ibid. 

"Ibid. 

07 Voegeli. 2014. 

"Ibid. 

'"Ibid. 

"'Government of Canada. "Guide to the Pril'ate Sponsorship of Refugees Program." 2015. 

h!!pj..i'Y'Y};'"fi~ g"'Ga/e_ngli>;i:J/p_c!@u.hf.i:eLsP().lb'LO..LP!JJ 

Jt Ibid. 

J' Ibid. 

"Chapman, 2014. 

"Nicholas, Keung. "Canada's Refugee Sponsorship Program Under Threat." Toronto Star. 22 September 

2014. 

http://www .thestar .com/news/immigration/20 14/09/22/canadas refugee sponsorshj,p_progcam...J.I!l.c!._~Lthrea 

t.html 

""Q&A: Jewish Agency in US Marks 130 Years of Protecting the Persecuted". UNHCR News. United 

Nations High Commissionerj{Jr Rejltgees, 3 Feb. 2011. i1t!p:f/vv.-vly .. u@u.org/print/4d4ab6556.html. 

Jo George Borjas. ·'Does Welfare Reduce Poverty''" Harvard University. October 2015. 

http://www .hk"iJ!nrvard~~<JjJI('ig\)J)rj~pJJQ.Iications!Jill!rrtai/Poverty20 15 -11<:1J 

See: Marianne Bitler: Hilary Haynes. "Immigrants, Welfare Reform, and the U.S. Safety Net." National 

Bureau of Economic Research: Working Paper 17667. December 20 II. 

hHQ.1/www .nber.org/papers/w 17667 

"Truman,llarry. Statement and Directive on Displaced Persons. New York Times. American-Israeli 

Cooperative Enterprise, 22 Dec. 1945. 

https: I f-.vvvvv jl',lvj.sh~LLt:llitll i brarY-"!ffiU!i\ll' .[C_c/1 loiQ<:,aUcS.lilnnn @__Q_n_cl P.!iJ.ll.!.!ll 

"Truman. 1945. 

·

19Eby. J ., Smyers, J .. & Kekic. E. The Faith Community's Role in Refugee Resettlement and Advocacy in 

United States. Church World Service, 2, 2010. 

h!!Q:LLhungcr.cw!illloh"L;'rgl"iJcLD.9f.S_ervJ:..r!f..rli.th_!lJ~cd_tiuirt<lnitariccQisrn_c:_\\fs_c:_onference Pager Sept 

em l},p9J1clqs;!12=.l9.2J 

""Ibid. 

"Ibid. 

"Brown, A .. & Scribner, T. (2014). Unfulfilled Promises, Future Possibilities: The Refugee Resettlement 

System in the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Society, 103-105. 

"There are currently nine such agencies: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Hebrew Immigrant Aid 

Society. International Rescue Committee, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Church World 

Service, Ethiopian Community Development Council. World Relief Services, Lutheran Immigration and 

Refugee Service, and U.S. Immigrant and Refugee Commission."' 

'"Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. "The Real Cost of Welcome." 2009. b.t!J:l;l!!im,mgi};'p:. 

~qnte.uJLqpJgg.\i§i2QL2JQ5JRP_TE_E/li,CQSTWJ2J,cQM11pc!J 

" https://www .law .cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1611 
72 

"'Interview with authors. January 4, 2016. 

"Ronald Reagan. "FY !987 Refugee Ceilings." Code of Federal Regulations. 17 October 1986. 

hl\!'S :1/l:JQQ]<.LgQQ~~om/books :nJJ.=.S.JlA)A_,\f\A lA AJ & I'g= P A2 7 3 Q<J:Ig=ore.'\gan+re fu gees+pri vate+se£Jm&c 

hl=enl":§J!=)<&Yecl=_QC:c:]Q()_A.Jl\'IBDgKa_l:!_\lli.!'O\\'[c_vy __ b7IMI)lAhWKGh4KHe0sAK8#v=onepage&g=rese 

rve&Jo=f;tl~e 

'"Reagan, 1986. 

'"Ronald Reagan. "Determination of FY !989 Refugee Admissions." The Code of Federal Regulations. 5 

October !988. 

https://.b oks.go gle"<OO!Tifb()Qks_?[c!=eQf\5AAAAIAAJQ<pg=!'M4.!i&..>tq=code+QI'±f~l'IUl+regu!<!.lio!1sj-ref 

pgee+c<;.i!.iJJos+FY +l.2.S.ft.&J:tl'=e!1&sa=!<.& vec!=QCB4Q_(j0v Ew AGo V ChM!iPgh'iZ v AyAIV VV.:J<,ge(.l]3 f11wc_XIf. 

v=oQfl.eiJageQ<:g=om<:l~o2Qgf'fo2Qfe_c!eral.'1Q2QrJ:giJJati ..!1~'1b20refugee%2(kejlj!.lg>;'Yc20FY%20 198/L&cL=faiSl' 

"'Reagan. 1988. 11 U.S. House of Representatives. "Reauthorization of Approprirations for the Refugee Act of 1980 ." House 

Judidary Committee. 25 July 1991. 

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections.igdo~~JtJlDgs/9/921_2494]/22_l6491]_Lpdf' 

2 Woolley, John, and Gerhard Peters. "Ronald Reagan: Statement on United States Immigration and 

Refugee Policy". The American Presidency Project, 30 July, 1981. 

Woolley and Peters, 1981. 

"Glasgow, Kathy. "From Moscow to Miami". Miami New Times, 14 July, 1993. 

Johnstone, Andrew, and Helen Laville. The US puh/ic and American foreign policy (p. 142). Routledge, 

2010. 

"'Glasgow, Kathy. "From Moscow to Miami''. Miami New Times, 14 July, 1993. 

htlp.:flwv;w.rni!J.mint\'IJU.nes.£.o.ml.ll~W.'iill.om:ll1QS£O}V:to.-.m.iemi-637751.I 

'

7 Madeleine Tress. "Resettling Unfunded, Unattached Soviet Refugees In Small U.S. Communities." 

Journal of Jewish Communal Service. December 1991 , 

hllP~fl~y_w w .b i!2!L9.r.£LP.J1J?lig!.ligrr;;lsf_o.ov'!! ltL<l<II"iLe_,~Imlf:U_\,: l D=o;i 54 7 

"Sontag, Deborah. "Making 'Refugee Experience· Less Daunting". The New York Times, 27 September, 

1992. blt£;1/onvo;:"n:,ctimes_,comLL2.9.219.2L;'Z/us/making-refugee-expericnc"-:kssEditorial. "Soviet Refugees, By Any Other Name". The New York Times. 15 September, 1989. 

h JJp;/lw ww .n v1im1's,mmLJ28 9109/[,l/()pj_ni Q_l]l';;()"_i<a:rem"-e.!i·by -anv.::i!the.r:nam.e"h lml 

"""Refugee Assistance". Rhode Island Department of Human Service Manual. 2002. 

http://www .dhs .ri .gov /Regulations/Refugee\7,. 20Assistanee% 20Program .pdf 

'"Tress. Madeleine. "Resettling Unfunded, Unattached Soviet Refugees In Small U.S. Communities: Notes 

of a Pilot Project". Council of Jewish Federations, August, 1991. 

!:H.!J2) /w wvYl>.illiLQrgif'u b l i<; a tiom/ilil wn lo11<:!Fi lc .c fmlfikW."'.'i'B..I 

hZ Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance "Uniform Policy Manual: Refugee Assistance 

Program". l April, 2002. 

"·'NO CITATION 

"·'California Department of Social Services. ''Food Stamp Program Noncitizen Eligibility Reference 

Guide". State of California's Health and Human Services Agency, 29 December, 2010. 

!llip:.ibYIV_\Yslc<;;;sehiV_QcJ..gov /lettersnotices/ent:r_"-,;/g\'ti_n_fQLa9L!1/20 l 0/1-l 02 I 0 .pdf 

""Refugee Assistance". Rhode Island Department of Human Service Manual, 2002. 

http://www .dhs .ri .gov /RegulationsiRefugce%20Assistance%20Program .pdf 

'"NO CITATION 67 Joan Fitzpatrick and Robert Pauw. "Foreign Policy, Asyum, and Discretion." Wiiiamette Law Review. 

1991-1992. 

bttp.:f/_h<;.i.Donli_ne.org/!LQL/LangingPag(Lhandlc=hdnjQtl.Il]QL';'J.Q2Fwi!I.I2_8Q:;<Ii\l=o13&J<:l=o&page= 

6

gConversation with authors. 

;;:) U.S. H(~~--;:~-;f·R.-~;~~sentatives. ''Refugee Admissions." SubcommiJtee on !mernarional Law, 

Immigration, and Refugees of the Commitfee on the Judiciary. 23 September 1991. 

httiJJilliillKLhillhitru~Lorg/cgi!Qt'n.Q=pJJI.LJ2721Q.\1-'.:ZJJEl§.;yic_vv,1YP..;.>cq=_4.7;o.ize=2QQ 
73 

'"Deborah Sontag. "'Making Refugee Experiences Less Daunting." The New York Times. 27 September 

l 992. lillJ2;1/www .nytjrn_~s .eQm/1992109/27/Wi/m~i<i_llkC:fet';lg_ee:e_~Jl~rieQ~:k_s'i:: 

9J1untin_gJ!lml1rJI~vanted=.ill.! 

"William Gibson. "U.S. Assists Cuban Innux From Abroad."Sun Seminel. 3 November 1991. 

b1!P ://articles .sun-sentinel &QDJ./L2.9.L:.Lt:03.1ne-'Y,?i9I02l40_~2:.l_l cuban-foundation -refugees-eubaneXDJLll'i.:ill-'lffict/2 

"Andorra Bruno. "Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy." Congressional Research Service. 18 

February 20 !5. https:l/www .fas .orglsgplcrslmisc/RL31269 .pdf 

"Madeleine Tress. "Resettling Unfunded, Unattached Soviet Refugees In Small U.S. Communities." 

Journal of Jewish Communal Service. December !991. 

hJ!Q.:Lbyww .bjga .0r_gil'.ll.l1li£<'l!iQl1.S.Lcl9"!n load File .c_frp_1EiLe I D=5 54 7 

"U.S. House of Representatives. "Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 1990." Subcommittee 011 

International Law, Immigration, and Refugees of the Committee 011 the Judiciary. September 12, 13 1989. 

l}ltQ) /babe I. haJh i tru ~Lorg/s_gjint2.i9=u!11J1~lli.iLQQ046Ql22.;)~v iew= I ~n;,~=-1 

"Bill Frelick. "Needed: A Comprehensive Solution for Cuban Refugees." Interpreter Release. 1995. 

h!!Q:I/www .scri bd .com/doc/1 0 1 029814/Necded-A-CQ_tn_Qrehcll:i.i ve-S.Q)~tioncfQr-C:uban-lkfu~.esll.scribd 70 U.S. House of Representatives. "Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 1990." Subcommittee on 

lmernational Law, Inunifiration, and Refitgees of the Committee on the Judiciary. September 12, 13 1989. 

http_;ijbabe l.ha t hi trust .org/ c gj.iJ2t] id= urn J.Lli22.)p_\l_Q4t:J.t:JI52JJ;yj~vv_=Jup;seq=3 

77 U.S. !louse of Representatives. "Reauthorization of Appropriations for the Refugee Act of 1980." 

Subcommittee on International Lent·, Immigration, and R(/ltp,ees of the Committee on the Judiciar_v. 25 July 

1991. 

""Examining the President's Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request for Refugee Admissions." Senate Judiciary 

Committee. I August 1995. 79 J. Michael Myers. "Refugee Resettlement into the 1990s." International Migration Review. 1991. 

b_llll.:f.b,;_vy_}'lj:;JQLOrg/stable/231_lli@' seg=lJin.ilg"--;;_'::'!11.lah_~ntepJ;; 

so Myers. 1991. 

"Myers, 1991. 

"Mvers, !991. 

'' C~nversation with authors with Princeton Lyman, the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs in 1991. 

2015. 

'"William Gibson. "U.S. Assists Cuban Influx From Abroad." Sun Sentinel. 3 November 1991. 

h.t1Jl ://articles .sun-senli!kl .comLI_'.)<)_I ,_LLQ2/n~\.V:i12J Q2_1405)]_L\;uban-f oun<;l;t_tjQn.:-rQf ug_~es,c~bane!'.QslJl...!i:P~g£2 

''Gibson, 1991. 

so,Examining the President's Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request for Refugee Admissions." Senate Judiciary 

Committee. 1 August 1995. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt''id=pst.()_QQQ31262934:view=J up_;s"q=1 

Bill Clinton. "Presidential Determination on FY 1996 Refugee Admissions.'' Office afthe Federal 

Register. 1995 .bt!Ps;llwww .gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-1 0-11/pdf/95-25377 .p_df 

"Barack Obama. Presidential Determination for Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016. Office of the 

Press Secretary. 29 September 2015. 

bt.tnli'Li"'-'.D\'2hitehouse.go~/!b_e_:-J2rCs":coffi~el20 I ~9/291Qre~Jkllthll:9.e!<'IrninatjQJl:illCSidential­

~letermj_nJ!1iQn~t~(~I~J!.Q_rnissions 

"WhiteHouse.org. "Haiti Earthquake Relief." 2010. https:/lwww.whitehouse.gov/haitiearthquakel 90 https:i/cliniclegal.orglsites/defaultlfileslds-7656-.Jinal_.8-20 12.pdf 91 http://www .rcusu .org/priority-categories 
74 

Post-Hearing Question for the Record 

Submitted to Guidy Mamann 

From Senator Joni Ernst 

"Canada's Fast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and Implications for U.S. 

National Security" 

February 3, 2016 

1. Please provide an overview of the process by which the Canada Government 

resettles refugees within Canada. Specially, how docs the government decide where 

to initially resettle refugees, and docs the central government work with the 

provincial governments in making that determination? 

There arc four different categories of refugees in Canada and the process of resettlement differs 

between them. The categories of refugees arc as follows: 

1. Government-assisted; 

2. Privately sponsored; 

3. Blended visa-office referred; and 

4. Inland assessed. 

Government Assisted Refugees (GARs) 

GARs arc refugees, who are referred to the Canadian government for resettlement by the Cnited 

Nations Refugee ,\gcncy (UNHCR). Once referred and accepted, G"\Rs are supported for one year 

following arrival or until able to support themselves. The Canadian gcwcrnment is solely responsible 

for the financial and practical support of these refugees, with the exception of those selected by the 

prm·incc of Quebec. If selected by the latter, the responsibility of financial support falls on the 

Quebec pro,,incial govcrntnent. 

Typicallv the federal government works with resettlement agencies whom have relationships with 

municipalities. Therefore, the location of resettlement for GARs is largely dependent on the 

location of the resettlement agencies willing to assist. 

ReJdr!ettJen! lodtlion 

The federal government works with resettlement organizations in all provinces and thus, a GAR 

may theoretically be resettled in any of these regions. 

Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSRs) 

PSRs are those deemed to meet the eligibility requirements of either the Convention Refugee 

,\broad class or the Country of Asylum class. These refugees arc referred by a pri\·atc sponsor, 

usually an entity or group in Canada who agrees to provide financial and social support for a period 

of one year, 

There n.rc three groups that n1ay subtnit a private sponsorship: 
75 

1. Sponsorship Agreement Holders (S1\H) which must be incorporated organizations that 

han signed a sponsorship agreement with Citizenship and Immigration (CTC). Most of 

these organizations arc cultural, religious or hutnanitarian in nature. 

2. Constituent Groups (CG) arc another group that may sponsor privately, yet only under the 

authority of a Sponsorship "\greemcnt Holders. This means that a group must first meet the 

criteria as set out by the SAH to be recognized as a CG. CC;s arc usually formed in the 

proposed sponsored refugee's community of settlement. 

}. Groups of Five (GS) is where five or more adult Canadian citizens or permanent residents 

who live in the expected community of settlement undertake to provide necessary support of 

the refugee. 

Private sponsoring groups arc responsible for providing financial support, lodging, social and 

emotional support, along with resettlement assistance such as enrolling children in school or 

employtncnt searches. 

RPJe!!lementloallion 

.\s printc sponsors are responsible for support and assistance, their sponsored refugees arc usually 

settled within the community of the organization or group. 

Blended Visa Office-Referred Refugees (BVORs) 

BVORs arc those refugees which arc referred by the L'NHCR but arc matched with a private 

sponsor in Canada. This category is a hybrid between government-assisted and pri,·atcly sponsored. 

The Government of Canada prov-ides six months of income support to the refugee through the 

Resettlement ,\ssistance Program (RAP), while the private sponsor will be responsible for a further 

six months of financial support and up to a year in social and emotional support. 

Re.fe!tlemen! lo£'a/ion 

Similar to PSRs, BVORs are usually resettled in the community of the private sponsor so that the 

sponsor is properly able to provide the rec1uired support and guidance. 

Inland Assessed 

Thi~ group t::_comprisecid ~.~[individuals '-Vho have left their country of persecution and tnade a claim 

for refugee protection either t.<pon arriving in Canada or following their arrival. These individuals are 

initiallv screened and interviewed bv an offtcer to assess their eligibility to proceed with a claim. 

Thev are next referred to a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board which will assess the 

merits of the case. If successful, the individual is granted refugee status in Canada and is pctmittcd 

1 (} ~ u l) 1 LliLill )ll2J!) i_cD:Us .. mJjJLp"cr!llillliJJl .. rr~li:Rc_~_·_f<J.LLhru_b_d~-~-~~I_D~1Jll~-u:..-il~p_!:o'l.l de1 H~: 

These inland assessed refugees have access to S!lj'J'()J:!oeiotl··sttppoN in Canada by way of standard 

social assistance: ht-t! -:-t-re-Hrtt--di~~n"''-trt""t+itr-ftW.ttlt.oi~Hy~~tt~rtt:'{4-h}--ttjWtv~t+t-·-··<-p·ntt~•-.;~ 

-\:,t·r~-t;'-t'-t H. n·ettt---t-t{_:_{- ··:H·l:~itb. 

Rexd!lemor! loo;!ion 

Refugees in this category determine the location of their own resettlement in Canada. 
76 

2. Please provide an overview of any differences that might exist between the processes 

or demographics of refugees coming into Canada through private sponsors and those 

coming in through the Canadian Government. 

Process: 

Government Sponsorship 

For those refugees who will he 

sponsored by the Canadian 

govcrntnent, an OYerscas Canadian ,~isa 

office will select refugees who are 

assessed and referred by the United 

Nations High Commission for 

Refugees ("UNHCR") m the 

following manner: 

1. In their home countries, the local 

l'NHCR office will prm·ide the 

local Canadian office with 

Refugee Referral Form ("RRF"), 

which contains the refugee claltn, 

family con1posicion, and other 

pertinent information about the 

individual or family; 

2. Canadian ''isa offtcials will select 

candidates for resettlement m 

Canada from this pool; 

3. Selected refugees are notified of 

the option to resettle in Canada; 

then 

4. Once a refugee decides to settle in 

Canada, the Canadian Yisa office 

begins to process thci1· application 

for permanent residence, \vhich 

includes back round checks. 

refugees who 

sponsored privately do not ha,·e to 

wait to be assessed and referred by 

the UNI-ICR ,\geney. Instead, 

prospective candidate must obtain a 

document from the UNHCR proving 

their refugee status. With that 

document, they can be sponsored by 

one of the following groups: 

1. Sponsorship Agreement Holder 

("SAH")' or 

2. Croup of Five' 

;\n application to sponsor a refugee is 

submitted by a sponsor and 

processed from witbziz Canada at the 

Centralized Processing Office in 

Winnipeg ("CPO"). The CPO will 

consider financial and non-financial 

aspects of the sponsorship, and 

consider an overall settlement plan, 

before apprm'ing the sponsorship. 

,\ny application will also need to 

include the UNI-ICR proof of refugee 

status obtained by the applicant. 

is 

1 Sponsorship Agreement Holder ("SAH"): is an incorporated organization (i.e. religious institution, 

humanitarian organization) that has signed a formal sponsorship agreement with the Government of 

Canada. These organizations typically submit several refugee claims a year. 

2 Group of Five: Five or more Canadian citizens may collectively arrange for the sponsorship and 

settlement of refugees in Canada. The group acts as guarantors that the necessary support will be 

provided for the full one-year duration of the sponsorship, and the members of the group must 

demonstrate financial ability to assist the refugee applicants. Another form of Group of Five is a 

Community Sponsor ("CS"), which can be any organization, incorporated or not, or for-profit or not, 

which are willing to sponsor a refugee, and can demonstrate that the organization is willing and able to 

commit funds towards the sponsorship. 
77 

Immigration processing related to 

security, medical anJ biometrics is 

handled by the federal government for 

both government sponsored and 

privately sponsored refugees. 

As of Septembet 19, 2015, the 

Government of Canada has 

temporati!y exempted Syrians and 

ltaqis fleeing the conflict in Syria from 

the re'luirement of providing proof of 

refugee states from the U!'\HCR. 

Gm·crnment sponsored refugees are 

sti!J however selected from U!'\HCR 

camps, so this exemption does not 

necessarily applv to them. 

approved, the remainder of the 

application is processed at the ,·isa 

office abroad where the refugee 

applicant is living. 

1\s a result of the September 19, 2015 

exemption, privately sponsored 

refngees coming from Syria and/ or 

Iraq have one less processing 

requirement, as they do not have to 

provide proof of their refugee status, 

as compared to their government 

sponsored counterparts. 

There is also a hybrid process in Canada called the Blended Visa OfficeReferred ("BVOR") Program. Pursuant to this program, the UNHCR will 

identify refugees, and refer them to the Government of Canada. The 

Government of Canada will then agree to provide up to six-months of income 

support through the Resettlement Assistance Program ("R;\P"), while private 

sponsors will prcwide another six-months of financial support, and up to a year 

of social and emotional support for the refugees sponsored through this 

program. 

Demographics In 2014, the top 10 countries where In 2014, the top 10 countries where 

privately sponsored refugees 

originated were as follo-..vs 4

: 

government sponsored refugees 

originated were as follows': 

Country Government-assisted 

refuge(~S 

Iraq 2,!70 

Iran 1,020 

Cong·() 945 

:-;(mulia 460 

1:.ntrc;1 4~5 

SYria ,)H5 

Bhutan )50 

Burma 105 

Burundi 225 

<:olombia 175 

Country 

S\ ria 

Iraq 

Privately sponsored 

refugees 

1,150 

70(1 

590 

5Hil 

. \ ti,hanistan 525 

Fthiopia 4IS 

(~on~(} 115 

Pakistan 75 

Stateless 70 

Sudan 45 

3 Daniel Schwartz, "Canada's Refugees by the Numbers: the data",~(; News, 4 October 2015, online at 

http:/ /www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada·s·refugees-by-the·numbers·the-data·1.3240640 4 /bid. 
78 

rrop 10 

/total 

rrotal 

6,470 

7,575 

Note that the above figures are the 

number of refugees who made claims 

from out.ride of Canada. The number of 

refugees who arrived first tn Canada 

and then made a refugee claim from 

wilhin Canada ("IRB Acceptances"), 

for that same }'car, arc as follo\vs 

Country IRB Acceptances 

Chin;, 907 

Pakistan HSH 

Snia li7H 

Colombia -!09 

llungarY :139 

Iraq 3:24 

rroplO total:4793 

Government sponsored refugees fron1 

overseas (as opposed to those \\tho arc 

making their refugee claim from within 

Canada) arc more likely to be crisisrelated refugees (i.e. those arc admitted 

as a result of specific efforts by the 

government to help people affected by 

crisis ln their home countries). This 

fact is reflected 1!1 the figures above. 

fop 10 

total 

!'oral 

~,265 

f:l,560 

Privately sponsored refugees may 

arnve m Canada as a result of a 

specific crisis overseas (for example, 

privately sponsored Syrian refugees), 

and as a result that demographic 

would have to depend on the crisis. 

For the large majority of privately 

sponsored refugees hcnvcver, because 

of the familial nature of the 

sponsorship, their demographic 

tmrrors the demographic of the 

sponsor. 

Otherwise, even if the sponsor and 

applicant are not related, privately 

sponsored refugees more often than 

not mirror the demographic qualities 

of the sponsor stnce they will be 

living in the same community as the 

sponsor, and as a re"rlt will likely be 

of the same demographic as rhe 

Canadian community they will be 
79 
80 

Æ 

Post-Hearing Question for the Record 

Submitted to Dr. Laura Dawson 

From Senator Joni Ernst 

"Canada's I<'ast-Track Refugee Plan: Unanswered Questions and Implications for U.S. 

National Security" 

February 3, 2016 

1. Please provide an overview of the process by which the Canadian Government 

resettles refugees within Canada. Specifically, how does the government decide 

where to initially resettle refugees, and does the central government work with the 

provincial governments in making that determination? 

Response: As a policy analyst at an independent think tank. my work is to interpret 

developments based on information available in the public domain. Unfortunately, the most 

accurate sources for the information you seek are within the Government of Canada and 

involve internal governmental decision making. I suggest therefore that you request this 

information from the Government of Canada. A helpful point of contact is Ms. Meaghan 

Sunderland at the Canadian embassy in Washington 

(Mcaf.(han.Sundcrlandlillinternational.gc.ca) 

2. Please provide an overview of any differences that might exist between the processes 

or demographics of refugees coming into Canada through private sponsors and those 

coming in through the Canadian Government. 

Response: This information is similarly outside my scope of knowledge and involves 

reference to databases held at Canada's federal department of Immigration, Refugees and 

Citizenship Canada (formerly Citizenship and Immigration Canada, http://www.cic.gc.ca/ ). 

Once again, the contact person at the Canadian embassy could direct you to the most up-todate information. 

Effective information sharing between the United States and Canada is a priority for both 

partners and finding ways to improve this process is beneficial for all concerned. Thank you for 

your commitment to this endeavor.