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

25–546 PDF 2017

RECALCITRANT COUNTRIES: DENYING VISAS TO 

COUNTRIES THAT REFUSE TO TAKE BACK 

THEIR DEPORTED NATIONALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–140 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DIMPLE SHAH, Senior Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 14, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Michele Thoren Bond, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Mr. Daniel Ragsdale, Deputy Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

APPENDIX 

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 243 ...................................................... 62 

OIG Report 061616 Release of Jean Jacques from ICE Custody ........................ 63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

RECALCITRANT COUNTRIES: DENYING VISAS 

TO COUNTRIES THAT REFUSE TO TAKE 

BACK THEIR DEPORTED NATIONALS 

Thursday, July 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Jordan, Walberg, 

Amash, Meadows, DeSantis, Buck, Walker, Blum, Hice, Russell, 

Carter, Grothman, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Lynch, Connolly, 

Cartwright, Kelly, Lawrence, Lieu, and Plaskett. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. And without objection, the chair 

is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

I appreciate the members being here. I would also like to take 

the opportunity to note the presence of our colleague Congressman 

Joe Courtney of Connecticut, who is here. We appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome your participation today. 

I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Courtney be allowed 

to fully participate in today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

We are here today to talk about ‘‘Recalcitrant Countries: Denying 

Visas to Countries That Refuse to Take Back Deported Nationals.’’ 

Let me try to just ad-lib and summarize the situation. 

We have people that come here legally to this country; we have 

people that come here illegally to this country. But there is a population here that may have overstayed a visa. They may have come 

here on a tourist visa or a student visa, but they were supposed 

to go home and they didn’t and they are here illegally. 

Nevertheless, there is a large population of people that are in 

this country illegally. Unfortunately, there is also a criminal element to this population. The discussion that we are having today 

is about the criminal element, the criminal element within that illegal immigration population. I don’t think there is an argument on 

any side of this equation to deal with the criminal element in a 

much more serious, sophisticated way and something that is fair to 

the American people and to our country. 

Since 2013, there are some 86,288 people who are here legally, 

committed a crime, got caught, convicted of that crime, and instead 

of being deported, they were released back out into the United 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

States of America. These 86,288 people, again, just since 2013, 

committed some 231,074 crimes. That is a lot of criminal activity 

that can be totally and wholly avoided. 

Now, the administration has given a couple different excuses as 

to why they can’t deport these people, and I don’t understand that, 

and that is why we are having this hearing. We have had a couple 

of hearings were we have highlighted and discussed this in the 

past. 

Some have said it is money. It is not money. In fact, ICE tried 

to give back—Homeland Security tried to take $113 million from 

ICE’s enforcement budget asked Congress in June of 2015 to reprogram it to other DHS components with no role, no role in immigration enforcement. So Congress has allocated, again, $113 million, 

and ICE is saying, hey, we don’t need it. Let’s put it somewhere 

else. So it is not going to be the money. That is not going to be a 

good excuse. 

Some have said, well, these other countries won’t take them. 

Well, Congress before my time in the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, section 243(d), contemplated the idea that we would find a 

criminal alien and we would want to deport them and the country 

would say, well, you know, we don’t want the back. They are your 

problem now that they are in your country. 

Here is what the law says, okay? I want to read the law. The law 

says ‘‘If a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting 

an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General’’—which also now includes this Secretary of Homeland Security—‘‘asks whether the government will 

accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall’’— 

not if, not might—‘‘shall order consular officers in that foreign 

country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant 

visas or both to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that 

country until the Attorney General’’—also read to mean the Secretary of Homeland Security—‘‘notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.’’ 

Now, as best we can tell, this important provision has only been 

used one time, and on that occasion it proved highly effective. On 

September 7 of 2001, the Attorney General requested the Secretary 

of State impose sanction on Guyana for refusing to issue travel documents for its nationals. On October 10, 2001, the State Department stopped granting nonimmigrant visas to employees of the 

government of Guyana, their spouses, and their children. Within 2 

short months, Guyana issued travel documents to 112 of the 113 

Guyanese aliens who had been ordered removed from the United 

States, and the sanction was lifted. We went back to Guyana, we 

said we are not going to do this anymore, they changed their ways, 

they went back to their country, and it was proved highly effective. 

We are here today to have a discussion—and I really do appreciate Ambassador Bond being here—to understand why the State 

Department is not doing this because, much to my surprise—I was 

highly skeptical when the head of ICE came in and said, well, we 

have been asking, we have been trying to do this. And I thought 

really? Come on, show me some documentation. There is some documentation there that they have been trying to do this, but it does 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

not appear that the State Department has been actually taking the 

step that is required by the law. 

And this decision has real consequences. On April 28 of 2016, 

Wendy Hartling testified before this committee. She is the mother 

of Casey Chadwick. Casey was stabbed to death and stuffed into 

a closet on June 15 of 2015 by a criminal alien Jean Jacques. Prior 

to killing Casey, Mr. Jacques was found guilty of attempted murder 

on June 9 of 1997 and served 16 years in prison in Connecticut. 

He was released from prison in April of 2012. He should have automatically been deported back to his home country of Haiti after he 

was released from prison, but instead, he was released from custody because Haiti refused to take him back, and we just accepted 

that. We just say, okay, Haiti, we will go ahead and keep him here 

in the United States. 

And while ICE placed him in on a reporting schedule, he failed 

to report on multiple occasions. So not only did he have the murder, he is supposed to report, he doesn’t, and ultimately, he ended 

up killing Casey Chadwick in cold blood. He was found guilty of 

murder on April 11 of 2016, and today, we are going to talk about 

only a portion of the criminal aliens released each year into the 

American streets. 

The 8,000—these numbers are so big—the 8,275 criminal aliens 

released in the last 3 years under Zadvydas represent only 9.5 percent of the 86,288 total criminal aliens, again, a Supreme Court decision where ICE, Homeland Security is saying, hey, we can’t continue to hold these people in perpetuity. We have to release them. 

And let me just give you 1 year’s statistics and then we will go 

on. In last year alone ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

released, released—keep in mind, these people committed crimes. 

They are convicted of these crimes. They are in our possession and 

we release them out in the public. Nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-three criminal aliens, who among them had 

64,197 convictions, including 934 sex offenses, 804 robberies, 216 

kidnappings, and 196 homicide-related convictions, how do you look 

the parents in the eye of somebody who is murdered, their son or 

daughter, because the government said, well, you know, it is in the 

best interest to just let them go back into the public here in the 

United States? 

In instituting section 243(d), Congress concluded ensuring public 

safety was the government’s primary duty and it must be its first 

priority. That is the heart of the hearing that we are going to have 

today. I do appreciate the witnesses. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And with that, I will yield back and recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank our witnesses for being with us today to discuss this very 

important topic that is crucial to the safety of all of our communities. 

In April we heard testimony from families whose children’s lives 

were sadly cut short. Casey Chadwick’s family told the story of her 

murder at the hands of Jean Jacques, someone our government 

tried unsuccessfully to deport. I was especially pained to hear that 

because of the actions of the Haitian Government and Haitian offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25546.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

cials, someone who everybody agreed should not be in this country 

was allowed back on our streets to do more harm. 

Since then, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland 

Security issued a report at the request of Connecticut lawmakers, 

including our distinguished colleague Congressman Joe Courtney, 

who has joined us today. That report found that Haitian officials 

repeatedly, refused to repatriate Mr. Jacques, but it also found that 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement could have done more. In 

other words, they could have done better. 

ICE officials never raised this case to the State Department because they believed it would do nothing with it. I want to make 

sure we are doing everything we can to ensure that countries take 

back their citizens with dangerous criminal records. I joined with 

the chairman in sending bipartisan letters to ICE and the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs requesting information 

on procedures for addressing recalcitrant countries and inviting 

these agencies to testify here today. 

I understand that diplomacy is indeed complicated, but we cannot use the cloak of flexibility to rationalize not taking firm action 

when it is indeed warranted. It is critical that we remain vigilant. 

It is critical that we remain effective and efficient when we are 

dealing with these recalcitrant countries in trying to protect our 

own. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the United States to 

shut off visas to foreign countries when the Secretary of Homeland 

Security makes a formal notification to the Secretary of State that 

a country is being recalcitrant. And I am not arguing that this 

blunt tool should be used at the drop of a hat, but it can be used 

in targeted ways to send the appropriate message to these countries. 

Our government used this statute, as the chairman said, to cut 

off visas to government officials and their families in Guyana in 

2001. That proved to be effective, forcing Guyana to cooperate and 

accept the return of 112 out of 113 nationals awaiting deportation 

from the United States. I understand that we cannot use this drastic measure in all cases. 

Denying visas in every instance would not always secure a country’s cooperation, especially a country whose government controls 

civilian travel. If the United States used this tool at every moment 

of difficulty with a foreign country, we would open ourselves up to 

retaliation, we would isolate ourselves from the world, and our 

country’s economy would grind to a halt. 

What I hope we can do today is examine how we can use this 

tool and others effectively and how coordination between agencies 

can be improved. The memorandum of understanding between ICE 

and Consular Affairs outlines how the agencies employ a series of 

tools to address recalcitrant countries, including sending formal letters to foreign countries in considering more serious next steps. I 

am pleased to learn that ICE has added the additional step of consular interviews for all deportees to Haiti. I also understand that 

ICE is working on a pilot tool to better identify and analyze recalcitrant countries, which I look forward to hearing about more 

today. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

I still believe ICE could be providing clearer guidance to its officials as to how and when they should alert State about individual 

cases. In addition, I am curious to hear that State is mandating 

that staff in Consular Affairs raise the issue of deportations in 

every formal interaction with recalcitrant country officials and that 

all chiefs of mission have been directed to emphasize with host government officials the high priority the United States places on removing dangerous criminal deportees. 

I am also grateful that we are digging into this issue today. It 

is a very important issue, and I hope that we do so in a productive, 

bipartisan manner. 

It is unfortunate that so many of our headlines today include divisive anti-immigrant rhetoric. Immigration provides the backbone 

for our country’s success. People who commit violent crimes make 

up a very small portion of the immigrants in this country. Overall, 

immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. 

And so in the same way that we are digging into this issue today, 

we need to dig deep, very deep into the rest of our broken immigration system in a very comprehensive manner. 

And so I want to thank the witnesses again. I look forward to 

your testimony, and I am hoping, I am hoping that we will find 

ways to be more effective and efficient in addressing these issues, 

which the chairman and I have rightfully brought before this committee today. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

And I do agree that we have got to fix legal immigration. It 

doesn’t work in this country, and I wish we would do more on the 

immigration front. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 

nine items—bear with me as I read through each of these—a September 19, 2014, letter from Secretary Johnson to Secretary Kerry; 

a November 25, 2014, letter from Secretary Kerry to Secretary 

Johnson; an April 13, 2016, letter from Michele T. Bond to Director 

Saldana; two other letters from Michele Bond to Director Saldana, 

one of June 22, 2016, another on June 30, 2016, and an additional 

one of June 30, 2016, from Michele Bond to Director Saldana; a 

breakdown of the nationalities associated with the United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement releases in fiscal year 2015 

and ’16; year-to-date pursuit of Zadvydas v. Davis; a June 7, 2016, 

submission from Director Saldana to the committee containing an 

overview of the problems ICE is facing involving recalcitrant countries; and communications from Director Saldana to Michele Bond 

from May 8 to May 13, 2016; and finally, a Weekly Departure and 

Detention Report from June 20 of 2016. 

Without objection, we are going to enter these into the record. 

And so ordered. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written 

statement. 

We will now recognize our witnesses. We are pleased and honored to have the Honorable Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25546.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

retary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs in the United States Department of State. Ambassador, we appreciate you being here. Mr. 

Daniel Ragsdale, deputy director for the United States Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement. We appreciate you both being here. You 

have served our country honorably, and we understand and appreciate your patriotism and again thank you for being here today. 

Pursuant to committee rules, it is practice that all witnesses are 

to be sworn before they testify, so if you will please rise and raise 

your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Let the record reflect that both 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I think you have participated in this in the past. We will give 

me some leeway. We would like to limit your verbal comments to 

5 minutes, but we will give you great latitude. Your entire written 

statement will be made part of the record. 

Ambassador Bond, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MICHELE THOREN BOND 

Ms. BOND. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, 

Ranking Member Cummings, and distinguished members of the 

committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the 

topic of repatriating aliens who are subject to final orders of removal. 

The majority of the world’s nations understand their legal and 

moral obligation to assist with the lawful repatriation of their citizens, including those who have been convicted of crimes and served 

their sentences. Currently, 23 countries routinely fail to document 

and accept their citizens for repatriation in a timely manner. My 

written statement describes the actions taken by the Department 

of State in close cooperation with ICE to bring these countries into 

compliance with their international obligations and to secure the 

repatriation of aliens under final orders of removal. 

The protection of U.S. citizens is the highest priority of the Department of State. The Bureau of Consular Affairs leads the Department’s efforts to protect U.S. citizens, and we are committed to 

assisting ICE to return all aliens who have been issued final orders 

of removal, especially those who pose a threat to public safety and 

security in the United States. 

In 2011, ICE and Consular Affairs signed a memorandum of understanding, which improved our cooperation on repatriations. Consular Affairs has a dedicated team that works closely with ICE on 

this issue here in Washington and at our diplomatic missions overseas. Together, we remind foreign governments of their responsibilities to accept their nationals swiftly, work to resolve difficulties 

and delays, and monitor progress. 

As you mentioned, in March 2015, I directed my staff to raise the 

issue of removals in every formal interaction with foreign officials 

from recalcitrant countries. I personally have raised the issue on 

numerous occasions in the past year with senior foreign government officials, including from Liberia, Guinea, China, India, and 

Cuba, among others. Today, a delegation of senior consular and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Homeland Security officials is once again raising this issue with 

our Cuban counterparts in Havana. 

Recalcitrant countries vary considerably in capacity, political circumstances, and history. Each has different reasons for delays in 

repatriations, including limited law enforcement capacity, inadequate records, inefficient bureaucracy, and in some cases intentional policy. Some countries that are willing to cooperate in principle, are beset with internal problems so severe that repatriations 

become a low priority. 

The tools we use to persuade recalcitrant countries to cooperate 

are equally varied and form part of our comprehensive diplomatic 

engagement. This is an ongoing, long-term effort to establish reliable and dependable procedures that work for every country. The 

Department of State works closely with ICE and other DHS colleagues to identify the most effective path forward in each case taking into consideration each country’s specific situation and other 

important U.S. interests. 

One tool at our disposal is section 243(d) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act under which the Secretary of Homeland Security 

may send a notification to the Secretary of State, who then orders 

consular officials to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas or both. State has and will implement such restrictions in consultation with DHS as necessary. 

These restrictions can be a powerful means to address recalcitrant countries, but they are not the only and in many cases are 

not the most effective option. Some recalcitrant countries such as 

China and Cuba control the foreign travel of their citizens and 

maybe unmoved by our imposition of visa restrictions. Countries 

may retaliate in ways detrimental to wider U.S. economic or security concerns, including trade, tourism, and law enforcement cooperation. 

Experience with many recalcitrant countries shows we can 

achieve significant improvements in compliance through diplomatic 

engagement in Washington and abroad to address resource capacity and other obstacles. Of course, we do not limit our efforts to 

those 23 countries currently deemed recalcitrant by ICE. We also 

seek to address shortcomings as they become apparent and before 

a country is found to be recalcitrant. 

There are times where even countries generally considered compliant need specific reminders or engagement concerning repatriations. This may be to clarify a new process or procedure, to facilitate a particularly difficult case, or to highlight the importance of 

this issue following a change in government. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, distinguished members of the committee, I assure you that where diplomatic engagement over time has not produced results, State is prepared to increase pressure through all available channels, including in cooperation with DHS the imposition of visa sanctions. 

We appreciate the support of Congress as we continuously work 

to safeguard U.S. citizens around the world. And I look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Bond follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 25546.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 25546.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 25546.003
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 25546.004
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 25546.005
13 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. Ragsdale, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL RAGSDALE 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Good morning. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking 

Member Cummings, and distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s efforts regarding the 

ongoing challenge of uncooperative countries who do not accept the 

return of their citizens and nationals. 

The law enforcement office of ICE worked tirelessly to identify, 

to arrest, detain, and remove individuals to best promote national 

security, border security, and public safety. Our fiscal year 2015 removal statistics illustrate these efforts. Last year, we conducted 

235,000 removals. Fifty-nine percent of those removals involved individuals who were previously convicted of a crime. Ninety-eight 

percent of those removals met one or more of DHS’s immigration 

enforcement priorities. 

To effectuate a removal, two important elements are required. 

First, the person must be subject of an administrative order—final 

order of removal, and a travel document issued by the individual’s 

home country must be in ICE’s possession. 

Although a majority of countries agree to take—agree to their 

international obligations to accept the timely returns of their citizens, we face challenges with certain countries that systematically 

refuse or delay the return of their nationals. Delays in the removal 

process significantly challenge the limits of our detention authority 

following the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. 

Davis. But let me be clear. We do not release aliens we can remove. 

To ensure that we are focusing our removal efforts most effectively, we have implemented an analytical tool known as the Removal Cooperation Initiative, or RCI. This tool is used to measure 

a country’s cooperativeness with our repatriation efforts. Countries 

are assessed on a series of the following criteria: the average time 

it takes to issue travel documents, whether or not they allow ICE 

charter flights into their territory, and the ratio of removals versus 

releases for each country. This methodology was implemented last 

year and continues to be refined. 

It is important to note that while countries may generally be cooperative, sometimes they may delay or refuse the repatriation of 

certain individuals. For example, El Salvador, a country that is 

generally cooperative, has recently delayed the issuance of a number of travel documents where there is no legal impediment to removal. As a result, we’ve issued 19 Annex 9 notifications to El Salvador and are working with Consular Affairs to raise this issue 

with El Salvador’s Foreign Ministry. In sum, there are 23 countries 

we consider recalcitrant. In addition, we are also closely monitoring 

62 others. 

As you’ve heard, there’s a variety of efforts that ICE, DHS, and 

the State Department use to deal with uncooperative countries, 

which are outlined in the memorandum of understanding between 

ICE and Consular Affairs signed in 2011. They include sending a 

letter from ICE to the nation’s embassy requesting increased cooperation with the removal process, and so far this year we’ve 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

issued 103 such letters, which is more than any other fiscal year; 

working with the State Department to issue a demarche or a diplomatic note to the recalcitrant country; and finally, joining the assistant secretary for Consular Affairs for face-to-face meetings with 

Ambassadors of uncooperative nations. 

Ultimately, a potential sanction could involve the Secretary of 

Homeland Security invoking 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The use of visa sanctions must be weighed, however, in 

light of the potential impacts it could have on other foreign and domestic policy interests. 

We will continue to work closely with Consular Affairs to deal 

with uncooperative countries, and as a result, we have seen improvement in a number of countries. For example, in January of 

2016 the Government of Somalia approved 37 nationals for removal, and to date, we’ve seen—received 29 travel documents from 

Somalia, the largest number in years. On April 4, 2016, we had our 

first charter flight to India and removed 54 Indian nationals. In 

June of 2016 we successfully conducted a charter flight to the Ivory 

Coast, Ghana, and Nigeria, and a total of 63 nationals were removed. 

Our enforcement efforts will continue to evolve, and we were constantly evaluating how best we can accomplish our mission. Without doubt, these efforts require the skillful and frequent negotiation with our foreign counterparts. 

We will also work closely with DHS and the Congress to ensure 

we have the resources that we needed. For example, we’ve been 

working very hard to see changes in our enforcement removal operations overtime compensation system to ensure our officers are 

available for duty as needed. We will continue to work with the 

Congress, DHS, and our label partners to fix this important issue. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and for your 

continued support to the men and women of ICE. I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ragsdale follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 25546.006
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 25546.007
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 25546.008
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 25546.009
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 25546.010
20 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for 

5 minutes. 

I want to put up a slide. 

[Slide.] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. This is a document that we entered into 

the record, Weekly Departure and Detention Report: 953,507 people, aliens with final orders of removal that remain in the United 

States without actually being deported. Is that right? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Sir, I believe that is a number that is an aggregate number over many, many years. It is on folks we consider 

under docket control that have seen either immigration judges or 

have filed Federal appeals on removal cases. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. So let’s define this. This is on page 

2 of this report, okay? And it is the ERO post-final order docket. 

It is that many people that have been ordered by a judge at some 

level to leave the country to be deported and that are still in the 

United States. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would again suggest those—that number includes people under docket control. Some of those people may have 

in fact withholding of removal or some protection from removal 

—— Chairman CHAFFETZ. I mean, it is your number so I am going to 

assume that it is true. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I think it very well might be accurate, but 

what I’m suggesting is that number does not mean every single one 

of those people are amenable to removal as of right now. They may 

be granted —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. What do you mean amenable to removal? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. In other words, someone who may be a country 

of some—let’s just say Syria where they have a criminal record and 

could not get asylum, they still may be granted a different form of 

protection. They would be included in that number, but they may 

not be removed to Syria. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. But they were ordered to leave the country, 

correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. You—well, it’s a little more complicated than 

that. You do get a removal order, but there is a restriction on 

where in the world you can be removed. So you may only be a citizen or national of Syria —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The reality is they are in the United 

States, they are ordered by a judge to be removed from the country, 

and they haven’t been yet, correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No. It’s not quite that simple. So, in other words, 

you get a removal order, but we may not remove you to the country 

from where you’re from. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. But they are not in this country legally, 

they are ordered removed, so in your Syria example, then what do 

you do? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is why they’re included in that number and 

that is a —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So you just let them stay in the United 

States? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Unless there is a third country we can remove 

them to. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes, they are here in the United States, 

and that is the problem. 

Did I hear you correctly? You said we do not release aliens we 

can remove? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That’s exactly right. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do want to say that again on the record 

really? You do not release aliens you can remove? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. In cases where we have a final removal orders 

and a travel document, those people will be removed. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And a travel document? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Of course. It’s a two-part process. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. Let’s go to the actual removal here. 

I’m going to take two case studies, okay, Ambassador? I want to 

look at Guinea and I want to look at Liberia, small numbers. And 

I guess I just don’t understand why you haven’t tried to do what 

the law says you have to do. We give Liberia $125 million in aid, 

$125 million. American people take out of their pockets and give 

to the country of Liberia. That is what we are going to do in 2016. 

They have, according to this document that I have from—four 

noncriminal immigration violators, 52 convicted criminals, and 

from just this year alone there is another 29. Why not go back to 

Liberia and say, you know what, you are taking these people back 

or you are not getting any more visas? Why are you not doing that? 

Ms. BOND. Sir, we are meeting with the Liberians. We have met 

with their Ambassador here in Washington. I have met with senior 

officials in their capital. They have heard from our Ambassador. 

They have gotten the message very clearly —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. But they are not doing it, right? They are 

not doing it. 

Ms. BOND. And what we’re seeing right now is that they are removing criminal aliens not at the rate yet that we want to see, but 

departures in July, departures promised in August, and a pledge 

that the rate will increase as we move into September. So it’s —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We have 52 —— 

Ms. BOND. They are not doing what we want to see, but what 

we are seeing is some slow movement toward where they need to 

be. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. We have 52 Liberians, convicted 

criminals that are here illegally. The statute says you shall. There 

is no option. My guess is you would speed it up a whole lot—if it 

was up to me, yes, you would say no more visas, no more people 

coming to the United States, and that $125 million in aid, that 

check is going to sit here until you take these 52 people back. 

Ms. BOND. So —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You know what, your hand will be 

strengthened in your negotiations around the world if you do at 

every once in a while. This is law. This is not some Jason Chaffetz 

theory. This is the law, and I don’t see you doing it at all in any 

country. 

Ms. BOND. I agree with you, sir, that the fact that we have that 

provision of the law and that there is the real possibility for any 

recalcitrant country to be facing visa sanctions or other sanctions 

is a very, very powerful tool and —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Use it. Use it. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

Ms. BOND.—what we’re seeing —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Pull the trigger. 

Ms. BOND. What we’re seeing is, to take the case of Liberia, they 

do take this seriously, and they do understand that if we aren’t 

seeing steady and increasing action on this issue —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Why shouldn’t they take them all? Steady, 

increasing, they are working with us. You have got criminal aliens, 

take them back. It is 52 people. But you know what, when one of 

those 52 people commits a crime, a rape, a murder, a DUI, that is 

on you because they shouldn’t be here in the United States of 

America. You cannot look those people in the eye, Americans who 

pay their taxes, who work here, who are citizens. And you are so 

worried about playing nice instead of implementing the law. These 

people are committing more crimes. I just got through listing all 

these people, everything from murder to DUIs to sexual abuse. Get 

rid of them. 

Ms. BOND. Our goal is completely the same as yours. We want 

these people out of the country. We want —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Then get them out. You have every tool at 

your disposal. You have got $125 million in aid. You have got the 

law on your side that says we do not need to give anybody else a 

visa, and you just tell them, somebody applies for the visa, we are 

not accepting those until you accept these 52 people. 

Ms. BOND. All right. And in the process of getting a routine and 

efficient and swift process underway, that is what we’re working on 

with Liberia and with these other countries. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It’s not working. 

Ms. BOND. And they do understand that —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I have made my point. I have gone past my 

time. 

Ms. BOND. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Let me now recognize the ranking member 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to make sure we are clear, the list that 

the chairman is reading from, can you tell me about these crimes? 

He referred to Liberia and, I mean, a whole list of countries here. 

I don’t know why he picked those two, but are these all serious 

crimes? I mean, I am just curious. Any crime is bad, but I am told 

it ranged from—do you know? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I don’t know in great specificity. There are a 

range of crimes. I mean, there is no question that, as Secretary 

Bond said, it is in our interest to remove every single person we 

can when the removal order is final and we have a travel document. So we are working very much towards the same goal. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You had said earlier, Mr. Ragsdale, something 

about some country may have a third country that would be willing 

to accept folks. How many third countries do we have like that? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It’s going to depend on the person’s individual circumstance. Dual nationality is something that happens with some 

frequency, so we certainly examine in a descending order that if 

there is a country of nationality or last habitual residence that we 

could possibly remove someone to who will accept them, our officers 

absolutely pursue that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But let’s put aside dual nationality. I mean, are 

there countries that seem to be more open to accepting these folks 

—— Mr. RAGSDALE. It is very —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—where their home country won’t? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It’s rare. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. Now, listing to testimony in April about 

the murder of Casey Chadwick, which was heartbreaking, I was 

disappointed to learn that ICE never alerted the State Department 

about the 6-month struggle to deport Jean Jacques, the person who 

was later released and then murdered Ms. Chadwick. State has a 

strong bilateral relationship with Haiti, and I would think State 

could have leveraged diplomatic relations to facilitate Mr. Jacques’ 

removal. Why wasn’t the State Department notified by Jean 

Jacques’ case about it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So, Ranking Member, I absolutely agree, it was 

a tragedy. And certainly having the IG look at this would certainly 

provide us some—with some things to think about and improve on. 

What I would say is working with Consular Affairs is something 

we probably should have done. However, we did work with our 

ERO and ICE officers in Santa Domingo, which cover the island of 

Hispaniola, and we did work with the State at post to try to get 

travel documents. So you are absolutely right that there are some 

things that we will look hard at in light of the Jean Jacques case, 

but I would also note that the IG found that while there could have 

been other things that ICE may have done, it may not have 

changed the outcome. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We need to learn from the example, would you 

agree? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So in moving forward, a case involving someone 

with a violent criminal history and final orders of removal gets 

handled effectively and efficiently. So let me ask you this. How frequently does ICE alert State that it is struggling with an individual case of removal? I mean, does that happen often? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So we have monthly meetings between Consular 

Affairs and ICE, so there is a steady rhythm of not only correspondence but interaction on all of these cases. The—this is a 

symbiotic partnership that we are working very closely together. 

This is what produced the letters from the two Cabinet Secretaries. 

This is why we signed the MOU 5 years ago. This has been a— 

you know, a work in progress. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So what does that process look like? You sit 

down and you have a list? I mean, tell me about it real quick. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So, you know, as you can imagine, for effective 

border control we’re talking about individuals. So, you mean, the 

idea and the idea of the tool that you mentioned, you know, we 

look at this with some degree of analysis for some broad trends. 

But every single case requires both a final removal order and a 

travel document. But we —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So I understand then from ICE’s enforcement 

and removal operations they must alert ERO headquarters at the 

75-day mark when they have not successfully repatriated a detainee. I also understand that most of ICE’s communication with 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

State about these countries comes from ERO headquarters. Mr. 

Ragsdale, do you have a manual or a clearly outlined guidance for 

your ERO field office agent so they know when they should reach 

out to State about an individual case? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So it actually is a hybrid approach. There are 

some field offices where there are consular officers from foreign 

governments located in that city. So in those cases our local office 

may work directly with a consular from that foreign government. 

And while they may notify headquarters, it’s not necessarily something that headquarters will do for them. Absolutely, though, headquarters is the clearinghouse for our work with Consular Affairs, 

and we do do that work. 

And then lastly, we do have a manual that provides guidance to 

our field offices. That needs to be updated, and I think that’s one 

of the things that we’ve seen out of the IG report. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I tell you that your responses don’t instill 

a lot of confidence that a Jean Jacques won’t slip through the 

cracks again. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would say, you know, surprisingly that even if 

you look at the L.A. Times editorial on the Jean Jacques case, 

which, again, we often don’t get what I’ll say is a lot of balanced 

coverage in many papers, this was not a question of somebody not 

doing their job. This is a question of the Haitian Government not 

accepting someone who we believe was Haitian that they did not 

issue travel documents on. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Okay. I understand the need for flexibility, but ICE needs to have a clearer guidance, would you agree, 

for when and how and whether to raise concerns about an individual case with State. What is ICE doing to provide clearer guidance? You know, what happens to—a lot of situations I find, an 

employee/employer, all kinds of relationships, there are expectations, but the expectations are never communicated and so you 

have got people assuming that other people are doing things, and 

then when the time comes for the rubber to meet the road, we discover there is no road. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I—listen, I can certainly say with great confidence we would not have removed 235,000 individuals last year 

if our folks didn’t know how to remove people. And I will also tell 

you there is no impact —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can we improve on guidance? I guess that is 

what I am trying to get to. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We—absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No question what to make sure that our officers 

know about every —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How are you going to do that? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We are taking a look at revising that manual and 

providing additional training as necessary. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Assistant Secretary Bond, I just want to ask you 

a question or two. The ERO officers in Jean Jacques’ case told the 

IG that they believed State would not get involved in an individual 

case unless the individual has committed acts of terrible human 

rights violations. Is that true? 

Ms. BOND. No, sir, that is not true. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What is true? 

Ms. BOND. What is true is that we work very, very closely with 

ERO. We know the staff there very well and they know us, and any 

request from them for us to take a look at a case to see if we could 

assist on a particularly difficult, intractable case, we would always 

respond. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, let me ask you this and —— 

Ms. BOND. And so the person who said that was mistaken to believe that we would not have been responsive. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. This is my last question because I am running 

out of time. Do you believe that the State Department could be effective in using diplomatic engagement in individual cases where 

you have a removable individual with a violent criminal history? 

Ms. BOND. I think in every single case like that it’s worth a try. 

I can’t guarantee results in every case, but there is absolutely no 

reason why we wouldn’t and shouldn’t be engaging and bringing— 

especially in a case like this one where you’re talking about a murderer—to bring the case to the attention of the government and say 

—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well —— 

Ms. BOND.—let’s find a way to fix this. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to tell you I think we can do better, 

and I think we need to go back again and try to figure out how 

again to be more effective and efficient in what we are doing. We 

can do better. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. As I recognize Congressman 

DeSantis here, I would just like to request the A files if I could. 

And not to pick on any particular country, but the numbers are 

small enough that it seems doable. But there were seven convicted 

criminals who were nationals of Guinea who were released from 

ICE under Zadvydas. In 2015, an additional 20 convicted criminals 

from Guinea were released under Zadvydas. Thus far this year 29 

criminal aliens from Liberia were released under Zadvydas, as 

were an additional 52 criminals from Liberia last year. 

To assist the committee in understanding the nature of the offenses involved in these cases, we would appreciate it if you would 

provide to the committee, Mr. Ragsdale, within, say, 30 days of this 

hearing the so-called A files for those aliens. Can we achieve that? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I—we will certainly make every effort to meet 

that deadline. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. And, Mr. Cummings, if he wants to 

add another country or two to get a cross-section, we are not trying 

to pick on any particular one, but I think it would provide—and we 

will follow up if there is additional —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am so glad you said that 

because I would like to add a country or two, but I will let you 

know. I want to study this list —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Well, we will follow up —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—a little bit more. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ.—and I picked two at random. We will let 

Mr. Cummings pick whatever he would like. And if you could help 

us with the A files on those, that would be appreciated. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I would now like to recognize 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ragsdale, it is frustrating to hear your responses about the 

Casey Chadwick murder. I mean, Jean Jacques came here illegally 

from Haiti in the ’90s, was convicted of attempted murder, served 

17 years in prison, obviously had no right to be here, was released 

first after serving a sentence and was not deported. And within a 

few months after being turned loose on the public, he murdered 

Casey Chadwick and stuffed her body in a closet. This is not something that should be acceptable. 

Now, you said maybe nothing could have been done, the IG said. 

I don’t accept that. I mean, you are saying you can’t even get a 

travel document in 5 months? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I don’t think that’s exactly what I said. What 

I said, the IG found that we certainly could have done different 

things but the outcome may not have changed. We went to the Haitian Government with a request for a travel document for Jean 

Jacques. They said he could not prove he was of Haitian nationality, and they refused to issue. It’s very —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Is that true? Could you prove it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We believe he is Haitian, but I will also tell you 

that it certainly could be the situation—I’m not saying it is in this 

case—but someone of Haitian decent born in the Dominican Republic would present every—much as —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Did you try with the Dominican Republic? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, as you know, there’s been some challenges 

between the Dominican Republic and Haiti in terms of nationality 

concerns. So we did not try to remove him to the Dominican Republic. 

My point is simply this: We made efforts, and there’s no question 

we will look at the IG’s report and take every best practice and 

every —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. But you didn’t —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—potential solution. 

Mr. DESANTIS.—go to the State Department and say Haiti is not 

being cooperative here, and you didn’t seek them to notify them 

under section 243 delta, correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. ICE does not have authority to issue sanctions 

under 243(d) —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. No, no, no, no, no. I know that. What happens is 

when the Department of Homeland Security notifies the State Department when the statute was—when it was Attorney General. 

Now since we have had changes in agencies, it is now the Department of—once that notification is made, then that triggers their 

duties. And my point is you guys did not issue a notification that 

Haiti was being unreasonable in this case. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That’s right. And what I will suggest to you —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. And had you done that, maybe there would have 

been a different outcome. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Perhaps. That is absolutely true. What I will say 

is we did work with the State Department at post in Santo Domingo —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

Mr. DESANTIS. I know, but that—clearly, that is—I mean, I appreciate that but that is going kind of the midlevel of the bureaucracy. If the government itself is not going to be cooperative, we 

have certain tools that can be used, and this is one of the tools 

that, if it was used, we may have had a different outcome. And I 

think that it is not unreasonable to say that if someone comes to 

the country illegally and then gets convicted of attempted murder, 

then it should be a very high priority of the government to get that 

person out of our country because of the high likelihood that they 

are probably going to reoffend when they go back in. 

And I am also frustrated because Casey’s mother Wendy 

Hartling, she said very recently that she has not received any answers from ICE, that your agency has not been very helpful with 

helping her get her head around what happened. Why is that? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I am not familiar with us not providing her information as much as we can under the law. I will certainly take that 

back and find out if we have a pending inquiry from her. But —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Let me ask you this. How many times in the last 

7 years has DHS actually done a notification for State under section 243 delta? Have there been any? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I do not believe we’ve done it at all. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. But I would note, though, again, that we signed 

the MOU 5 years ago, you’ve seen the correspondence from Secretary Johnson to Secretary Kerry and the response. The Secretary, 

in front of Senate Judiciary last week, you know, noted that this 

is on his radar. So it is not from our lack of interest in raising recalcitrant countries —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—as appropriate. 

Mr. DESANTIS.—right, but we have tools and we want to use, and 

what we have is we get these reports—you guys give us the reports—the number of people here illegally, and you actually enumerate the crimes that they committed. And so these are people 

that have been in ICE custody and yet they end up committing 

crimes. And it is varied. It varies from murder, it varies from 

things like theft and robbery, DUI. I would say all those are menaces to the public in obviously varying degrees. And so that is 

there. 

Let me ask you this, Ambassador Bond. You said in your testimony that State has and will implement visa restrictions when 

necessary, but you wanted to make sure that was the right approach depending on the circumstances. But doesn’t the statute 

mandate that if you do receive that notification from the Department of Homeland Security that you are required to suspend visa 

issuances? 

Ms. BOND. Yes, it does. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. And just to make sure it is consistent with 

what Mr. Ragsdale says, has the State Department received any 

notification from DHS over the last 7 years under that section? 

Ms. BOND. We have not received the formal message from the 

Secretary of Homeland Security directing that this be triggered. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. So here is the thing. We have tools that 

Congress has legislated. I think you guys need to use them. And 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

obviously it goes to the Department of Homeland Security first because that really triggers your responsibility at State. But those 

are what Congress did. I think it would be tremendously effective 

if you did it. I think the countries would be very much more likely 

to fall in line. You would be using leverage, and I think we could 

engineer better outcomes for the American people. 

But clearly, law enforcement—I wish we could prevent every single crime that happens here. The fact of the matter is people are 

going to commit crimes; you have got to hold them accountable. 

But when people are here illegally and they have actually been 

convicted of crimes and then they are released rather than being 

deported, well, that is on the government and that is something 

that could be prevented. And I think people like Casey Chadwick, 

these tragic stories need to come to an end. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

being here. 

You know, too often, the wider discussion in Congress about immigration ends up in a shouting match between what I would 

loosely describe as the open-borders crowd against the throw-themall-out crowd, those extreme ends of this debate. This does not 

help. This does not help. When you have got 86,000 criminals here 

illegally being released into the general population, you have got 

situations like Ms. Chadwick, you know, and my heart goes out to 

their families. I cannot imagine the anguish that they have gone 

through and they are still looking to have their questions answered. 

You know, we have a very basic duty in this country to protect 

the people, to protect the American people. And, you know, cases 

like Ms. Chadwick just infuriate, infuriate the American people, 

and rightly so. And it looks like we can’t get our act together here. 

You know, I understand, you know, that ICE didn’t notify the State 

Department about its difficulty in obtaining travel documents for 

Mr. Jacques, is that right? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It is correct that we did not notify —— 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—Consular Affairs on that particular case. 

Mr. LYNCH.—it is not just about the one case, but this is not 

helping. And, you know, you got people that just see a case like 

that and say that is it, no more immigration. We are not going to 

have that. We have got to keep our people safe. It informs their 

opinion of what is going on here. It also informs their opinion of 

the job that the government is doing to keep them safe. It is pathetic because, you know, if we are going to have a—and we need 

a coherent, a robust, a sane, a sustainable immigration policy, and 

we are never going to get there if you keep doing things the way 

you are doing it. 

We have to at some point at least acknowledge that we should 

not allow foreign countries to import dangerous criminals to our 

country. There is a cost-shifting there that is put on the American 

taxpayer, and there is also a perverse incentive for those countries 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

to do that because they can get rid of their problems by sending 

them to us, you know? 

I want to explore something that you mentioned, Mr. Ragsdale. 

You know, we have got a situation in Germany where they ended 

up with 1.4 million Syrians and refugees from other countries, and 

so they have worked out an agreement with Turkey on deporting 

a certain number of those people. And there is sort of a third-party 

agreement, like you talked about. Are there any countries like that 

that we can deal with where people come in illegally—and, you 

know, unfortunately we are at this point because of the logjam we 

have got here. I think that that solution of just telling people we 

are not going to accept any more visas until you take these people 

back. 

And by the way, I would like a list. I would like a list of the 

countries that are recalcitrant. I want to know how many people 

they are refusing to take. And I think that is information that Congress should have when we make foreign appropriations because 

we can zero out foreign aid to countries that don’t cooperate. 

If you are not going to do it at your level, I know there are Members of Congress who will embrace that duty if it not being done. 

And I bet you we will get great response. If we cut off funding to 

countries that are not doing the right thing and not taking back 

criminals from their own countries who are here illegally, I think 

in a heartbeat they will respond to that. And unfortunately, it 

looks like that—it is a blunt tool and I don’t like it, but if it is, you 

know, the only tool in the toolbox, then I guess we have got to use 

it. Tell me about third-country agreements, Mr. Ragsdale. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I do not think in the United States at the 

moment has the type of program you are talking about with the 

EU and Turkey. However, DHS has worked with some in-country 

processing in Central America where we are looking to find refugees in the tri-border area as opposed to having them make an illegal trip north. 

And then from the investigative side, we have worked to dismantle the transnational criminal organizations that are bringing 

folks from our southern neighbors to the United States illegally. So 

I mean there is much work that is getting done on both fronts. We 

are not simply in a completely defensive posture. 

However, once people get to the United States and the law—the 

Immigration and Nationality Act allows people to apply for protection when they are here, they have to go through the entire process. And if they are unsuccessful, we will have to go back to that 

country to get a travel document for them to remove them. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. So can we make an agreement here that this 

committee, Oversight, is going to get notice of when you have got 

a removal order and you are requesting travel documents? We just 

need to know that. You know, since it is a two-step process, we 

need to know when both of those happen. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, but so I understand, for which—I mean, 

there’s 23 recalcitrant countries that are—that we are monitoring. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I mean, I’m happy to provide the data associated 

with that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. How about we just work with those 23 countries, and that would be a good start. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It looks to me like we have got frankly a double failure of our 

government. On the one hand, we have got the State Department 

failing to force nations to accept their own citizens back who are 

criminals here in our country; and then secondly, we have got the 

Homeland Security failing to notify local law enforcement when 

these individuals are released into our streets. 

And, you know, all of this just puts the American public at risk. 

When it all comes down to it, that is what is going on here, which 

is absolutely unacceptable to me and to millions of Americans, 

probably everyone in here. And our job is to keep the public safe, 

and we are not doing it here. 

Let me kind of walk through the process. Let’s just say an individual who is illegally in this country commits a sex offense in this 

country, gets convicted, serves time, then gets turned over to ICE 

to be deported except ICE cannot deport them because their country of origin does not want to accept them. So at that point we have 

an individual who is released back on our streets. 

Now, as already has been discussed, we have a solution here, and 

that is to deny visas from these countries until these countries accept back their citizens who have committed crimes in our country. 

It doesn’t seem to me frankly to be rocket science. We could fix this 

problem relatively quickly if we would just abide by the law that 

we have to work with. We have the tools on hand it seems to me. 

And this is the method that Congress has created, and yet it is not 

being utilized. So, again, this putting the American people at risk. 

Now, let me go back to the example here. Let’s just say we have 

a sex offender. Let’s look at it from two perspectives. On the one 

hand we have an American citizen who commits a sex crime. They 

serve their time, they are released at some point. When they are 

released, local law enforcement is notified that they are released, 

and they are placed on a national sex offender registry so we know 

who they are, where they are located. Law enforcement and communities are aware. That is for an American citizen. 

Now, we have someone who is illegally in this country who commits the same type of sex crime. They serve their sentence, turned 

over to ICE. ICE can do nothing with them so they are released. 

Local law enforcement is not informed, community is not informed. 

We have the same type of sex offender running around, no one 

knows who they are, where they are. There is no follow-up on 

them. And ICE does not have the requirement to make sure these 

individuals are placed on the sex offender registry, and so they are 

not. And this has been problematic. 

I actually have introduced a bill that would require ICE to place 

these people on the national sex offender registry when they are released. It is H.R. 2793, the TRAC Act. I would encourage everyone 

to jump on board with that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Mr. Ragsdale, let me just ask you, does the fact that ICE is not 

required to place these individuals on the national sex offender registry, does that mean that you cannot place them on that registry? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So, generally, the prosecuting agency, the State 

or the local—the municipality does not make a distinction between 

the person’s nationality and would place them on their sex offender 

registry. 

Mr. HICE. They are not placed on there. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is up to the law of the prosecuting municipality. But more importantly, what we have done over the last 2 

years is create a system that every time we release a criminal alien 

from our custody, we, in an automated fashion, notify the jurisdiction to—where that person will be released. It’s called the LENS 

system. 

Mr. HICE. That is not happening. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It is the Law Enforcement Notification system, 

sir. I would be happy to get you a briefing on that. 

Mr. HICE. Listen, I deal with all the sheriffs in my district. Georgia has not—that is not happening. You may think it is happening, 

but it is not occurring. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We were just at the National Sheriffs association 

talking to folks about this. This is done by what they call ORI code. 

It’s done biometrically based on the arresting agency’s fingerprints. 

So I’d be happy to get you a brief on what we’ve done. We’ve made 

great progress in this area to notify local law enforcement every 

time someone is getting released from ICE custody who has a 

criminal history. 

Mr. HICE. The sex offenders are not being placed on the national 

sex offender registry. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. ICE —— 

Mr. HICE. They are being released. Local law enforcement are 

not aware of these individuals, communities are not aware of these 

individuals, and you ought to take responsibility to make sure that 

they are registered at least. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We would be happy to work with you on this. I 

think obviously information-sharing in law enforcement is of critical import and can only benefit the American public. 

Mr. HICE. Absolutely —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I completely agree. 

Mr. HICE.—and it is not occurring. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I’d be happy to get you a brief —— 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Chairman —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—on what we’ve done —— 

Mr. HICE.—I see my time is expired. 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—over the last 2 years. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lieu, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The United States of America is the world’s premier superpower. 

I find it absurd that we cannot return foreign nationals that have 

been convicted of heinous crimes back to their home country. 

The case of Jean Jacques, the Haitian foreign national, it is stories like that I agree with Congressman Lynch that makes it hard 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

for those of us who want to support comprehensive immigration reform to get that through because it is these stories that make the 

American people very angry and just make our country want to 

shut down in terms of immigration. 

And as you know, in that case Jean Jacques was convicted of attempted murder, served his time, released, and then ICE tried to 

get him back to Haiti, the Haitian Government refused to accept 

him. He then kills Casey Chadwick. 

It is clear to me ICE should have notified the State Department. 

That was a failure. But I find it much more disturbing the reason 

ICE did not do this. And in this New York Times article in July, 

I am going to give you the reason. ICE officials say that they did 

not raise the case with the State Department because they did not 

believe it would intervene to encourage a foreign country to accept 

a violent offender like Jacques. 

So what this is telling me is that one entire agency of the Federal Government, ICE, believes the State Department is so weak, 

so incompetent on this issue that they don’t think it is worth their 

time to notify the State Department. 

So I am going to ask you some questions, Ms. Bond. Thank you 

for being here. Why would ICE think that? And I am thinking 

maybe it is because the State Department has only one time in its 

entire history used the tool Congress gave you to deny visas to 

these countries. Why is it that you have only done it one time? 

Ms. BOND. You asked why would they believe that we wouldn’t 

intervene and assist unless it was a case that involved terrorism? 

Mr. LIEU. Yes, I did ask two questions. That is the first question. 

The second is why is it that only one time you have used the tool 

that Congress gave you? So there are two questions there. 

Ms. BOND. I cannot account for the fact that somebody believed 

that because the fact is that we work so closely. We are very much 

a team in terms of looking for ways to support each other. ICE has 

the lead so we are in the supporting, but we are working together 

as effectively as possible on individual cases. So why someone 

would’ve had the idea that we wouldn’t be responsive I simply don’t 

know why they thought that. We would have been responsive. And 

—— 

Mr. LIEU. Would you have denied visas? 

Ms. BOND. So the question about, you know, why is there only 

one example to date of actually applying this particular case, excuse me, I think it’s—in the case of Guyana—and we agree that it 

was very effective and we also agree that this is an important tool. 

We keep it in consideration at all times. It is not something that 

we’re looking for reasons not to do. 

Mr. LIEU. I think —— 

Ms. BOND. In the case of Guyana —— 

Mr. LIEU.—the sentiment of this committee on a bipartisan basis 

is that you are actually not looking to do it, and I think what we 

want is we want you to do it. We want you to make an example 

of a country that is recalcitrant. Just do it, and then hopefully others will listen more, right? We should make no apologies for acting 

like a superpower. We should use the tools that the Congress has 

given you and just do it. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

So let’s now move to foreign aid, right? It is true, isn’t it, that 

the U.S. is the largest foreign aid donor since 1973 to Haiti? 

Ms. BOND. I’m sorry. What was the question? 

Mr. LIEU. Is it true that the U.S. is the largest foreign aid donor 

to Haiti since 1973 or about then? 

Ms. BOND. That’s probably true. I don’t know, but I believe —— 

Mr. LIEU. So I understand that we have sovereign nations and 

Haiti doesn’t have to take back its folks that commit crimes, but 

we also don’t have to give foreign aid. And would you support reducing or eliminating foreign aid to Haiti because they are unwilling to take back their own murderers? 

Ms. BOND. You know, in the case of Haiti, that is a country that 

is not on the list of recalcitrants. They are generally cooperative. 

They are not a country that is problematic in that sense. It’s not 

typical for them to be saying in the case of particular individuals 

we don’t think this person is Haitian. So that is an example of a 

situation that you have to keep trying to work with that government, but it’s not a sign that you have a government that is —— 

Mr. LIEU. So let me just stop you there. 

Ms. BOND.—deliberately saying —— 

Mr. LIEU. The U.S. Government clearly believed he was Haitian, 

right? And, you know, it is discretionary whether they want to take 

back their person. It is also discretionary for us whether we want 

to give foreign aid. So it should be the view that if our government 

believes a fact and we want to send that person back based on 

these facts and the host country doesn’t take it, I think this committee wants the State Department to do some action, right, because I think it is our view that diplomacy, without the threat of 

consequences, is meaningless. It is just happy talk. We want you 

to put in some consequences. We want you to do that soon. 

And my time is up. I yield back. 

Ms. BOND. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Grothman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes. Mr. Ragsdale, first question for you. When 

did you get your position as deputy director of Immigration and 

Customs? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Since June of 2012. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. June of 2012. Okay. And, Ambassador Bond, 

your position previous to being the assistant secretary was—did I 

read that you are a former Ambassador to an African country? 

Ms. BOND. Yes, immediately prior to becoming the assistant secretary, I was the deputy principal assistant secretary, the number 

two in the Bureau. And before that I was the Ambassador in Lesotho in southern Africa. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And when were appointed to that? 

Ms. BOND. I’m sorry, when was I —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. When were you appointed to the Ambassador of 

Lesotho? 

Ms. BOND. I was there from 2010 to 2012. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. So you are both, I am sure—Ambassador 

Bond, you are an appointee of President Obama, correct? 

Ms. BOND. To this job, yes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes, and the Ambassador job was —— 

Ms. BOND. That was also during the Obama administration. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Correct. And I am not sure. Mr. Ragsdale, is 

your position an appointed one by President Obama? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No, I am a career —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You are career? 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—senior executive, yes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Is there a political determination of who the deputy director is or not? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No, it is a career job. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Well, we will focus on you, Ambassador 

Bond. I mean, you know, there is something going on in the background here we are not talking about, but I would like to talk 

about it. You have been appointed in this position by President 

Obama, and there has been a theme, I think, through a variety of 

hearings we have had in which there doesn’t seem a lot of sincerity 

in enforcing our immigration laws at all around here, whether it 

is people just coming across the border and letting to go back, 

whether it is not deporting people who commit crimes, whatever. 

To what degree do you believe President Obama is aware that you 

folks are not using the means at your disposal to remove the dangerous criminals back to the countries from which they came? Does 

President Obama know about this at all? Do you guys report to 

him? Have you heard anything from the White House about your 

horrible —— 

Ms. BOND. There have been instances where the President has 

raised the issue with his counterpart, the head of other countries, 

and so I know that he’s aware of the issue of the task of dealing 

with recalcitrant countries and looking for ways to get them to 

meet their obligations —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. But those ways haven’t included denying visas 

or trying to prevent foreign aid from going to these countries? 

President Obama is aware of this and he still—I guess what you 

are saying is President Obama then is aware of this situation, 

right? 

Ms. BOND. President Obama is aware of the fact that some countries are not meeting their obligations to cooperate in removing 

their citizens. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And has he weighed in with you guys at all to 

say let’s withhold foreign aid, let’s withhold visas from these countries or is he just kind of chit-chat, talk, talk, talk and not doing 

anything about it? 

Ms. BOND. So actions that have been taken include a fairly recent—about a year ago a message from the deputy Secretary of 

State to every Ambassador telling them to raise this, particularly 

in the cases where we’re not seeing —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Raise what? 

Ms. BOND. Raise the question of the importance of resolving 

issues of —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. About a year ago? 

Ms. BOND.—returning citizens —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So about a year ago somebody said we ought to 

raise the issue. But has he ever threatened or has President 

Obama ever come down on you guys in saying, hey, we have a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

bunch of criminals in this country, we have the ability to deny 

visas, we have the ability to withhold foreign aid, let’s do something about it? Or is President Obama just—all you can come 

across is a year ago he said, well, maybe we ought to look at this 

sometime and see what we can do? 

Ms. BOND. Maybe we ought to look at this sometime is not the 

message that was sent. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What was the message? 

Ms. BOND. The message was to raise the visibility and to emphasize the importance of resolving these cases where they occur. And 

we completely agree with you and other members of this committee 

—— Mr. GROTHMAN. I don’t think you —— 

Ms. BOND.—that taking the actions, including visas sanctions, 

are—that is a real deterrent and it is a real threat. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Has —— 

Ms. BOND. But what we’ve seen —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, talk about threats. Has President Obama 

threatened with removing any of those appointees who haven’t followed through on this? 

Ms. BOND. I—you know, what we —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I mean, I didn’t vote for the guy. 

Ms. BOND.—are doing is working to make sure that we establish 

a process with every single country, focus on the ones that are not 

doing the job —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. But does the process —— 

Ms. BOND.—that will work. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. We only get 5 minutes here. Does the process include withholding foreign aid or withholding visas? 

Ms. BOND. The process includes that possibility, absolutely. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Has it ever happened —— 

Ms. BOND. It —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN.—under your tenure? 

Ms. BOND. It has happened that we have talked to governments 

and said if we’re not seeing results —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. So it has never happened, right, under 

your —— 

Ms. BOND. It has not been imposed but it has been discussed, 

and countries know that they are on the line. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Well, we only got about, what, 5 months 

to go on this administration. If he is going to impose it, he better 

do it quickly, and otherwise, I think the American people have to, 

you know, make sure the next President has an entirely different 

view of things. But thanks much. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador BOND OR MR. Ragsdale, before my colleague leaves 

I understand that one of these statutes was previously invoked 

with Guyana in 2001. Mr. Ragsdale, do you know if that is correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is my understanding. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And at the time that it was invoked with Guyana, 

what were the problems that our government was facing with Guyana in deporting individuals there? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

Mr. RAGSDALE. This was during the days of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, which was part of the Department of Justice —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right. 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—so I cannot speak from personal knowledge, but 

I understand there was a delay in repatriations to Guyana, and we 

worked—at that time the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

worked with the Department of State to have visa sanction imposed. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And was that an effective use of the statute? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I understand that it was. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So we have used it in the past? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I understand that is the last time it has been 

used. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And that was section 243(d) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act, which allows for the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to formally notify the Secretary of State that a foreign 

government is denying or unreasonably delaying the acceptance of 

their deportees? Is that correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is what the statute says. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And why has the statute allowed it to remain at 

a Cabinet level with the Secretary of State requiring it to discontinue immigration or non-immigration visa status as opposed to 

Members of Congress who don’t like a particular administration 

and want to impose that on other states? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. If I understand, I mean, the statutory language 

actually reads ‘‘Attorney General,’’ as folks have mentioned. At this 

point, that now is read to be the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

but the legislation itself grants that authority to that Cabinet-level 

position. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And that is legislation that this Congress has 

given and found in putting that law in place that it was best to be 

left with the Secretary of State, with the Attorney General, and at 

a Cabinet level as opposed to Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee when they don’t like how a particular administration is 

operating its visa and immigration status? Yes? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That’s my understanding of the way the —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—statute reads. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So it was effective in the use of Guyana. Could 

I ask you, Secretary Bond, is it possible—how would this affect— 

if we were to do something like this with a place like China, what 

would be the effect on our own economy if we were to impose something like this? 

Ms. BOND. If you take a particular country, in any case you’re 

going to be looking to see what would be the likely effectiveness of 

taking the step of, for example, sanctioning them on visas —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. So I guess let me be —— 

Ms. BOND.—and what would be the cost —— 

Ms. PLASKETT.—a little more specific. I am asking—so if we decided that we were going to revoke the ability of China to have immigration visas in this country because they were recalcitrant 

about returning one or two or three individuals back to China, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

what would the effect on a regular basis be of China not being allowed immigration visas into this country, work or otherwise visas? 

Ms. BOND. This is obviously a hypothetical question. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Of course. 

Ms. BOND. The likely response —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. It hasn’t happened. 

Ms. BOND.—of any government, one response would be that they 

would reciprocate. It would —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Impose the same things on us, right? And the 

economy, the work that is done between China and the United 

States is how many visas a year would you say in terms of work 

visas going back and forth between the Chinese nationals and 

Americans into china? 

Ms. BOND. I don’t have that breakdown, but it’s well over a million-and-a-half visas that are issued. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Would that also affect American adoptions of Chinese children? 

Ms. BOND. It’s impossible to predict what a foreign government 

might decide to do in response, and important to remember that 

the purpose of doing it would be to get them to change what they’re 

doing on removing their aliens. We want to focus on that. We 

would be looking for measures we can take that are likely to steer 

them in that direction not to trigger retaliation where we then end 

up arguing about visas and not making any progress on removals. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions at 

this time. 

Ms. BOND. Sir, if I may just quickly correct the record —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, please. 

Ms. BOND.—to make it clear that I’m —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. You bet you. 

Ms. BOND.—also a career member of the government, a career 

foreign service officer in addition to being politically appointed to 

this particular job. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And let the record note. The gentlelady has yielded 

back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, 

Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Bond, you stated in your testimony that some recalcitrant countries like China wouldn’t be largely affected via sanctions because they control foreign travel of their citizens. A recent 

GAO report this year found that the United States is the largest 

source of remittances in the world, in fact, 54.2 billion abroad in 

2014. Mexico, China, India, the Philippines received the most 

money from us. But I notice many of the countries who received 

significant remittances from us are also the same ones who refuse 

to repatriate citizens who commit crimes on U.S. soil. 

If the State Department’s highest priority is the protection of 

U.S. citizens, why shouldn’t we block remittances to these countries? 

Ms. BOND. Sir, some of the countries that you mentioned are not 

countries that have been recalcitrant or have been a problem in 

this particular —— 

Mr. PALMER. I understand that. 

Ms. BOND.—issue. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. PALMER. I just —— 

Ms. BOND. Our goal in dealing with each of the countries that 

are designated recalcitrant, as well as those that are on a list that 

we’re watching and working with to make sure that their performance doesn’t get worse, our goal is to look for ways to incentivize 

them to do what they need to do and to establish a process that 

routinely works. 

We agree that the possibility of visa sanction can be an effective 

tool. I would argue that part of what makes it effective is that 

when it’s imposed, it’s very clear to the other country, very clear 

to anyone who’s looking at the situation that we did our best to 

find a way to resolve that problem without going to that step and 

that they left us no choice. We were not seeing cooperation, we 

were not seeing response, and therefore, we took that step. 

Where we’re seeing a response, where we’re seeing a step in the 

right direction and movement in the right direction and commitment to keep that going, we push to keep that going and —— 

Mr. PALMER. I appreciate all of that —— 

Ms. BOND.—that’s the approach. 

Mr. PALMER.—but let me—this just seems to—this is problematic 

for me. We have talked about the cases where people who had been 

arrested multiple times have committed crimes that resulted in the 

deaths of their victims, okay. That is an enormous cost. But if you 

take into account—and this has happened in my home State of Alabama where our local law enforcement have arrested people multiple times. It goes on all around the country where people are here 

illegally and the United States has not been able to repatriate 

them to their countries of origin, have committed other crimes. 

There is an enormous cost there that the taxpayers are paying, in 

some cases the victims, and I guess in every case the victim of the 

crime is paying, yet we are sending $54 billion. I mean, doesn’t it 

make sense to at least deduct the cost? 

And, I mean, it is across the board with the whole issue of this 

administration allowing illegals to come into the country and we 

are taking care of them, we are paying for it, the taxpayers are 

paying for it. If we can’t get the administration to at least recognize that, can we at least get the administration to recognize that 

we are paying an enormous cost for the crimes that are being committed and deduct that from the remittances? Doesn’t that make 

sense? 

Ms. BOND. We absolutely recognize the cost in terms of —— 

Mr. PALMER. But you are not doing anything about it. 

Ms. BOND.—the cost of detention and the penalty paid by victims 

of folks, and that is why this is a priority and we are looking for 

effective and more and more effective ways to address this. 

We do have examples of countries where we have been successful, where we’ve been working with them and they are not on the 

recalcitrant list. So this is not a static list. 

Mr. PALMER. But there are countries who are persistent, and all 

I am saying is in that case where we are making remittances 

doesn’t it make sense to at least deduct the cost, maybe even compensate the victims? I mean, doesn’t that make sense? 

Ms. BOND. So the option of eventually taking a look at having 

the foreign assistance that we provide to a foreign government be 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

affected by their performance in this field, that option is on the 

table. It’s there. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I can tell you, and I don’t know if you picked 

up on it, but I am extremely frustrated by how our country has 

handled this. We have allowed this to go on. We have allowed our 

own citizens to be victimized by it. We have put enormous burdens 

on our law enforcement as though they don’t have enough on them 

already. I think it ought to be evident that they do. And the administration’s policies, frankly, are not only disappointing, it is just incomprehensible that we continue to allow this to happen. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, before I start my remarks, 

I would like to recognize Judith Cummins, who is a British Member of Parliament. She is joining eight other Members of the Parliament who are on the Hill today, and she is in the audience. I 

just wanted to recognize her and welcome her to the United States 

Congress. 

I want to start my remarks to say that I am hoping this dialogue 

leads to some sense of awakening to Congress that we need comprehensive immigration reform, and that requires action of Congress. It is very easy to point your fingers and criticize or have 

opinions against the administration when repeatedly there has 

been calls and requests for us to do our job as Congress and to develop a comprehensive immigration program for America. We need 

it. 

It is refreshing to hear that my colleagues on the other side actually recognize that. And so I hope from this hearing we will get 

some action and we will actually step up and do our job. 

I want to ask a question to Mr. Ragsdale. Does ICE request for 

alternative measures referred to in these series of letters that are 

sent out to these recalcitrant countries refer only to denying visas 

or also other tools within the state’s purview? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. The precise what I’ll say is remedy would not be 

something that ICE would propose. In other words, we would work 

with our colleagues in Consular Affairs to figure out the precise 

interaction diplomatically. The only thing we are interested in is 

getting a travel document or somebody on an approved manifest 

that were are allowed either to board them on a charter air flight 

or a commercial air flight to remove them from the United States. 

So I would defer to my colleague from the State Department in 

terms of the precise —— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Secretary Bond, could you respond to that? 

What are the tools or what are the alternative measures that is referred to? Is it only the visas? What are the other tools? 

Ms. BOND. So when we agree because we are working really consistently, closely, and when ICE flags for us their sense that they 

are just going—getting nowhere with a particular country and they 

want to look with us at ways to increase the pressure, increase the 

focus and the attention and get results, some of the things that are 

options include for us to be raising that issue at a higher level of 

government to say at the working level this is not being resolved. 

It’s not being —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Who are the higher levels of government? 

Ms. BOND. Well, it could include, for example, our Ambassador 

in that country going into the Foreign Minister or the Ministry of 

Interior, whoever there might be responsible for issuing passports 

and say, you know, we need to find ways to address whatever is 

keeping you from doing your job to identify and document citizens. 

There are some cases where foreign governments say we don’t 

think this is our citizen. All right. Well, we want to see evidence 

that they are really putting effort into making a legitimate determination and that they’ve looked carefully at that case. 

This happens to us as well overseas where foreign governments 

will come to our embassy and say we think this person in our jail 

is an American. We go talk to them and we don’t think it’s an 

American, and that’s what we tell them. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. The letters that were sent, ICE that sent describe the difficulties with the country in question, the joint efforts 

of ICE and the Consular Affairs have been taken to date and each 

agency’s view on the proposed next steps. Secretary Bond, how useful is the information in these letters in coordinating additional efforts with ICE? And I am really interested because ICE keeps saying that they are so limited. Here, we are saying there is additional 

efforts that ICE should take or can take. So can you respond to 

that? 

Ms. BOND. Well, perhaps I could respond giving the example of 

Liberia because that’s one of the countries that’s been raised. I visited Liberia in March, and when—and I had the ability to sit down 

with the Foreign Minister and their Attorney General and senior 

members of their government. And that was the number one issue 

that I was raising with them was to say we have lots of things, important things we want to accomplish together, Liberia and the 

United States. This issue needs to be resolved. 

And your embassy, your consulates, many of them have a consulate in New York that follows events at the United Nations, we 

need you to be in touch with them to be very clear about the priority you place on cooperation on this. 

Now, we have seen a change in the way Liberia is operating in 

this issue since March, and we are seeing travel documents issued, 

a commitment that they will continue to issue and a commitment 

that they will accelerate those issuances. If they don’t follow 

through on that, they know that the threat of visa sanctions is a 

real one. This is not something where we just mention that that 

could happen. We have made it very clear to these countries —— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. My time is up. And before I turn it over to Mr. 

Chairman, I just want to say President Obama has been invoked 

a lot in this discussion. I am proud of the fact that we had a President—lack of action of Congress—did try to address this issue and 

put some measures in place, and I would be proud to say that my 

Congress has stepped up and really started working on comprehensive immigration reform because we need to address these issues. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Ambassador Bond, just a few minutes ago you said in questioning from Congressman Palmer, ‘‘We at the State Department 

believe denying visa can be an effective tool.’’ How can it be effective if you never use it? In the past 7–1/2 years during the Obama 

administration, how many times have you used denying visas as 

one of those beliefs that it ‘‘can be an effective tool’’? How many 

times have you used it? 

Ms. BOND. We have not sanctioned—in other words, we haven’t 

—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Is the answer zero? 

Ms. BOND.—applied that, but what we have done —— 

Mr. JORDAN. Is the answer —— 

Ms. BOND.—is to say to foreign governments this is the pattern 

that we’re seeing. We’re not seeing responsiveness from you. We’re 

not seeing a legitimate effort to —— 

Mr. JORDAN. But my question was how many —— 

Ms. BOND.—identify the citizens —— 

Mr. JORDAN.—times have you used what you said you believe to 

be an effective tool? How many times have you used this ‘‘effective 

tool’’ in the last 7–1/2 years? 

Ms. BOND. We have not used it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Never? Okay. Now, is there any part of the statute 

you don’t understand? ‘‘On being notified that the government of a 

foreign country denies accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, 

national, or resident of that country, the Secretary of State shall 

order consular offices in that country to discontinue granting 

visas.’’ Any part of that you don’t understand? 

Ms. BOND. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. So I don’t either. That is as plain as you can write 

it. So in 7–1/2 years this ‘‘effective tool’’ that you believe is so effective, you have never used it even though the statute says you shall 

do it if, in fact, you are given notice that this is going on. Is it going 

on? Mr. Ragsdale, do we have deportable aliens who have been released back on to U.S. streets because their home country refuses 

to repatriate them? Do we have that phenomena going on in the 

United States today? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, we do. 

Mr. JORDAN. And how many people are in that category, let’s say 

in the last—we will stick with the same time frame. During the 

Obama presidency in the last 7–1/2 years, how many people fall 

into that category? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It’s tens of thousands of people. 

Mr. JORDAN. Tens of thousands? Tens of thousands. The State 

Department says it is an effective tool to deny visas for tens of 

thousands, and yet they have not used it once. And the statue says 

you shall do it. Now, I am missing something, Ambassador. What 

is going on here? 

Ms. BOND. The statute says that when the Secretary of Homeland Security informs the Secretary of State, that they—that he 

wants to trigger this sanction, we shall do so, and we shall. 

Mr. JORDAN. But you haven’t. Mr. Ragsdale —— 

Ms. BOND. We have not received such a notification from the Secretary of Homeland Security. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, it is about time. Mr. Ragsdale, how many of 

these thousands wound up doing some kind of violent offense 

against an American, some kind of violent crime? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So there are criminal aliens in this group. There 

is no question about that. 

Mr. JORDAN. A lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds have done 

violent crimes and there should have been at least some sanction 

against their home country —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It is —— 

Mr. JORDAN.—that wasn’t put in place? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It is a substantial number. 

Mr. JORDAN. How many of those thousands—do you know any of 

those thousands, any of them on the terrorism watch list? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I do not believe any pose a national security 

threat for that reason. 

Mr. JORDAN. That is not what I asked you. Are any of them on 

the terrorism watch list? There are thousands who are in this category where we haven’t taken any sanctions against their home 

country. Any of them on the terrorism watch list? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We do a full background check on all the appropriate indices before we release anyone. 

Mr. JORDAN. Is the answer yes or no to that question? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would loathe to speculate, but the answer 

should be no. 

Mr. JORDAN. Should be no but you can’t say definitively? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. With substantial confidence —— 

Mr. JORDAN. Any of them on the no-fly list? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. With substantial confidence I would say no. 

Mr. JORDAN. Any of them on the no-fly list? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, I don’t want to speculate because of course 

that is a fluid list. Somebody may not have been on the no-fly list 

in one year and added and vice versa. So in the —— 

Mr. JORDAN. I am talking the Obama administration, in that 

time frame, any of these folks who should have been sent back to 

their home country and we took no sanctions against the home 

country, any of them wind up on the terrorism watch list or the 

no-fly list? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I cannot speculate over the course of 7–1/2 

years. 

Mr. JORDAN. Can you get us that information? That would be 

something we would like to know. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We certainly can—what I can tell you for certain 

is we do every appropriate background check before we release 

someone. That I am certain of. 

Mr. JORDAN. So why aren’t you giving notice to the State Department to do what the statute says? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So as the chairman noted, our director has 

worked with Assistant Secretary Bond on ratcheting up on at least 

four countries with the potential for 243(d) sanctions, and we will 

work on that. You know, again —— 

Mr. JORDAN. It is always we will work on it, we are looking at 

it, we are trying, all this wonderful talk. I think it is clear, statute 

is very clear, if the State Department believes it is an effective tool, 

then you have got to put them on notice so they can use the tool. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

I don’t know if they will, but let’s hope they would. It is the old 

line, when you do something right, you don’t have to do it often, 

right? But if you never do it, you never send the message. And that 

to me is the takeaway here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

I think we have found something, Mr. Jordan, we can work together on. I couldn’t agree with you more. And I think we ought 

to change the law, just take Homeland Security out of it and put 

the State Department in charge. And when it says that—by the 

way, I have a lot of respect for both of your offices and you and 

thank you for your public service. But if it is not working, we have 

got to change it. And everybody says, well, maybe if the State Department got involved, we could negotiate, as you have done with 

Liberia, to get a better result. I would say let’s change it and get 

the State Department involved in the beginning and then start 

using this. Since Homeland Security is focused on other things 

more than this, maybe we should rewrite it, take them out, and 

have the State Department—you would have to wait for a referral. 

I think the number one duty of government is to protect our people, and the fact that dangerous people are put back on the street 

that can murder people like Ms. Casey Chadwick is one of the reasons we can’t pass comprehensive immigration reform. They keep 

reading these stories and it is hard to get people to agree if we 

can’t even agree on how we are going to make this work. 

So I think you have taken some positive steps having that list 

that you put together. I think that the Jean Jacques case highlighted the need for our government to identify what countries are 

the most noncompliant so that both of you, State and ICE, can 

work together to get them to comply. 

And it is my understanding that in 2015 ICE began using a pilot 

tool to help identify the countries that are the most recalcitrant, 

and I think that that is important. Do you make that list public? 

Is that list public? Is it up on the Web site like your tips report 

is on what countries are not participating in combating sex trafficking? What do you do with that list? Is it a private list or do you 

put it out on the Internet or what do you do with it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I don’t believe we have it necessarily on our 

Internet post. I mean, it’s certainly something that we’ve discussed 

with some real clarity here. And I will tell you that, you know, 

the—as you note, we had sort of an anecdotal list over the course 

of years on determining who was recalcitrant. This tool is what I’ll 

say is a positive step forward that puts some analytics behind it. 

We also use —— 

Mrs. MALONEY. How does the tool work? Can you describe it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It weighs various factors. It weighs —— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Pardon me? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It weighs whether someone would take charter 

flights, it weighs how long it takes them to issue travel documents, 

it weighs by nationality the removal rate versus the release rate. 

It also takes into consideration the conditions of each country. 

There may be countries that are recalcitrant because there’s no 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

functioning government. So it takes all of those into account and 

then produces essentially the analysis. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, I think if you have a country that doesn’t 

have a functioning government, that is a no-brainer. We should use 

our visa sanctions. And if you have a country that won’t take a 

Jean Jacques back after he has murdered people, gone to jail, and 

been a bad, bad actor in our country, then we should give them a 

visa sanction. 

I think we have got to start acting on this and not just talking 

about it because as long as you have all these criminals running 

around causing problems that are illegal immigrants, it is very 

hard to get any functioning immigration discussion going. 

And we are the greatest country on earth. We can figure this 

out? I think you have to put the State Department in charge because they will make it a focus. And you have been successful, Ms. 

Bond, as you mentioned in your meetings with Liberia, and make 

some changes to the law and make it function. 

I think also a very successful tool in the State Department was 

the report you did on trafficking. I think we should do the same 

type of report on how they are cooperating and taking back illegal 

immigrants that are killing people in America and put it up for the 

American people to see. And I think you should take strong actions 

on it. 

This is something we can do. This is something I would think 

that every single American in this country would agree with in one 

of the most controversial areas, immigration. So I hope we can 

work together to make that happen, and I hope that Congress will 

legislate on it and come out with some specific ways to make this 

move forward. 

My time is expired, I believe, but in any event, why have a law 

if you don’t use it? And it is getting to the point where people do 

not trust our immigration system or trust our government to protect them. 

Anyway, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MICA. If I may start and follow up on the gentlelady from 

New York’s questions, we started asking about countries and noncooperation or countries where these folks are coming from. Can 

you tell us like what is the leading country? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. In terms of the overall number of folks that are 

—— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—have a final removal order? It would be Cuba. 

Cuba or China, excuse me. China, I think, is number one. 

Mr. MICA. Well, we just established relations with Cuba and we 

have had relations with China. And can you provide the committee 

with some numbers? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Certainly. 

Mr. MICA. Do you have them? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. They are roughly, I think, about 39,000 individuals from China. It looks like Cuba is around 36,000. 

Mr. MICA. Wow. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So what I will importantly note that both from 

China and Cuba, as the assistant secretary said —— 

Mr. MICA. And —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—we have raised the issue with Cuba, first and 

foremost as—and folks are doing it as we speak, and with China 

—— Mr. MICA. Because that just opened up and I would think it 

would be one of the top diplomatic issues that we would raise. Is 

that right, Ambassador? 

Ms. BOND. It is. It is a subject we’re —— 

Mr. MICA. But they have not—have they acquiesced in any way? 

Ms. BOND. Their response has been that they want to reopen the 

broader issue of immigration rules of travel between Cuba and the 

United States. 

Mr. MICA. But there is no progress then? 

Ms. BOND. Not yet. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. You also said, Ambassador, while we are on 

you, that you hadn’t gotten any indication from DHS to move forward, and that is what you were waiting on on moving forward 

with some of the visa restrictions? 

Ms. BOND. The specific question was why hadn’t we imposed the 

sanction —— 

Mr. MICA. And you said because you had —— 

Ms. BOND.—and the technical—you know, the legal answer —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Ms. BOND.—is because we didn’t get that—but again, it’s so important to stress that we work very, very closely with DHS —— 

Mr. MICA. But obviously —— 

Ms. BOND.—on this issue. 

Mr. MICA.—you are not doing anything because they didn’t ask 

or tell you to do anything, did they? 

Ms. BOND. We’re not imposing visa sanctions for that reason —— 

Mr. MICA. But, again —— 

Ms. BOND.—but we are doing —— 

Mr. MICA.—the reason —— 

Ms. BOND.—lots of things —— 

Mr. MICA.—as you said—I thought you testified, Mr. Jordan 

asked the question, that you had not been directed, so you were 

waiting to hear from DHS. 

Ms. BOND. It is correct to say that we —— 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Ms. BOND.—have not received that notification —— 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman —— 

Ms. BOND.—but not correct to say —— 

Mr. MICA.—the committee and members —— 

Ms. BOND.—that we’re waiting. 

Mr. MICA.—and this appears to have some bipartisan appeal, we 

can send a letter from the committee asking DHS to get the word 

to Ambassador Bond and State to take action here. Maybe that 

would help. Sometimes we don’t have to legislate, although that is 

another question that I have further on is any gaps in legislation 

to allow you to proceed. 

Let me go back for a minute here. About half the people here I 

guess were here illegally, came in illegally, totally illegally, and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

then about half I guess came in and overstayed a visa, a student 

permit, or work permit. I guess that is about right, Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It would be a blended set. 

Mr. MICA. Just—yes. But the President’s Executive order or directive on amnesty, that affected about half of the population I 

think. And of that, your—well, one of your responsibilities, whether 

they are part of that population or other population is to remove 

criminal illegals, right? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We—once —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes? 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—a removal order is final —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—and we are able to execute it, we request a travel document immediately. 

Mr. MICA. But you remove them. And what is interesting from 

our last hearing we found 2013—these are domestic not at-the-border removals—you had 110,000 in 2013. In 2014 86—I will give you 

credit for—you were close to 87,000. In 2015 you are down to 

63,000. We keep seeing a reduced number in those that you are actually removing. Those figures are correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I think as you’ve known for your last hearing the 

complexity in arresting, locating, and removing folks —— 

Mr. MICA. But —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—in the interior of the United States —— 

Mr. MICA.—the net result is —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—is a challenge and the numbers have fallen, yes. 

Mr. MICA.—not quite half in several years, but we are going forward. 

And then finally, just about out of time, any legislative tools— 

there was this Executive directive and then there was a—and for 

a while you all said and a lot of people said they didn’t know what 

they could do or couldn’t do because of the status, and then you 

had this court case that said they had to be released within 180 

days. Then you had the reversal of the Obama decision. Where are 

you now in your ability to remove criminal illegals? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, we still need final orders of removal and 

travel documents, so that doesn’t change. I think, as everyone has 

said, a comprehensive reform could fix a lot of challenges. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And the gentleman yields back. 

And I would like to follow on to one thing that Mr. Mica had 

said. You know, with respect to Cuba that is still kind of an underdeveloped relationship there but not so much with China. What is 

the reason that China is giving for not taking these citizens back? 

What is the big holdup? Is there a trend? Are there specifics? Ambassador Bond? 

Ms. BOND. I have discussed this myself with the Chinese in Beijing and yesterday with China’s Ambassador here to emphasize 

again that we want to see this be a higher priority for the Chinese 

Government. We want to see them put the resources in to this 

issue that would be required to resolve the high numbers that you 

have just heard cited. So there are, you know, different reasons 

that they give —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Such as? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Ms. BOND. They say, for example, that in some cases people— 

people may be in the United States with a Chinese passport, and 

they say, well, we would need to be able to look into whether that 

was a legitimate passport and whether it was issued to that individual. There are people out there in false identities and so forth. 

Some of the people have no identification because they tore up 

whatever they had before they came into the United States, and 

the Chinese have said it’s difficult for us to confirm the identity of 

some of these people, especially if they turn out to be from a rural 

area. They have said in some cases someone may be Chinese ethnically and sound Chinese and so forth but actually be from Malaysia or another country, and they’re not willing to document someone as a Chinese national unless they can confirm that that’s the 

case. 

All of those are perfectly legitimate things to raise as issues that 

need to be addressed. What we’re looking for is evidence that they 

are seriously addressing them and that they are paying attention 

to this. And that was the point that I was stressing to the Ambassador. It’s—we don’t want to hear excuses for why it’s so hard. 

China is a big country. They do hard things. They can do this. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, like you, I take protecting the safety and security of American 

citizens as my most solemn duty as a Member of Congress, and I, 

like I think most Americans, am troubled when I hear these stories 

about illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United 

States, served their sentences, and then are released back into the 

population. 

And I understand that happens because of that Supreme Court 

of the United States decision in 2001, and I also think that the 

wrong answer is to punish local police forces and local municipalities. I think the focus does have to be where it is today on these 

nations that are recalcitrant in taking back these illegals that committed crimes in the United States. 

Assistant Secretary Bond, I understand the list of those nations 

is in the neighborhood of a couple of dozen. Is that about right? 

Ms. BOND. Yes, sir. There are 23 countries on the list. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I also understand that Mexico is not among 

those, am I correct in that? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Mexico is not among them. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. Well, I ask that because there are voices 

out there screaming about Mexican illegal immigrants who are 

committing crimes in this country, but Mexico has cooperated in 

taking back illegals who have committed crimes, served out their 

sentences, and need to go back to Mexico, is that right? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is right, and they do that both along our 

southwest border and we also have an interior repatriation flight 

where we fly criminal aliens directly from the United States into 

Mexico City. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. All right. Now, Mr. Jordan was going on about 

the question of whether we have ever issued these section 243(d) 

sanctions in the last 7–1/2 years in this administration, 243(d) 

sanctions meaning revoking visas for people who want to come to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

our country from those so-called recalcitrant nations. And he made 

the point that we have not issued those sanctions, and I guess that 

is the reason for the title of this hearing today. 

Here is my question. Ambassador Bond, have we ever threatened 

the use of those sanctions or intimated or hinted that we may impose those sanctions in individual relations with particular nations? 

Ms. BOND. Yes, we absolutely have done that. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Is that part of your toolbox? 

Ms. BOND. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Do you use it? 

Ms. BOND. We have informed specific countries that are on the 

recalcitrant list that we have to see results and—within a timebound period of time or there is going to be a real likelihood that 

the next step would be visa sanctions. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And visa —— 

Ms. BOND. And what we have seen in many cases is that you do 

get a response to that, that —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. That was my next question. Does it work? 

Ms. BOND. It does. The—but let’s be clear. It works in the sense 

that we do see a response, a reaction, an additional attention being 

paid, actual travel documents being issued, and aliens being removed from the United States. It requires constant pressure because what you can’t do is to issue a threat and they give you a 

response and then that doesn’t become a pattern. What we are 

working to do is to make it a routine. With more than 100 countries, this is a routine, normal thing. This is what governments do. 

I’ve been responsible when serving overseas for documenting 

someone who’s coming out of jail and making arrangements to put 

that person on a flight and sometimes making arrangements for 

U.S. Marshals to fly with him or meet him because there’s an outstanding warrant for that person in the States. 

But it is the job of a government to identify and document its 

citizens and to take that seriously. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I have only 

got half-a-minute left. If you want to use the threat of visa sanctions effectively, would it make sense to actually impose them once 

in a great while? 

Ms. BOND. It absolutely would make sense to do that in cases 

where we are—we’re able to say to that country you simply are not 

responding. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Right. 

Ms. BOND. You have left us no choice. But in cases where people 

are responding and you are moving forward, then it can be a distraction and unhelpful to say, okay, we see you doing this and now 

we’re going to bring the hammer down. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I understand that. So one size fits all doesn’t 

make sense, but I urge you to consider redoubling your efforts and 

your focus on this area. I do want to associate myself with the 

thoughtful remarks of Congresswoman Maloney. She has a point 

when she says these stories, these stories of criminals going back 

and engaging in recidivism in the United States are retarding our 

ability to get the message out about the importance of comprehensive immigration reform. That is going to continue to be a problem, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

and you can really help us if you redouble your efforts to focus on 

these recalcitrant nations. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Ms. BOND. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses today shedding some light on this most important topic. 

I am a career businessman. I am used to getting things done. 

When I go back to my district and Iowa citizens way, you know, 

that is really nice, these oversight hearings, it is great you are 

pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, 

but whatever gets done? Whatever gets done? So I am here to ask 

you those type of questions. 

I have heard a recurring theme today, same message, both sides 

of the aisle perhaps stated in different ways. I would like to ask 

each of you what have you heard today? What are you going to 

take away from this hearing today? Ambassador Bond, can you 

summarize for me? 

Ms. BOND. Yes, sir. What I have heard is a clear message from 

this committee, both sides of the aisle, that this is a critical issue, 

that members want to see more effort focused on getting results, 

getting people out of the country who are subjects of final order of 

removal and that you want us to use every tool at our disposal to 

make that happen. 

Mr. BLUM. Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would completely agree with that summary, and 

I would also add and thank the committee for bringing this hearing 

and your voice to this important issue. I will tell you on behalf of 

the law enforcement men and women of ICE there is nothing we 

would like to do more than remove every single person we can who 

is the subject of final order, particularly criminal aliens. 

Mr. BLUM. Most every citizen of this country agrees with what 

you just said. Now, as the businessman in me, what is going to be 

done? I think you have got the message, and that is good to hear, 

A. Now, what is the action plan? What is going to happen, anything, or is this just going to be a hearing and that is it, nothing 

is going to change? 

Ms. BOND. Sir, as Mr. Ragsdale has pointed out, it helps us in 

our efforts that we are able to point out to these countries that this 

is an issue that is receiving attention and priority broadly, not only 

in the executive branch but also in Congress and that they have 

got to deliver, they have got to show actual results and not just 

promise that they’re definitely positively absolutely going to do 

things differently. 

And so we are in regular communication with—especially with 

the countries on this list but with all of them, with all of them, and 

we will make it clear we have to see results. We do have commitments from these countries that we will, but we will be making it 

clear. If we don’t, then Congress is looking for examples of every 

tool being employed, and we are going to have to comply with that 

obviously and working with ICE because this is a joint operation. 

This is a good example of the kind of issue that requires diplomatic 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

and law enforcement and the combined effort of more than one 

agency, and we are a strong team working on this issue. 

Mr. BLUM. Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, I completely concur that —— 

Mr. BLUM. What is going to be done? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. There’s two things we’re going to do. We’re going 

to continue to refine the model so we make the most persuasive 

case we possibly can from the analytical tool that I talked about 

to make it clear when countries are in fact recalcitrant. So we’re 

going to arm the State Department with the best information possible. 

The other thing we’re doing is we are expanding our overseas 

footprint so we are not completely relying on the diplomatic side, 

but where there’s law-enforcement-to-law-enforcement connectivity 

in countries where we can work state and local governments shoulder to shoulder when we work with them on many other topics to 

try to get travel documents. So there’s a partnership both here, and 

we’re going to work abroad to get action. 

Mr. BLUM. I am frustrated because the statistic on my paper 

says since 2011 13,511 criminal aliens have been released back into 

American communities. This isn’t rocket science. I know we are 

dealing with other countries. Americans want action. They are behind you. They want you to do this. They are behind you. I don’t 

know if the administration is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but 

the American people are behind you. They want action. Thirteen 

thousand five hundred and eleven have been released back into 

American communities. We need action, not just hearings, we need 

action. 

I would like to have a follow-up hearing on this to see what action has taken place 6 months from now. And why hasn’t this action taken place in the last 5 years? We all would agree it is not 

rocket science. Thirteen thousand five hundred and eleven, why? 

Where is the holdup? Where is the block at? What is stopping each 

of you in your departments, your agencies from doing exactly what 

you heard here today and what you profess to agree with? What 

has been the blockage? Tell me so we can remove it. Let’s be honest. Tell me. 

Ms. BOND. This is a difficult situation. We are dealing with countries, all of them, and specifically with ones that consistently have 

a pattern of failing to step up and do everything that they can do 

on their side. We are pushing them for action. When we are seeing 

results, we keep pushing so that they’ll keep moving in that direction. 

But we have heard you loud and clear that the committee believes that using every possible tool has got to be something that 

is a real threat and that people are—don’t think, oh, yes, there 

they go again raising that, but that they know that we will do it 

if we aren’t seeing the cooperation that they are obliged to provide 

under international law. 

Mr. BLUM. Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So, briefly, I’ll simply say this is pressure that 

has been brought to bear over the course of years, and while it may 

not have included visa sanctions, the charter flight to India, the 

charter flight to Africa that I mentioned earlier on are successes 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

from groundwork that was laid over the last couple of years. So we 

hear you loud and clear on using every option, and we’ll work together to do it. 

Mr. BLUM. I implore you to take this message today back to your 

agencies. And my time is expired. Thank you for your insights. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

And I am sorry to be late. I was on the Floor and then had a 

markup in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and it is a busy 

today, our last day in session. So I thank the indulgence of the 

chair. 

Mr. Ragsdale, section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to formally notify 

the Secretary of State that a foreign government is denying or unreasonably delaying the acceptance of deportees, is that correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is what the statute says, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And the last time we did that was when? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I understand it’s 2001 when it was the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Attorney General. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. With Guyana, was that —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. With Guyana, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—the country of Guyana? And, Ambassador Bond, 

so the law further stipulates that when that happens, certain 

things are required of the Secretary of State. They automatically 

are supposed to occur, is that correct? 

Ms. BOND. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And can you delineate for us what are those 

things? 

Ms. BOND. Yes. If the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies 

the Secretary of State that he wants to trigger this sanction 

against a specific country, then we would decide what exactly are 

we going to do. 

In the case of Guyana, the decision was made to stop issuing 

visas to members of that government and their family members, 

spouses, and children. And it was effective. It played a role that 

this was a small government where everybody who needed to be 

part of making a decision to make a change was part of a small 

group, and it played a role that the citizens of that country, including their members of government, for them, if you had the means 

to travel, the destination was the United States. So those are factors that did help to make it very effective in that particular case. 

There are some countries where the destination for most people 

would be Europe and they would be less impacted by our decision 

not to issue a particular kind of visa. But—so, all right, our job 

then would be to figure out what is the measure you could take 

that’s going to have the biggest impact and the most likely to get 

their attention and to have the effect that you’re going for, which 

is the removal of those aliens because that’s the goal. We want 

them out of the country. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. Is one to construe—and this goes to both 

of you, and you, Mr. Ragsdale, first. Should one construe from the 

fact that the last time the head of Homeland Security provided that 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

notification to the Department of State, Secretary of State was 15 

years ago that we haven’t had a problem in the interim? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No, we certainly could not construe that. But I 

would also say it does not—one should also not construe that nothing has been done to —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—try to address the problem in the interim. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. What should be construed? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So there has been—again, if you note, the MOU 

between Consular Affairs and ICE was signed in 2011, so, I mean, 

this—the formalization of our process to identify and work on recalcitrant countries is 5 years old. 

The work to get countries off the recalcitrant country list, and 

there have been some that have come off, that’s work that’s been 

done over the —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—that period of time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—one might—if I may interrupt, and again, feel 

free to comment, Ambassador Bond, one might conclude from what 

you just said that, look, this authority or strengthening this authority through new legislation is a very crude weapon and that 

what we are trying to do is use other means of coaxing, eliciting 

cooperation from an offending nation. Would that be a fair conclusion? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would agree. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ambassador Bond? 

Ms. BOND. Yes, that’s the case. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why is that a better way to operate than just 

bludgeoning somebody over the head, we are going to shut it all 

down if you don’t do what we say? You are a diplomat. 

Ms. BOND. What we are going after —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. This is a softball question. This is the opportunity to promote diplomacy, Ambassador Bond, in 46 seconds. 

Ms. BOND. Well, I hope I don’t blow it. The—we all agree on 

what the goal is here. We want the process with every single country to be one that works automatically and smoothly, and when 

there are inevitable individual cases that are problematic that we 

have an efficient means of addressing those and resolving them so 

that we don’t have the numbers that we’ve been talking about here. 

So —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And real quickly, has that been effective from 

your point of view? 

Ms. BOND. It has been effective in a number of different cases 

where there are countries that were not taking their citizens back, 

were not prioritizing this, were not putting the resources into saying, yes, let’s figure out who is and isn’t a citizen, and now they 

are. And some of them are countries that have a lot fewer resources than countries like China —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time has expired. I would invite you to submit such a list, at least illustrative list to the committee to substantiate that. We don’t have time to pursue it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for your indulgence. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for your testimony, your longstanding service. 

Ambassador Bond, I want to thank you for your service not only 

in your current position but obviously your longstanding service in 

the Foreign Service. 

So I want to clear up a few things because we have been talking 

and you hear—I guess rarely in this committee do we get as much 

bipartisan support of using a particular tool. Some would suggest 

to use it more cautiously. I would suggest, Ambassador Bond, that 

you have used it extremely cautiously, and that is perhaps why we 

are here today. And so I mean that as a caution that you can take 

back to the Secretary and suggest that not only are we looking at 

this but we expect real progress. And by that, I know the difficulties you have with diplomacy and how it is most of the time a carrot, not a stick, but it sounds like we are using a lot more carrot 

than stick. Does that make sense? 

Ms. BOND. Yes. What we are using is the power of persuasion, 

pointing out —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, but let me just be frank is if you were speeding and you have a law enforcement officer who pulls you over for 

speeding constantly and you never get a ticket, the typical person 

will continue to speed if they never get a ticket. And for 7 years 

you have never given a ticket. You have never really invoked the 

powerful tool that is at your disposal. 

And so it sends a chilling message to many people who say we 

will listen, we will take their calls, we will be polite, but there is 

no incentive for them to take back these criminals other than being 

nice and the little bit of pressure. 

So here is what I am asking you to do is to report back to this 

committee on those that are making progress because you said if 

they are making progress, we don’t invoke it, so that would say 

that you are making progress on all those areas. We need to understand what the progress is, and even if we need to do that confidentially, we are willing to do that. Are you willing to do that in 

6 months to help us understand this a little bit better? 

Ms. BOND. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Ragsdale, you are a very eloquent speaker, and you have 

said a number of things, but let me tell you where I am concerned. 

And I love my law enforcement officers. In fact, you won’t find anybody in Congress who loves their law enforcement officers more 

than this guy right here. Here is what I am hearing from the 

ground. As much as you say, well, we are being diligent and we are 

doing it all, there is a real frustration within ICE that you are 

handcuffed with regards to actually dealing with this problem. 

And when you say that you don’t know if any of the people that 

you have released were on the terrorist watch list, that is very concerning to me that you wouldn’t check it against that because you 

said we did a full background check I think is what you said, is 

that correct? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So, no, let me be clear. If—we would have cleared 

every single release against all appropriate databases. I didn’t 

specify which ones, but I will assure you, it is also—it includes national security —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So have you released people who have been accused of murder and rape? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I know the answer so go ahead and you can —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes. So the answer is yes, and I think the thing —— Mr. MEADOWS. So how —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Those are two very, very different things. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand that, but it doesn’t make my neighborhood feel any better if you are releasing murderers and rapists 

than it would be terrorists. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. And we are as frustrated as you are, but let’s be 

clear —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—there are distinctions —— 

Mr. MEADOWS.—what do you need? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So our —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. What do you need? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Our detention authority, after the Supreme Court 

has ruled on this issue, is only for the purposes of removal. We do 

not have preventative detention. So if —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, hold on just a second because I looked that 

up because after you mentioned that I went to look it up, and it 

says that you can hold them for 6 months —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS.—if there is no reasonable likelihood of them 

being removed. Now, during that 6-month period of the Department of Homeland Security sends her a notice, there is a reasonable likelihood that they will be removed. And yet there hasn’t 

been a single solitary notice to the Department of State from the 

head of your agency. Why is that? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, again, I’m not sure I would agree with that 

characterization. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, has Jeh Johnson ever sent them a notice? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So the head of our department—so this is what 

we’ve done —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Answer it yes or no. Has Jeh Johnson ever sent 

anything to the Department of State? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Not to my knowledge for 243(d) sanctions, but, as 

you know —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Exactly. 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—there’s a 2014 letter —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—in the record —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So is —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—on this point. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So is it your testimony here today that it is okay 

to release murderers and rapists into society without doing anything about it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Absolutely not. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. And what’s also clear is —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So the point —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—what I can’t do, sir, is detain people indefinitely. 

I just want to be clear that we are proposing, you know, the fact 

with reality. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But the ruling is very clear. If —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We will —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So do I have your commitment that you will lobby 

Secretary Johnson that if you are holding him for more than 6 

months that he will make a referral to the Department of State 

—— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I have briefed the Secretary on this issue personally. That is what—one of the things that prompted the letter. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So he said he wouldn’t do that. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. He did not say that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when are we —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. In fact, I think in front of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee last week he noted that 243(d) sanctions were something that he is in fact considering. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, at one point does it get elevated to a level 

where it makes a difference? Because her testimony said is her 

number one priority is make sure that Americans abroad are safe. 

I find that very difficult—I want to make sure that Americans here 

are safe as well —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. And we —— 

Mr. MEADOWS.—and unless you are doing your job, it is not going 

to happen. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Sir, you have no disagreement. We completely 

agree. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So here is what I would ask you to do. 

Are you willing to commit—last question, Mr. Chairman. Are you 

willing to commit to start putting on the Internet the number of 

people that you release that have criminal backgrounds on a 

monthly basis? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We will certainly take that for consideration and 

talk to our folks in terms of—rolled up data, we probably could do, 

yes. We—there’s obviously some legal constraints in how much 

data we can actually put out there. 

Mr. MEADOWS. There is no constitutional problems. They are not 

U.S. citizens. I will yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

We are pleased to welcome and recognize the gentleman from 

Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Russell. And I want to thank the 

chairman and the ranking member for allowing me to sit in on this 

hearing. 

And as was mentioned at the outset, I come from the district 

where Casey Chadwick lived when she was murdered in a case 

that falls squarely in the purview of today’s proceedings. And it is 

obviously something that in Connecticut people are watching intensely and again are still very frustrated about sort of the unfolding facts that have emerged since that horrific incident occurred. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if the inspector general’s report was 

formally entered into the record for these proceedings, but I would 

ask, again, unanimous consent to have the IG’s report admitted. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. And, again, I was here for the opening testimony, and I would just say anyone who reads the IG’s report and compares it with the opening testimony, it paints a far 

different picture in terms of what the IG found. And again, they 

intend to probe deeper with a second phase in their report. 

So, for example, on page 4 of their report, you know, they kind 

of go into the nature of the integration or interaction between DHS 

and the Department of State. It is virtually nonexistent in terms 

of the picture they painted. The case of Mr. Jacques is a case 

where, again, the State of Connecticut did everything right. They 

convicted this individual for attempted murder back in 1996, 

served 16 years, was released into the custody of ICE. There were 

three unsuccessful attempts that were rebuffed by the country of 

Haiti, and a decision was made by really lower-level folks that, 

again, he should not be detained any further because there did not 

appear to be a likelihood of repatriation. Again, that was done with 

absolutely no consultation with the Department of State. 

When asked, the deportation officer’s response was that it was 

their understanding that only cases of terrorism and national security would be elevated to State for the purpose of, again, pushing 

back against, you know, that nation state. 

So I guess, again, just for the record, you know, Ms. Bond, again, 

there is no limitation in terms of State’s discretion in terms of 

using either visa suspension or letters demarche or whatever in 

terms of pushing back on an individual case, is that right? 

Ms. BOND. That’s correct. And we would engage with a foreign 

government on any individual case, as well as on the broader subject. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. So as the inspector general determined, I 

mean, there clearly is a real problem in terms of the policy level 

of awareness in terms of deportation officers and people making decisions at DHS about whether to move it up the food chain. So 

whatever the memorandum of understanding is between the two 

departments, I mean, what this report shows is just a totally dysfunctional implementation of the two departments working together in these very difficult cases. 

The other finding that they made was that the case load of the 

deportation officers in Newark, which is where Mr. Jacques was 

being supervised, was that there were three or four deportation officers assigned to approximately 37,000 released aliens. Again, a 

number of us have worked in the court systems and understand 

what that means in terms of whether you are a probation officer 

or a parole officer or a public defender. 

I mean, the notion that four deportation officers could coherently 

manage that number of cases both in terms of supervision in the 

community, as well as following up on repatriation, I mean, there 

is clearly, sir, Mr. Ragsdale, a management problem in terms of, 

you know, really creating a situation that is totally mission impossible. I mean, I don’t care how smart or capable a deportation offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25546.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

cer is. You can’t manage a caseload like that. Are they wrong or 

is that what you are seeing out there? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No, I think you have characterized that part of 

the report correctly. I mean, it is a daunting challenge. You know, 

there is certainly some recommendations in that IG report that we 

will look at very closely. That IG report did not make recommendations formally, but there are certainly some things in there that 

need to be jumped on immediately. And we are —— 

Mr. COURTNEY. So —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE.—absolutely doing that. And certainly —— 

Mr. COURTNEY. Well, the Connecticut delegation just sent a letter to Director Saldana about the fact that, you know, this is something that she does not need Congress to act on. And frankly, the 

fact that anybody who manages an agency or department wasn’t 

aware of that kind of caseload disparity, I mean, that just screams 

out dysfunction when you just look at those numbers. 

Again, the other, you know, again, finding was that there really, 

again, needs to be a change in terms of training and education of 

deportation officers. So, I mean, those two factors alone in terms 

of caseload and training just gets us to a point where we can intelligently implement the memorandum of understanding. 

If you have got a situation right now where people on the ground 

whose job it is to supervise these cases don’t know what the policies are and can’t even really intelligently do it because of overwhelming caseload, then the memorandum of understanding, it is 

just a—it is a dead letter. It doesn’t mean anything. 

And that is why, frankly, I will just tell both of you the testimony that you have delivered here today in the wake of the IG’s 

report—in my district where we saw the horrific consequences of 

a system that clearly didn’t do its job, I mean, it is almost offensive 

to listen to it because it is so divorced from the reality that the IG 

found. And obviously, you know, the consequences are something 

that are being felt by this family to this date. 

So, again, I think there is going to be legislation that is going 

to really stiffen the mandated reporting requirements between 

DHS and State because clearly that is not functioning pursuant to 

the memorandum of understanding. And frankly, your department, 

Mr. Ragsdale—I don’t mean you personally—but they have got to 

do a better job of getting this game up in terms of understanding 

what the rules are, put some metrics in place about people who 

really deserve to be prioritized in terms of their dangerous criminal 

history, and that clearly just did not happen. 

And again, I want to thank the committee for giving this case an 

opportunity to be fleshed out. And, you know, we have got work to 

do. And again, it is not partisan. The issue of immigration rises 

above that because if we can’t function in these kinds of cases the 

way—the public support for any kind of immigration system is 

going to collapse. 

I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. We thank the gentleman for being with us here 

today, and the gentleman yields back. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Ragsdale—and first, let me thank both of you for your distinguished service to our country. It is greatly appreciated. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

As you can see here today, this is not a partisan issue. This is 

an American issue. Security is absolutely paramount. And each of 

you have, in the scope of your responsibilities, an authority, a direct means to impact it. Mr. Ragsdale, you spoke that regulations 

had been issued to allow for detention exceptions in special circumstances in your testimony. And you also said that you had 

faced significant legal challenges with your department in Federal 

court, and thousands of criminals had been released as a result. 

What is the basis of the challenge that you are receiving from Federal court, and what provisions of law can Congress change to assist in solving the problem? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I think all of this has to be considered in light 

of the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. It 

applies to individuals, does not necessarily have to be citizens. So 

indefinite detention is something the Constitution does not permit. 

The—our authority to detain people, whether it’s before we have 

a removal order or after, is related to our ability to process them 

and ultimately remove them. 

Mr. RUSSELL. So what can —— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It is not for preventative detention except —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. And we understand the lengthy detentions, in fact, 

not just in terms of, you know, unauthorized aliens that are in our 

land that have committed criminal activity but we see it on a number of other issues with national security. What can Congress do 

within the scope of the Constitution and these precedents that we 

have had in the past to allow you to do your job? This isn’t the first 

time since we have been wearing tricorn hats that we have dealt 

with criminals that are illegally in our country. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, certainly this hearing is helpful. Putting 

pressure on countries abroad to issue travel documents solves the 

problem from the right angle. It is not a question of necessarily 

more detention, but it is the speed in which we can remove people. 

So I think that is particularly helpful. 

Again, I very much take the point from the Representative from 

Connecticut. There are things we can do better, and we need to redouble our efforts with the State Department to put pressure on 

countries to issue travel documents. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, in that regard with the State Department, 

now, there has been testimony here today that no real direct request from State Department have been forthcoming to address 

some of this issue, yet in April ICE director Sarah Saldana stated 

that with respect to the so-called recalcitrant countries that ICE is 

working through diplomatic channels with its partners at Department of State to increase repatriations to the previously noncompliant countries and that progress had been made. 

So my question to you, Madam Ambassador, is this. With which 

recalcitrant countries has the situation improved? 

Ms. BOND. If we look specifically at—to, for example, of the countries that Director Saldana raised specifically in letters to us this 

spring, we are seeing response from Guinea and from Liberia to resume or accelerate the removal—identification and removal of their 

citizens. There’s a team from Guinea that has arrived this week to 

finalize an MOU with the U.S. Government and to look at specific 

cases, interview specific individuals to make a determination of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

whether they are citizens and then document them. So those are 

two examples of countries where ICE has on the record—but it 

didn’t come as a surprise because we’re working together, but they 

said we are very concerned about these countries and want to see 

greater pressure brought to bear. And we are seeing the results of 

that pressure. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. Both of you I know, and you have stated 

here, and we have certainly seen the view from the members’ questioning today believe that no criminals from foreign countries 

should be released into the American public. I mean, we all believe 

that. You have stated that. And so my final question to both of you 

is what are you willing to personally do to prohibit these individuals from remaining in our country within the scope and power of 

your current position? Madam Ambassador? 

Ms. BOND. We’ve described the fact that we work very closely 

with ICE on these cases. One of the things that I want to do is to 

look at taking members of my staff and actually having them work 

directly, let’s say, at ICE so that they’re seeing the individual cases 

and considering are there elements of this where we might be able 

to take some action or are there elements of this and the other 

cases where we might be able to say to a foreign government this 

aspect of this case clearly shows that you need to take action on 

this. In other words, what I’m looking at is how can we work even 

more closely together so that where there are opportunities to move 

a case more quickly, it’ll be spotted and we can take that action. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So in addition to everything the assistant secretary said, you know, we need to make sure that every single one 

of our officers is responsible for this process, is equipped with the 

best tools to do their job. And clearly, that is with the access to 

what Consular Affairs can do but even in terms of best practices 

around the country where we have consuls located in certain cities 

that are more amenable to issuing travel documents, making sure 

that we are physically putting in individuals who appear to be— 

from a country that’s recalcitrant in front of a consular officer, and 

then also just to make sure that our guidance is fully updated. We 

will again carefully look at what the IG has done and what the follow-on report has done and make sure that every best practice is 

fully implemented. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I thank you for those answers. And while the 

formal questioning is complete, I would like to recognize Ranking 

Member Cummings for any final thoughts from today’s hearing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is abundantly clear, as I said a little bit earlier, that 

we can do better. I want to thank Mr. Courtney for being a part 

of all of this. This is one case that shows how serious this situation 

is and how, when there is failure—and I do consider there are 

some failures here, something went wrong, a lot went wrong—but 

we have got to deal with this. And I know we have the power to 

do it, and we have got to put our minds together and do better. 

So often in this committee we are divided on partisan lines unfortunately. And when we have issues where we see things in a bipartisan way, you know, which is wonderful, then I think that that 

should tell everybody something. And what it should tell you is 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

that we are very, very serious about this, and all of us have very 

genuine concerns. 

And so I am looking forward to hearing about progress. It is one 

thing to talk. It is another thing to deliver. And it is one thing to 

make excuses. It is another thing to carry out the letter of the law. 

And if the law is not sufficient, we need to know that because it 

is up to us to create those laws so that you can do what you have 

to do effectively and efficiently. 

And so I thank you two for being here, and I look forward to 

hearing about the significant progress that you will be making. 

Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. We thank the ranking member for those comments, and I would like to, you know, agree with that. We know 

it is a difficult problem, but here is a great opportunity. We have 

virtually this entire committee, we have people outside of our committee, we have broad bipartisan support to do nothing but aid and 

assist your efforts. 

What we need is a commitment that where there are roadblocks, 

where there are obstacles, with this much political will and with 

this much American public desire, there ought to be nothing that 

would stop us in a case of solving these problems. It is not insurmountable. 

And so my challenge to each of you would be within the scope 

and the authority that you have been blessed to have as officials 

in this great republic, don’t try to find ways that you can’t get 

around or just accept that as some obstacle. You have the will of 

the American people behind you. You have the help of this committee. You have the help and aid of bipartisan effort in this Congress. We cannot take no for an answer because when we do, what 

happens is that the faith of the American public in our institutions 

erodes. And if we lose that, then our problems are far greater than 

the issue that we have discussed at length here at hand. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their patience and their thorough answers. We still have work to do, and there are a lot of unanswered things that we have requested. And I would ask that you 

show due diligence to get that to us. Oft times we come to this committee and we have promises and we don’t see those reports. Please 

take due care and diligence to get that to us. But thank you for 

taking your time to appear today. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(61) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 25546.011
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 25546.012
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 25546.013
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 25546.014
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 25546.015
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 25546.016
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 25546.017
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 25546.018
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 25546.019
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 25546.020
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 25546.021
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 25546.022
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 25546.023
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 25546.024
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 25546.025
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 25546.026
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 25546.027
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 25546.028
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 25546.029
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 25546.030
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 25546.031
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 25546.032
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 25546.033
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 25546.034
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 25546.035
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 25546.036
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 25546.037
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 25546.038
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 25546.039
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 25546.040
92 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 25546.041