U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

58–223 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–599 

REVIEWING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO THE 

REFUGEE CONVENTION: THE REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 19, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., A U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 68 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ......... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 5 

WITNESSES 

Giantonio, Patrick, Executive Director, Vermont Immigration and Asylum 

Advocates, Burlington, Vermont ......................................................................... 9 

Glickman, Dan, President, Refugees International, Washington, DC ................ 7 

Timofeyev, Igor V., Associate, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 11 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Patrick Giantonio to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ........ 22 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement .................... 35 

American Civil Liberties Union, Laura Murphy, Director and Joanne Lin, 

Legislative Counsel, Washington, Legislative Office, Washington, DC, joint 

statement .............................................................................................................. 47 

American Jewish Committee, Richard T. Foltin, Esq., Director, National and 

Legislative Affirs, Office of Government and International Affairs, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California, Hastings 

College of the Law, San Francisco, California, statement ................................ 56 

Church World Service, Erol Kekic, Director, Immigration and Refugee Program, New York, New York, letter ..................................................................... 67 

Frelick, Bill, Refugee Program Director, Human Rights Watch, New York, 

New York, statement ........................................................................................... 70 

Giantonio, Patrick, Executive Director, Vermont Immigration and Asylum 

Advocates, Burlington, Vermont ......................................................................... 77 

Glickman, Dan, President, Refugees International, Washington, DC ................ 88 

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Melanie Nezer, Senior Director, 

Washington, DC, statemenet .............................................................................. 94 

Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center, Mary Meg McCarthy, 

Executive Director, Chicago, Illinois, statement ............................................... 101 

Human Rights First, Washington, DC, statement ................................................ 107 

Immigration Equality Action Fund, Washington, DC, statement ....................... 113 

International Rescue Committee, Washington, DC, statement ........................... 116 

Karadaghi, Pary, President, Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Inc., Fairfax, 

Virginia, letter ...................................................................................................... 121 

Lamm, Carolyn B., American Bar Association, Washington, DC, statement ..... 122 

Letter of Support, Signed by 86 organizations and 97 individuals ..................... 129 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Washington, DC, statement ........ 145 

Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 147 

Miller-Muro, Layli, JD, MA, Executive Director, Tahirih Justice Center, Falls 

Church, Virginia, statement ................................................................................ 153 

Page

IV 

National Association of Immigration Judges, Dana Leigh Marks, President, 

San Francisco, California, statement ................................................................. 160 

Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Massachusetts, statement ............... 165 

Refugee Women’s Network, Inc., Decatur, Georgia, statement ........................... 169 

Survivors of Torture International, San Diego, California, statement ............... 171 

Timofeyev, Igor V., Associate, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 173 

United Nations High Commissoner for Refugees, Washington, DC, statement . 179 

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Washington, 

DC, statements ..................................................................................................... 181 

(1) 

REVIEWING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO 

THE REFUGEE CONVENTION: THE REFUGEE 

PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Room 226, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Franken and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everybody. Welcome, and thank 

you for being here. 

Before we get to the hearing, and because a number of members 

of the press have asked me, I am announcing that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the confirmation hearing on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of 

the United States Supreme Court beginning on June 28. We will 

do that so that the hearing can be concluded before the July recess. 

I have reached out, of course, and talked with Senator Sessions, 

the Committee’s Ranking Republican, to discuss the scheduling of 

this hearing. We met again yesterday. I will let Senator Sessions 

speak for himself. 

I am sure some would like more time. On the other hand, some 

would like to do it earlier. But we did work cooperatively to send 

a bipartisan questionnaire to the nominee last week, something 

sent from both Senator Sessions and myself, and we received the 

response yesterday. 

Yesterday, the two of us also joined in sending a letter to the 

Clinton Library asking for files from the nominee’s work in the 

White House during the Clinton Administration. Of course, I will 

continue to consult with Senator Sessions on that material as we 

get it. 

I know that we gained a lot of respect for the conduct of the 

Sotomayor hearing and for the Roberts hearing. I would like to follow that example, because last year we proceeded with the hearing 

on the nomination of Justice Sotomayor 48 days after she was designated. This year, I am scheduling the Kagan hearing 49 days 

after the nomination was announced. 

2 

Justice Stevens, of course, announced on April 9 that he would 

be leaving the Court. He noted, quote, ‘‘It would be in the best interest of the Court’’ to have his successor appointed and confirmed 

well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next term. 

I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Stevens; it is in the best of 

the Court and, of course, of the country. 

One person criticized this nomination, saying she has not been 

a judge and does not have years of opinions to be considered. Well, 

actually, that should make preparing for a hearing less labor-intensive and must make it easier. 

But she was confirmed just a year ago for Solicitor General, so 

much of this material we looked at when we considered her record 

last year. She was then, by a bipartisan majority vote, confirmed 

to serve as the Solicitor General of the United States, a position 

often called the tenth justice. 

This last weekend, a number of Republican Senators said that 

Solicitor General Kagan’s answers at the confirmation hearing 

were going to be the key. I would encourage everybody to come to 

the hearing with an open mind, listen to her answers to those 

questions. We will make sure that every Senator, on both sides of 

the aisle, have ample time to ask the questions they want. 

But, also, the hearing will allow the American people to evaluate 

this nominee. The hearing is an opportunity for all of us to ask 

questions and raise concerns and evaluate the nomination. 

The Supreme Court justices are there serving, representing all 

300 million Americans, but the Senators are the only 100 Americans who get to vote one way or the other on this nomination. And 

on this Committee, we are the ones that have to vote first. Then 

the Senate has to vote. I think that every one of us has to take that 

responsibility seriously, standing in lieu of 300 million of our fellow 

Americans. 

President Obama handled the selection process with the care the 

American people expect and deserve. He has met with Senators 

from both sides of the aisle. 

I suggested to the President what I have suggested to every 

President, Republican or Democratic, to look for somebody outside 

the judiciary monastery. He did. Some of these experiences were 

not limited to those in the Federal appellate courts. 

So I will note that the President has consulted. We asked him 

to, and I am glad he has. 

Before I make my statement about the hearing we have today, 

let me yield to Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, you have been very gracious 

with your time, and we have talked about this on a number of occasions and had a very productive and cordial meeting yesterday to 

go into some depth about your vision for the hearings and mine. 

And I think, fundamentally, we share the view that we should 

conduct a thorough and effective examination, one that fulfills our 

constitutional role and makes the Senate proud, so that we can 

proud of it, that we have fulfilled our responsibilities. 

Senator Kaufman has noted that we get along remarkably well 

around here, but sometimes we just disagree about how things 

ought to be done. 

3 

I know that we had asked that we be able to have the hearing 

after the recess just to give our colleagues more time to study the 

record and maybe prepare their remarks and the questions they 

would like to ask. But the pace would be consistent with last year’s 

Sotomayor hearing, but we had a shorter time period. The President did give us an extra 2 weeks this time to consider the nomination. 

I told him and I have told Senator Leahy that I thought we could 

reasonably complete this hearing before the August recess. It is 

what the President asked me at the White House and I told him 

I believed we could do that and I committed to try to achieve that. 

We will try to do our best to conduct an effective hearing, even 

if I would have preferred a little more time. 

I would say this. Clearly, a Supreme Court nominee for any seat 

is exceedingly important. The American people are concerned about 

their Court. They are concerned about effectiveness of law in America. They are concerned that constitutional principles are being 

eroded; that we are not recognizing the fact that our government 

is a limited government. 

And we can have a fine nominee in many different ways, but if 

they are not committed to the limited role of a Federal judge, if 

they are not aware that they must serve, as their oath says, under 

the Constitution, not above it, then they are not qualified to serve 

on the bench. 

So this will be the nature of the inquiry. I hope it is a high level 

inquiry. We will discuss judicial activism, faithfulness, the plain 

words of the Constitution, and I expect it to be a vigorous and important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things I appreciate is you renewed 

your commitment that we would have a good 30-minute first round. 

I appreciate you doing that. That does allow more engagement with 

the nominee. 

I do not think it was abusive last year in any way with 

Sotomayor, and I think we should do that again. So I think we 

have started off on a pretty good basis. 

I look forward to working with you within the realms of what we 

can agree on and what we may not be able to agree on to complete 

the process before the August recess and in a way that makes the 

Senate and our country proud of how we have conducted the hearings. 

Chairman LEAHY. I appreciate those kind words I think both you 

and I realize that Senators do have to have time to ask questions. 

I do not think anybody is going to waste time asking repetitious 

questions, and we will make sure they have that time. 

To tell the rest of you, I did suggest, semi-facetiously, to Senator 

Sessions that we should do the hearing as a field hearing in 

Vermont. At that time of the year, it would be nice, but I do not 

think that is going to be possible. 

So all the members of the press who are already getting their expense accounts ready to go to Vermont for a week—that is not 

going to happen. 

Now, on today’s hearing, earlier this year, we marked the 30th 

anniversary of the Refugee Act. In the years since that landmark 

legislation was enacted, the law has evolved in ways that place, I 

4 

believe, unnecessary and harmful barriers before genuine refugees 

and asylum-seekers. 

So I introduced the Refugee Protection Act of 2010, S. 3113. It 

brings the United States into compliance with the Refugee Convention. It will restore our Nation as a beacon of hope for those who 

suffer from persecution around the world. And I thank Senators 

Levin, Durbin, Akaka, and Burris for joining as cosponsors. 

I supported the Refugee Act in the 96th Congress. I voted for it 

when it passed the Senate. When the Senate debated the bill, Senator Ted Kennedy, the longest-serving member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in history, spoke of his dual goals to welcome 

homeless refugees to our shores, thereby embracing one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation’s history. The Act 

gives statutory meaning to our National commitment to human 

rights and humanitarian concerns. 

We lost Senator Kennedy last year, but we can honor his memory in one of America’s greatest traditions by carrying forth the 

mantel of refugee protection. 

Our Act corrects misinterpretations of law that limit access to 

safety in the United States for asylum-seekers. The legislation contains provisions from a bipartisan bill I introduced in the 106th 

and 107th Congresses to correct the harshest and most unnecessary elements in the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996, because that law had tragic consequences for asylum-seekers. 

Finally, our current proposal modifies the immigration statute to 

ensure that innocent persons with valid claims for protection are 

not unfairly barred from the United States by laws enacted after 

September 11, 2001 to prevent terrorists from manipulating our 

immigration system. 

I think we can do both. We can correct the law and protect refugees without diluting the bars to admission for dangerous terrorists 

and criminals. 

In the years since the Refugee Act was enacted, over 2.6 million 

refugees and asylum-seekers have been granted protection in the 

United States. I am proud that my home State of Vermont, a state 

of only 660,000 people, assisted asylum applicants with their requests for protection and we welcomed refugees through resettlement programs. 

More than 5,300 refugees have been resettled in Vermont since 

1989 from countries as diverse as Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Sudan, 

Bosnia, and Vietnam. 

One of our witnesses today is Patrick Giantonio, Executive Director of Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates. He is one of 

many Vermonters who put in countless hours and days and evenings and weekends to help victims of persecution win protection 

and build new lives in our state and our country. And I cannot 

thank you enough for what you do—what you do for them, what 

you do for the state. 

I want to also welcome Dan Glickman, who was recently appointed the President of Refugees International. Dan has been a 

friend for decades. We worked together when he was a member of 

the House of Representatives, when he served as Secretary of Agriculture in the Clinton Administration; more recently, as President 

of the Motion Picture Association of America. 

5 

He has devoted years of his life to fighting hunger and advocating for under-served populations, and now he has taken on a 

new challenge in protecting refugees around the world. 

And our third witness will be Igor Timofeyev. Did I come close 

to pronouncing that right? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. It was perfect, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Mr. Timofeyev served as a Special 

Advisor on Refugees and Asylees at the Department of Homeland 

Security during the Bush Administration. Of course, we welcome 

him. 

Our nation is a leader among the asylum-providing countries. 

Our communities have embraced refugees and asylum-seekers, welcoming them as Americans, and our laws should reflect America’s 

humanitarian spirit. 

I know that is what brought my maternal grandparents from 

Italy to the United States and Vermont, and so many of us, our 

grandparents or great-grandparents. 

Senator Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to talk about this important issue. We 

are, as a nation, a beacon of hope for many across the globe who 

have suffered unspeakable injustices, many who have had their 

lives threatened. 

I am proud to live in a nation that is so welcoming of those who 

are facing persecution. America is a leader in the world in that 

issue, and we do provide safe haven to so many who their lives 

may be threatened. 

I note that for 2010, the number of people who could be allowed 

into the country as refugees is 80,000, as refugees. This speaks to 

the generous nature of our immigration system. Probably 10 percent of the people who enter our country, at least, are asylees or 

refugees, and I believe this policy will help change the lives for a 

lot of those people in a dramatic way. 

Over 5,000 refugees, for example, have been resettled by the 

Catholic Social Services Refugee Resettlement Program in Alabama 

in recent years. The goal of this program is to assist refugees in 

becoming independent, self-sufficient, self-supporting members of 

the community, and I am proud of the work that they have done. 

I also think that we have some particular responsibility to those 

who suffer for battling for freedom in their countries, particularly 

those who have been in some way allied with the United States 

and whose lives are at risk for those very qualities. 

So we can be proud of our history, but we need to be diligent in 

our analysis of any proposal that seeks to change the law by which 

people are admitted into the United States. 

The legislation recently introduced by our Chairman seeks to 

amend many aspects of the current program. That piece of legislation is the basis for this hearing, and I am grateful that we have 

the opportunity to hear what this panel has to say. 

I do have concerns about some of the provisions in the legislation 

and I hope we can gain insight today. 

6 

I want to point out a few provisions that are problematic to me. 

As we read it, the bill would change the definition of asylum-seeker 

to include any alien who simply indicates an intention to apply for 

asylum, regardless of how long they have been in the country or 

how frivolous their claim might be; and, indeed, we do have a lot 

of frivolous claims. 

We have a number of people who, for one reason or another, desire to come to the United States and they seek to use this vehicle 

to place themselves ahead of the normal process. And I am not saying that may not have had some difficulties back home, but it may 

well not reach the definitional level of an objective and good statute 

with regard to refugees and asylees. 

This provision that I refer to could have massive implications for 

our court system. The legislation also seeks to eliminate the current law that mandates a 1-year waiting period after arrival before 

an alien can seek asylum. 

We recently dealt with this issue in another piece of legislation, 

but that bill kept the 1-year waiting period, and it did pass out of 

this Committee. So we did not change it in our previous reform effort. 

This bill would allow, in addition, any alien to apply for asylum 

at any time after arriving in the United States, which could place 

an even heavier burden on our overwhelming caseload for USCIS. 

The bill would grant lawful permanent resident status, permanent resident status, to refugees upon admission, a dramatic departure from the 1 year they must currently wait while background 

checks are completed. 

These provisions would make it much more difficult to terminate 

the status of an alien who committed fraud. Once they become a 

legal permanent resident, they are given quite a number of legal 

rights, if they came into the country as a refugee or asylee. 

Now, I understand the desire to quickly and efficiently process 

legitimate cases, but these changes will lead to increased fraud, I 

am certain, in these categories of visas and further add to the already substantial backlog that we are wrestling with. 

The most troubling provision in the bill seeks to dramatically 

modify the definitions of those barred from entering the country 

based on the involvement in a terrorist organization, either directly 

or through offering material support, by revising the definition of 

terrorist activity so that it no longer applies solely to conduct considered criminal in the alien’s country of origin or the United 

States. 

The bill would bar admission only to conduct that is designed to 

coerce or intimidate, and, also, punishable as a crime. This is a 

change in the law. 

Furthermore, the bill seeks to eliminate the bar to spouses and 

children of those who are knowingly involved in terrorist activities. 

These are some of the concerns I have. I look forward to working 

with the Chairman and our Committee to see if we can make constructive suggestions. But I would just say it is a fact that we have 

almost 100,000 people a year, 10 percent-plus, probably, people 

lawfully entered into our country who come under one of the programs of asylee or refugees. 

7 

I think that we should have that kind of—I am not necessarily 

complaining about that number. In some years, that is probably 

well justified. What I do say is that it is a program that can be 

abused. It had a good bit of abuse, and we do need to make sure 

that the processes work effectively to provide entrance to those who 

are legitimately entitled to it and can identify those who are not. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. As I mentioned in my 

opening statement, Dan Glickman recently became President of 

Refugees International. He served in the House of Representatives 

for 18 years; was Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton; 

and always worked to combat hunger and protect vulnerable populations. 

I told Secretary Glickman that I felt Refugees International was 

lucky to have him join their ranks. 

I thank you for your service on behalf of refugees, and the floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, PRESIDENT, REFUGEES 

INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you very much, both Senator Leahy and 

Senator Sessions, for hosting this hearing and for your kindness to 

me in the myriad roles I have had over the last several years. 

I recall a meeting in Senator Sessions’ office on I think it was 

film piracy not too long ago. And, of course, we have one of the 

great film stars of all time in Senator Leahy. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Let me say, I have been involved in this great organization for only about six weeks. So this is the first time I have 

had a chance to testify on these issues. 

Largely, Refugees International deals with the conditions and 

plight of refugees and displaced people worldwide, and focusing on 

the humanitarian problems that they deal with. 

This legislation largely deals with domestic issues, and we are 

also very concerned about that and we have a few things that we 

want to add to the debate. The U.S. has a long and proud history 

of providing protection to refugees, including the Hmong refugees 

who fought with us in Vietnam, Soviet Jews, Iraqis who were displaced during the U.S.-led war, and others who seek an opportunity to rebuild their lives. 

After September 11, shifts in security procedures and admission 

requirements contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of 

refugees admitted to our country. We went from 100,000 per year 

through the early 1990s to fewer than 27,000 in 2002. 

However, since that time, there has been an upward trend, I 

think, as Senator Sessions talked about. In 2009, we admitted 

about 75,000 refugees. But I believe the United States, the world’s 

leading humanitarian actor, the leader in the world on these 

issues, can continue to do better. 

This bill will help us do the right thing by creating a more efficient and fair process for providing safe haven for the world’s most 

vulnerable, and we can do this—and I want to emphasize this as 

a former member of the House and former government official—we 

can do this without compromising our ability to keep bad actors 

8 

from entering the country, because that is, obviously, one of the 

great challenges that we have to deal with. 

There are four provisions of the bill that I want to highlight 

today, but I want to particularly emphasize the issue of statelessness, which is my last point. 

I assume the entire statement, written statement, will appear in 

the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. It will. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. So one provision will enable the Secretary of 

State to designate certain refugee groups eligible for an expedited 

admissions process. Today, anyone trying to find refuge here must 

prove refugee status, even if we know he is an Iraqi who helped 

the U.S. fight against Saddam Hussein or that person has spent 10 

years in a Chad refugee camp. 

The ability to give certain groups refugee status will allow expedited interviews and streamlined consideration for admission to the 

U.S., and, meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security can 

focus on each individual’s admissibility and security issues rather 

than on reestablishing that each individual meets the refugee definition. 

Another critical provision will prevent victims of terrorism from 

being defined as terrorists. Through unintended consequences of 

the USA PATRIOT Act, our country denies entry and protection to 

thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers with bona fide claims. 

Our staff travels the world often and meets with men and women 

who have been terrorized into giving what little they have to armed 

groups. That does not make them terrorists. 

As a former Member of Congress, I understand the delicate balance between national security and our obligation to help the neediest. This bill does not change or undermine our ability to keep 

anyone out of the country if we believe them to be a threat. 

It just prevents us from automatically turning away the most 

harmed individuals, those who are often the victims of terrorism. 

The legislation will also require an annual review to ensure that 

grants provided to help settle refugees will cover the true costs involved. 

Finally, I want to talk about the bill’s provision to address one 

of the most compelling and least understood and, yet, solvable global issues that relates to what we are talking about today, and that 

is statelessness. 

There are an estimated 12 million people worldwide who do not 

have claim to any nationality. It is an existentialist nightmare. 

They are more vulnerable than refugees due to their near total lack 

of ability to exercise their human rights. 

Currently, there is no pathway for the 4,000 stateless people in 

the U.S. to gain lawful status, and this bill would allow them to 

apply for legal permanent residency here and obtain the right to 

a nationality. 

My statement refers to a case of a woman named Tatianna, who 

was born in the former Soviet Union, came to this country because 

of political repression; and has no country because of the change 

in citizenship laws after the Soviet Union broke up. 

9 

She has to check in with the Department of Homeland Security, 

but she never knows what might happen when she goes to DHS 

and lives in fear that she could be arbitrarily jailed. 

She is a person without a country. There are about 4,000 of those 

in the United States, an eclectic group of people from all different 

parts of the world. There is no one place that necessarily a majority 

come from. 

And we are delighted to see that this bill provides a way for 

these people to enter the chain to get their status as a permanent 

resident or ultimately a refugee, defined. 

This is a matter of great personal distress to a lot of families who 

are truly people without a country. 

I thank you very much for allowing me to testify, and my entire 

statement goes into much greater detail on everything I have said. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glickman appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I appreciate. I have read the statement, and 

I appreciate having it. The example you use is, unfortunately, not 

the only person who has that same or has a similar type of history 

and one of the things that we want to correct. 

I am glad to have my fellow Vermonter, Patrick Giantonio, here. 

Not all Italian-Americans in Vermont have to have the first name 

of Patrick, but the two of us do. 

He is the Executive Director of Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, formerly Vermont Refugee Assistance; a graduate 

of Goddard College. He has worked with the legal needs of asylumseekers, refugees and immigrants for more than 15 years; fully accredited representative under the Board of Immigration Appeals; 

1984 to 1989, lived and worked in Central and East Africa and, I 

think probably as a result, speaks KiSwahili—sorry, you can pronounce it better than I can—and French; basic level competence of 

Lingala—and I have no idea what that language is. 

He is a cofounder of New England Survivors of Torture and 

Trauma Program. 

I thank you for being here, and it is good to see you again. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK GIANTONIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

VERMONT IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ADVOCATES, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Thank you, Senator. I would like to give my 

deepest thanks to you, Senator Leahy, and, also, to the Senate Judiciary Committee for inviting me to testify before you today. 

It is a great honor to be here and to testify in support of the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. This bill, I believe, will usher in practical, secure, and much needed changes to our refugee and asylum 

systems. 

On this 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, it is an appropriate time to pause and reflect on just who these asylum seekers are and why we should care about them. It is also a time to 

reaffirm our commitment to maintain an asylum system that welcomes those who have fled persecution and torture. 

This was the case for one of our clients, a 29-year-old mother of 

three from the Republic of Congo, who was arrested, detained, acVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:23 Sep 28, 2010 Jkt 058223 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\58223.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
10 

cused of anti-government activities because of her ethnicity, tortured and raped repeatedly by military officers for more than a 

year before escaping and finding her way to the U.S. to seek asylum. 

Most of these individuals never planned or intended to come to 

the United States. Their path to security is often a frightening epic 

journey that leaves their loved ones and all they have known behind. 

These are the asylum seekers that we are talking about and why 

the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 is so important to pass and sign 

into law. 

Regarding the 1-year filing deadline, most individuals in this 

room will likely recall that the 1-year deadline to apply for asylum 

was enacted in 1996, with the original intention of preventing 

fraud, such as the filing of frivolous asylum claims, to delay removal and gain a work authorization, as well as to address the 

substantial backlog, which, by 1994, had reached approximately 

425,000 cases. 

Actually, though, by 1996, INS had already implemented procedures that addressed issues of fraudulent applications and imposed 

new restrictions on work authorizations for asylum seekers. 

Importantly, the legislative intent in 1996 was very clear that 

the 1-year filing deadline should not bar legitimate asylum applicants from receiving protection. 

In 1996, Senator Orrin Hatch assured the Senate with the following quote—‘‘I am committed to ensuring that those with legitimate claims of asylum are not returned to persecution, particularly 

for technical deficiencies. If the time limit is not implemented fairly, I will be prepared to revisit this issue in a later Congress,’’ end 

quote. 

Reasons for late filing of an asylum application can be related to 

fear of revealing the basis of the persecution, such as domestic or 

sexual abuse, sexual orientation, lack of counsel, trauma related to 

torture, or loss of family and home. 

The application of the 1-year rule has been rigid and has led to 

a constellation of unintended consequences both for applicants and 

for the asylum system. Thousands of meritorious asylum claims 

have been denied protection and returned into the hands of their 

persecutors simply because of not meeting the 1-year filing deadline. 

Many of those who were denied asylum were then granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, both of which require a higher standard of proof than asylum. 

It is indisputable that the 1-year filing deadline has been needlessly contributing to the enormous burden and backlogs of our 

crippled immigration court system. Repealing the 1-year filing 

deadline would increase efficiency and save resources, increase the 

level of protection for asylum seekers, and maintain the U.S. commitment not to return bona fide refugees to persecution. 

In closing, I believe that the changes proposed in the Refugee 

Protection Act are a very sensible and comprehensive package of 

much needed changes to law that will restore and ensure integrity 

and true protection in our refugee and asylum systems, without 

compromising security. 

11 

Maintaining integrity and efficiency in these systems should not 

be a Republican or Democratic issue. Our commitment to welcome 

refugees who have fled their homeland should also be nonpartisan. 

By passing this bill and offering fair treatment and safe haven 

to refugees, we can illustrate to the world and to our own citizens 

our strength, our confidence, and our compassion. Most importantly, we should continue, through our laws and through our actions, to be the spire of light that elicits hope and safety as we embrace and welcome the persecuted into our homes, our cities, and 

our communities. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I believe this bill moves 

us forward decidedly toward achieving these goals. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giantonio appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, and thank you for coming down to testify. 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Timofeyev 

served as Special Advisor on Refugees and Asylees at the Department of Homeland Security during George W. Bush’s Administration. 

What I did not mention earlier, he originally came to the United 

States as a refugee. He is currently an associate at the law firm 

of Paul, Hastings. 

We welcome you here today. Thank you for coming by. 

STATEMENT OF IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, ASSOCIATE, PAUL, 

HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Thank you. Chairman Leahy, Senator Sessions, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today about the 

Refugee Protection Act of 2010 and about the United States’ policy 

with respect to refugees and asylees. 

I offer my views as the former Special Advisor for Refugee and 

Asylum Affairs and the former Director of Immigration Policy at 

the Department of Homeland Security, positions I held between 

February 2006 and October 2008. I would like to note, moreover, 

that I appear here today in my personal capacity. 

As a nation founded by immigrants, the United States has a 

proud history of welcoming individuals who sought to escape political, religious, or ethnic persecution. Historically, the United States 

has been the largest recipient of refugees in the world, accepting 

more refugees than all other countries combined. 

I am proud to count my own family as a part of this heritage. 

My great-grandfather and his family arrived in the United States 

around the turn of the 20th century as Jewish immigrants from 

Russia, seeking to escape then-rampant anti-Semitism. 

My immediate family and I made a similar journey about a century later, when we left the then-Soviet Union to seek asylum in 

the United States. 

We must remain a welcoming home to refugees and asylum-seekers. But we must ensure that the immigration law remains a useful tool in our counterterrorism and immigration enforcement efforts. 

12 

The executive branch must retain the flexibility to deny admission to the United States to dangerous individuals who belong to 

or support terrorist organizations. The executive agencies must 

also be able to remove expeditiously from the United States individuals who do not have a valid protection claim. 

Finally, our refugee program must be able to react to unexpected 

events, such as a sudden refugee crisis abroad. 

In my view, many provisions of the proposed legislation would 

deprive the Executive of the necessary flexibility in ths areas, and 

many of the bill’s aims can be accomplished within the existing legislation. 

I will focus on the following examples: the terrorism inadmissibility provisions, the detention and removal procedures, and the 

requirements pertaining to the U.S. refugee program. 

With respect to the first, the bill would make two profound 

changes. First, the bill would eliminate the concept of undesignated 

Tier III terrorist organization. Second, it would exempt from a definition of material support any activity committed under duress. 

The current law, however, already provides the Executive with 

authority to exempt individuals covered by these provisions from 

the terrorism inadmissibility bars. Both the Bush and the Obama 

Administrations have exercised this authority. 

The proposed changes would, however, restrict the Executive’s 

ability to respond to the rapidly mutating nature of terrorist 

threats. Terrorist organizations form, break down, and regroup 

without much notice, and their exact identity may not become 

known until well after the fact. 

A formal designation process would not be able to keep up with 

the shifting identities of the terrorist world. Similarly, the Executive would no longer be able to evaluate the case-specific circumstances of duress claims—something permitted by the current 

waiver process. 

Many of the bill’s provisions with respect to immigration detention and removal are commendable goals, such as the establishment of secure alternatives to detention or the provision of quality 

medical care. 

These standards, however, are best effectuated through administrative guidelines. Thus, I question the wisdom of codifying in law 

DHS’s five-months-old parole policy for individuals in immigration 

detention, rather than giving DHS the opportunity to evaluate the 

effectiveness of that policy and to modify and improve it if necessary. 

The Committee should also consider the resource implications of 

some of the provisions, such as the immigration court review of parole determinations or the relaxation of review standard for removal orders. These provisions risk further burdening the already 

taxed immigration courts and Federal courts of appeals. 

Finally, I would recommend against transforming the annual 

Presidential determination as to refugee admissions into a rigid 

goal instead of a flexible ceiling. While the United States should 

seek to admit as many individuals in need of protection as possible, 

a strict legislative quota would limit the Executive’s ability to respond to unanticipated refugee crises and ignores security and political contingencies of refugee processing. 

13 

As we strive to maintain and improve refugee and asylum programs, we should not limit the Executive’s ability to adjust these 

programs as required by circumstances. 

This is particularly important given these programs’ close interrelationship with the issues of national security and immigration 

enforcement and the need to react quickly to humanitarian crises 

abroad. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to share my thoughts 

on ths important issues. I thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Sessions for your attention to this issue. I refer the Committee to my 

full written statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Timofeyev appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. And all of the full statements will 

be placed in the record. 

I would also like to submit to the record a letter coordinated by 

Human Rights First, with 180 organization and individual signatures, in support of the Refugee Protection Act, and the statements 

of a number of refugee and asylum groups, the Advocates for 

Human Rights, American Jewish Congress, Amnesty International, 

Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human 

Rights First, Human Rights Watch, International Rescue Committee, Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Lutheran Immigration and 

Refugee Service, National Immigrant Justice Center, Physicians for 

Human Rights, Refugee Women’s Network, Survivors of Torture 

International, Tahirih Justice Center, the United Nations High 

Commission for Refugees, and others. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me begin, Mr. Giantonio, with you. The 1- 

year filing deadline was deemed unnecessary by the Immigration 

and Nationality Service back in 1996, when it was enacted. Then 

at the INS, and now at DHS, we have asylum adjudicators who are 

trained to root out fraudulent or frivolous applications, and they do 

identify some that are fraudulent or frivolous. 

In practice, the 1-year deadline has unnecessarily barred genuine 

applicants from gaining the benefits of our asylum law. 

My question is this. You have vast experience representing asylum seekers before the agency. Are you aware of cases in which the 

1-year deadline prevented genuine asylum seekers from winning 

protection, and how would repeal of the deadline affect your clients? 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Thank you, Senator. My response to your question is a definitive yes. I am aware of many, many, a multitude of 

cases nationally that have been denied asylum because of the 1- 

year filing deadline. And as I said in my oral statement, many 

cases have then been granted withholding of removal or protection 

under the Convention Against Torture, which, as I said, has a 

higher standard of proof. 

So it is very clear that, nationally, many asylum seekers are 

being denied asylum and many also have been returned into the 

hands of their persecutors simply due to not meeting the 1-year filing deadline. 

14 

The second part of your question, what—and, excuse me, can 

that be rephrased? Was it what—— 

Chairman LEAHY. If you repealed this deadline, how would that 

affect your clients? 

Mr. GIANTONIO. In a real world picture, the way that would affect our clients is that many of our clients—when I meet with an 

individual who is applying for asylum, the first thing that I tell 

them is that this is going to be one of the most rigorous processes 

that you are ever going to go through in your life and be prepared 

for that. 

Many of our clients are—the impact on many of our clients of the 

1-year filing deadline is that individuals who come to us, if they 

are close to filing, if they are close to being in the United States 

for 1 year, for most attorneys and advocates, they have to work 

very quickly to try and assemble a very thorough case and it does 

not do the applicant any good, it does not do the advocates any 

good, as well. 

I think that repealing that 1-year filing deadline—as I said, the 

reasons why the 1-year filing deadline was enacted were really resolved years ago by 1996. 

Also, the original Congressional intent of the 1-year filing deadline has really been violated by returning individuals into the 

hands of their persecutors. 

There is also—as I had said in my oral statement, there are multiple processes to detect and prevent fraud in the—— 

Chairman LEAHY. As I said in the question, the asylum officers 

are trained to do that, because some do try to file frivolous applications, but they are usually pretty easy to weed out. 

Mr. GIANTONIO. They are trained and I think that one thing that 

is important to note is that while this year is the 30th anniversary 

of the Refugee Act, it is also the 20th anniversary of the development of the enactment of the Asylum Corps. And the Asylum Corps 

and the Asylum Office is a very effective and efficient way to adjudicate asylum claims. 

Chairman LEAHY. Secretary Glickman, you spoke of the overly 

broad definition of material support to terrorist organizations and 

talked about how somebody who has actually been a victim of the 

terrorist organization, coerced to assist the organization, is then 

barred from protection as refugees. 

Senator Kyl and I worked together in 2007 to give DHS the authority to provide waivers and exemptions in material support 

cases. It requires Federal agencies to examine individual organizations, to find out whether there is an overly broad definition of terrorist. 

Now, you served 18 years in the House. You know the legislative 

process as well as I do. Can we redraft the statute in a way that 

would allow for genuine refugees and still prevent supporters of 

terrorism from entering the U.S.? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Senator, I think we can. I think your bill actually 

does that. I recognize the complexity of the balancing of interests 

here to ensure that we do not open the door to people who would 

want to do great harm to our country and by the way, most refugees have been such for years and years under horrendous conditions. 

15 

The ability to analyze their individual cases to determine if they 

are eligible or not, I think, can be done under the legislative model 

that you have proposed. The current process has not been implemented very quickly and I think your legislative proposal does a 

lot to try to regularize that. 

But it is important to recognize that your legislation will not in 

any way open the door to terrorists coming into this country. The 

standards for our government to review these people on an individual basis would be unchanged. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, Mr. Timofeyev, you mentioned the waiver 

and exemption authority to the material support bar. Those 

amendments were written by Senator Kyl and myself. 

You are correct in saying the implementation of the waiver process has been slow; 6,000 cases are still stuck in limbo. That is why 

I tend to disagree with you that a change in the statute is unnecessary. 

But I think there is one area we should agree on. You mentioned 

the waiver authority can be improved for individuals in immigration court proceedings. 

What are some of the things that they could do to improve it? 

Assuming we keep with the present law, what are some of the 

things we could do to improve it and get past that 6,000 case backlog? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to note that I 

agree with Mr. Glickman that, I think, in this area, you have to 

proceed very carefully because of the important considerations of 

national security. 

And I think whenever you have a provision in the law which is 

admittedly broad, it also means it gives the government a broader 

or better ability to actually keep the people who we do not want 

in this country out. 

With respect to your immediate question, I agree, as you mentioned, that the waiver process should have been implemented faster. I think, particularly, from 2006, when I was in the Bush Administration, we slowly put that process underway. 

I think now the executive has significant history, significant experience in how to operate that process in a way that comports 

with national security, but allows admission and application of 

waivers to deserving individuals. 

I think with respect to, specifically, immigration court processing, 

one suggestion I would make, which I do not believe is yet the case, 

is I think there should be a way to allow for an adjudication of 

these waivers early in the process, not waiting until an individual 

who is in removal proceedings has his final order of deportation. 

I think it should be feasible to have a system where the consideration of whether or not that individual is eligible for a waiver of 

material support of other terrorist admissibility bars can be made 

early in the process. 

I think that is one concrete suggestion that under the legislation 

that, as you mentioned, you and Senator Kyl worked on, the executive currently has authority to do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Sessions. And then Senator Franken 

is going to take over for me, because I have to go back to the floor. 

You remember those days, Dan. 

16 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have got too many leadership 

roles in the Senate. And we would be glad to take a few of those, 

if you would like to give any away. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. A few crumbs for the opposition. 

Chairman LEAHY. The subtlety of that offer. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Timofeyev, I appreciate your experience 

as Director of Immigration Policy and Special Advisor for Refugee 

and Asylum Affairs at DHS, and I know President Bush believed 

in and supported lawful immigration and was generous about it. 

But let us talk about—first, would you share with me as succinctly as you can, I do not want to delay my colleague, but the 

practical difficulties that are presented to our governmental representatives when someone appears and says ‘‘I am an asylee’’ or 

‘‘I am a refugee, let me in, and I want to be an American citizen? ’’ 

As a practical matter, is there a need for some clarity in our 

legal requirements for that? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Senator Sessions, I agree. I think you spotted 

one of the significant problems in asylum processing and then in 

this bill. 

The problem is that right now, as you, Senator, know fully well, 

we have still a tremendous pressure on the southern border, because of illegal immigration. And while we need to have measures 

in place where individuals who are legitimate can come in and seek 

asylum, we also should realize that it is very easy for someone to, 

as you put it, just show up and say: ‘‘Look, I would like to seek 

asylum.’’ 

So I think the difficultly is when you are presented with an individual who arrives at the checkpoint or who is apprehended even 

trying to illegally cross the border, you often have no idea who that 

individual is, what is his identity, whether he really is a legitimate 

seeker from persecution or whether he wants to come into the U.S. 

because of economic or other reasons. 

And I think it is tremendously difficult, particularly for members 

of the Border Patrol or Customs and Border Service to make those 

evaluations. Indeed, they often cannot. 

The measures that currently are in place is when someone shows 

up and he exhibits a fear of returning to his country, they call a 

professional asylum officer who does a very preliminary screening 

and then that individual, if the screening indicates that, indeed, 

the individual may have such a fear, is referred to the immigration 

court system, where a more formal cross-adversarial process 

can—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Just to interrupt. So if a person, even at the 

southern border, is apprehended unlawfully crossing, if they say ‘‘I 

am seeking asylum’’ or ‘‘I am a refugee. I will be under threat if 

you return me home,’’ what does a young Border Patrol officer do 

at that point? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. He has to then refer that individual to a member of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Asylum Corps and 

then an asylum officer will perform what is called a credible fear 

screening, which evaluates—does a surface evaluation of—whether 

that fear is genuine. 

17 

It is not meant to be a full asylum adjudication. It is meant to 

be kind of a preliminary threshold glance. And over the years, 

many of the individuals who indeed showed up and said ‘‘I am 

afraid to return’’ were referred to the credible fear screening. 

The asylum officer then concluded that the fear was really not 

genuine. So I think that indicates to you—certainly, it indicated to 

us, when I was in the government—that many of these preliminary 

claims are, indeed, not the valid ones. 

Senator SESSIONS. And then once that—let us say the officer 

found that was not a legitimate claim and they say ‘‘You must be 

deported,’’ can they appeal that? Is there any appeal from that? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Yes. There is a system of expedited removal, 

which allows for a faster removal of such individuals from the 

United States. 

And so I think there is some limited appeal from that. I think 

that is what allows the border authorities to extradite those people 

quickly outside of the country. 

An individual who does have a credible fear screening, he is then 

referred to the immigration court system for a more thorough evaluation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Then a trial of some kind can occur. We have 

got thousands of cases, I understand, pending around the country 

on these kind of matters, do we not? Do you have any idea what 

the number might be? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I do not know, Senator. I do not know the exact 

number. I do know that a lot of studies have been conducted recently by the American Bar Association, which showed a great 

magnitude of cases within the immigration court system. 

I can also speak from personal experience that there are a lot of 

immigration cases in the Federal courts of appeals. I have clerked 

for a judge, now chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, and it is one circuit that has a tremendously crushing workload of immigration 

cases. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is a difficult thing and to the extent— 

I think we have to recognize that every person that is threatened 

in their home country, every person that is a member of an ethnic 

group that is not being fairly treated, every person that is in a political party that is losing out and under pressure cannot be automatically admitted to the United States in unlimited numbers, or 

you could have the situation of Iraq or Afghanistan. 

If those wars go badly and Taliban takes over, we could have 

millions of people who would be under some danger perhaps because they work with us. 

Reality tells us that we are not able to solve every problem in 

the world and we have high duties and responsibilities to be an effective advocate for people who are being oppressed. 

I am sure you felt like President Bush was aggressive in standing up for the oppressed around the world. I thought he was. 

But at any rate, it just puts numbers and pressures on us that 

we have to be honest about. Most people do not like to talk about 

it, but we have to be honest about it. 

What can we do? How many can we accept? Canada has some 

good provisions, I think. They set aside a certain number of their 

slots each year for those who are asylum seekers and are proud of 

18 

their heritage, like we are. It is not a whole lot different, I think, 

than ours. 

With regard to the terrorist matter, this legislation does change 

the law. Under current law, the wife of or children of Osama Bin 

Laden or leaders of Hezbollah or Hamas cannot be admitted to settle in this country. 

So the bill, as we read it, would repeal or eliminate this bar. It 

does allow—the current law allows the Executive Branch the discretion to waive this if it is unjust or excessive in the situation. 

And maybe I will ask all of you all. Am I incorrect at that, No. 

1? And No. 2, do we really want to eliminate this bar since we 

know we cannot allow everybody into the country and would we not 

do well to be more cautious about those who associated with terrorists activities? 

Mr. Glickman. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. As I understand it, Senator, what this bill would 

do would—right now, if you are on the waiver list, the government 

can look at these on a case-by-case basis. 

Basically, if you are not on that list, you are automatically disqualified. So what the bill would do is it would simplify the waiver 

authority. So if you are in this particular class, you would be eligible for entry as a refugee, but you would still have to go through 

all of the individual basis for determination of whether you can 

come into this country or not. 

This bill would not permit anybody automatic entry in the 

United States. You still have to go through all of the security processes, fingerprinting. Refugees are often the most reviewed and inspected people of any immigrants in this country. 

I think the concern has been the current process, the waiver authority is slow and episodic and has not resulted in any kind of 

clear way, and people have been held back unnecessarily. 

So what we are saying is if you are in a group of people, you 

ought to be eligible and not have to prove were you persecuted. But 

you still must go through the vetting process. That is unchanged. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Giantonio, would you like to comment on 

that? 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Excuse me, Senator. I think I will just defer that 

question to Dan Glickman. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. And, Mr. Timofeyev. 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Senator Sessions, I think right now, under the 

current law, if someone is a member or provided support to an organization which has not been formally designated by name, that 

individual is inadmissible, unless there is a waiver. 

And the waiver is applied in two ways. They currently apply to 

groups that we looked at and we said, ‘‘Look, these are really 

groups that are freedom fighters,’’ for example, like the Alzados 

who fought against Fidel Castro in Cuba. 

These are groups that the U.S. supported. So if you are a member of that group, if you provide support to them, you can come into 

the U.S. automatically. 

The waivers also apply to any member or any individual who 

provided support to an undesignated Tier III group under duress. 

So all of those individuals can automatically come in. 

19 

Under the proposed legislation, I think the biggest problem is 

that these individuals who provided support to undesignated 

groups will no longer be barred. So the government will have to 

know who are the terrorist groups that exist, what is their name, 

and they will have to put them on the formal Tier One or Tier Two 

list. 

And the problem is that we quite often do not know the exact 

identity of a terrorist group. So I think it is a question of—I view 

it really as a question of default. I think the default is that the individuals who belonged to or provided support to organizations that 

have engaged in violent activities that we believe are likely to be 

terrorists, these individuals are inadmissible. 

We can evaluate the circumstances, either individual circumstances of an applicant or the circumstance of a specific group, 

and we can waive them into the country. 

So the result, I think, will be the same. The individuals whom 

we do want to come in, who are genuine refugees, we will allow 

them. But it provides a better way for the Executive, I think, to 

manage the process and to guard against individuals whom we 

really do not want. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would note, for example, as I understand it, the Pakistani 

Taliban who attempted to do the bombing in New York was a part 

of the TTP, which was not designated as a terrorist, and Senator 

Schumer is demanding to know why they were not. But the government is not always able to keep up with that. 

Secretary Glickman, it is great to see you. Thank you for your 

leadership in so many ways and you giving your time to this effort. 

It is something Americans believe in, and we just—I would like to 

see the system work better and more effectively. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

I think you kind of answered—and it is good to see you, Secretary Glickman. Do you want to speak to the Ranking Member’s 

concern that the Bin Laden family might be allowed in? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Well, my judgment is that our government, 

Homeland Security, the intelligence agencies, are going to ensure 

that anybody who is a serious threat to this country is not going 

to be allowed in. 

The issue here is one really of shifting the burden a bit. If you 

are part of a Secretary of State designated refugee group, then you 

should not have to prove individually that you have been persecuted. Under the current waiver process, there is still that individual determination that is made whether you are a legitimate 

part of that persecuted group. 

But then after that, you still have to go through all of the rigorous steps that anybody else would have to go through to get in 

this country under refugee status. 

So I appreciate your perspective there. I think we can actually 

work this out. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. Mr. Glickman, I heard a terrible story 

about an Ethiopian woman who was a client of a refugee agency 

group in my state. She was suffering from depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, which is common for people who have 

20 

been put through some of the awful things that asylum seekers 

have been put through. 

While she was applying for asylum, she was detained for over a 

year in a prison where she literally never saw the outdoors and 

was commingled with the general convicted population. 

Are these kinds of conditions common and what will this bill do 

to improve them? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Senator, I cannot speak to the overall set of circumstances here, but I can tell you that one of the issues that we 

have talked about are the issues of people who come here under 

various conditions and have no country. 

They are stateless people. They may have been born into a place 

where there has been an evolution of management of that country. 

And they are totally lost. They are in an existentialist nightmare. 

There are millions of stateless people worldwide, almost 12 million; but in the U.S., there are about 4,000. This woman may be 

in that status. I do not know. 

And one of the things we are recommending in this legislation 

is these people get a path to residency and citizenship. I do not 

think there is anything terribly controversial about that, but that 

is a group of these people that you are talking about. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, let me ask Mr. Giantonio about that. Is 

this common, these kind of conditions, and would this bill do anything to address that? 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Thank you, Senator. Our organization has 

worked in immigration detention since about 1993, and being detained in an immigration detention facility is one of the most difficult things that most people go through in their lives. 

Even after having been traumatized in their own countries, they 

come into the United States seeking protection and they are retraumatized by being detained in jail-like conditions. 

There are a few jails that we work in, one jail in northeast New 

York State, Clinton County Jail, and there are a couple—so to answer your question, yes. The bill would—one of the things that the 

bill would do is to codify the detention standards to put some teeth 

into detention standards, which are very much necessary, because 

what we have seen has really been a deterioration of conditions in 

jails. 

There are a couple quotes that I have from a couple of our clients 

and this was—in 2008, we did a series of interviews with individuals, but we are always looking at detention conditions in our jails. 

A couple of the quotes—‘‘I did not eat for 3 days, could not talk 

and was crying all the time.’’ Another person, ‘‘I was spitting blood 

for 3 days and never saw the doctor.’’ Another person, ‘‘I was verbally abused when I did not feel well enough to clean my room.’’ 

We are all aware of the DHS reforms that Secretary Napolitano 

introduced last fall. And what I wanted to say here today, and I 

asked my colleagues, who actually work and do legal rights presentations in our jails, if they have seen any reform since last year 

and the question is a definitive, ‘‘No, we have not seen any reforms 

yet.’’ 

The conditions are terrible. The telephone systems are byzantine. 

Families are charged enormous amounts to be able to—— 

Senator FRANKEN. And will this bill address that? 

21 

Mr. GIANTONIO. The bill does address, again, putting teeth and 

codifying the detention standards. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Advocates in my state have explained that refugees or applicants for asylum will often adopt distant relatives or even the children of neighbors, because war, famine or some other catastrophe has left these kids totally abandoned. 

This bill allows those orphans and separated children to enter 

the country to join their adopted families. Mr. Giantonio, can you 

tell me about what is currently happening to these children? 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Again, I think I will defer that question to Secretary Glickman. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. And I am going to have to defer back to you, because I just do not know. 

Mr. GIANTONIO. So the question is about—I will take a shot at 

it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, my understanding is they are essentially 

being denied entry into the United States right now and that this 

will would help rectify that. 

Mr. GIANTONIO. Senator, I am not prepared to respond to that, 

but I think that we could respond in writing sometime in the near 

future. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Let me ask just a general question 

for Mr. Glickman. Do you think that on the whole, our current 

asylee and refugee system complies with our obligations under the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? 

Under that law, we have an obligation to provide all non-citizens 

due process and fair deportation procedures. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I am certainly no legal expert in this area. As a 

personal matter, I think that we can improve upon the current situation that we are in. 

I was just listening in your discussion before. I am recalling, 

from my old profession and your old profession, the movie ‘‘The Visitor.’’ Do you remember that, with Richard Jenkins, about the 

young man who—— 

Senator FRANKEN. A great movie. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. And it demonstrated—— 

Senator FRANKEN. We are not doing movie reviews here, but—— 

Mr. GLICKMAN. But it demonstrated the human side. The mother 

was an American citizen or she was a resident, she was here legally, and the conditions during the deportation process were very, 

very difficult, indeed. 

But look, I think most of our folks who are administering these 

policies do the best that they can under the circumstances, but I 

think we can do better. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you to all the witnesses. The 

record will remain open for a week, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

22 


58223.001
23 


58223.002
24 


58223.003
25 


58223.004
26 


58223.005
27 


58223.006
28 


58223.007
29 


58223.008
30 


58223.009
31 


58223.010
32 


58223.011
33 


58223.012
34 


58223.013
35 


58223.014
36 


58223.015
37 


58223.016
38 


58223.017
39 


58223.018
40 


58223.019
41 


58223.020
42 


58223.021
43 


58223.022
44 


58223.023
45 


58223.024
46 


58223.025
47 


58223.026
48 


58223.027
49 


58223.028
50 


58223.029
51 


58223.030
52 


58223.031
53 


58223.032
54 


58223.033
55 


58223.034
56 


58223.035
57 


58223.036
58 


58223.037
59 


58223.038
60 


58223.039
61 


58223.040
62 


58223.041
63 


58223.042
64 


58223.043
65 


58223.044
66 


58223.045
67 


58223.046
68 


58223.047
69 


58223.048
70 


58223.049
71 


58223.050
72 


58223.051
73 


58223.052
74 


58223.053
75 


58223.054
76 


58223.055
77 


58223.056
78 


58223.057
79 


58223.058
80 


58223.059
81 


58223.060
82 


58223.061
83 


58223.062
84 


58223.063
85 


58223.064
86 


58223.065
87 


58223.066
88 


58223.067
89 


58223.068
90 


58223.069
91 


58223.070
92 


58223.071
93 


58223.072
94 


58223.073
95 


58223.074
96 


58223.075
97 


58223.076
98 


58223.077
99 


58223.078
100 


58223.079
101 


58223.080
102 


58223.081
103 


58223.082
104 


58223.083
105 


58223.084
106 


58223.085
107 


58223.086
108 


58223.087
109 


58223.088
110 


58223.089
111 


58223.090
112 


58223.091
113 


58223.092
114 


58223.093
115 


58223.094
116 


58223.095
117 


58223.096
118 


58223.097
119 


58223.098
120 


58223.099
121 


58223.100
122 


58223.101
123 


58223.102
124 


58223.103
125 


58223.104
126 


58223.105
127 


58223.106
128 


58223.107
129 


58223.108
130 


58223.109
131 


58223.110
132 


58223.111
133 


58223.112
134 


58223.113
135 


58223.114
136 


58223.115
137 


58223.116
138 


58223.117
139 


58223.118
140 


58223.119
141 


58223.120
142 


58223.121
143 


58223.122
144 


58223.123
145 


58223.124
146 


58223.125
147 


58223.126
148 


58223.127
149 


58223.128
150 


58223.129
151 


58223.130
152 


58223.131
153 


58223.132
154 


58223.133
155 


58223.134
156 


58223.135
157 


58223.136
158 


58223.137
159 


58223.138
160 


58223.139
161 


58223.140
162 


58223.141
163 


58223.142
164 


58223.143
165 


58223.144
166 


58223.145
167 


58223.146
168 


58223.147
169 


58223.148
170 


58223.149
171 


58223.150
172 


58223.151
173 


58223.152
174 


58223.153
175 


58223.154
176 


58223.155
177 


58223.156
178 


58223.157
179 


58223.158
180 


58223.159
181 


58223.160
182 

Æ 


58223.161