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

98–487 PDF 2016

ANOTHER SURGE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS 

ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER: 

IS THIS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S 

NEW NORMAL? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Serial No. 114–60 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

GARY MERSON, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 5 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 7 

WITNESSES 

Brandon Judd, President, American Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE), National Border Patrol Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

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

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

Wendy Young, President, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 77 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Questions for the Record from Brandon Judd, President, American Federation of Government Employees ....................................................... 80 

Response to Questions for the Record from Steven C. McCraw, Director, 

Texas Department of Public Safety .................................................................... 82 

Response to Questions for the Record from Jessica M. Vaughan, Director 

of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies ............................................ 86 
Page

IV 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Border Security. This material is available at the Subcommittee and can also 

be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104402. 
(1) 

ANOTHER SURGE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS 

ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER: IS THIS 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S NEW NORMAL? 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Gowdy, Labrador, Smith, 

Conyers, Lofgren, and Gutierrez. 

Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel; Tracy 

Short, Counsel; Tanner Black, Clerk; (Minority) Gary Merson, 

Chief Counsel, and Maunica Sthanki, Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good morning, this is the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. This is a hearing on another surge of 

illegal immigrants along the southwest border. Today’s date, 

Wednesday, February 4, 2016. The Subcommittee will come to 

order without objection. The Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone to today’s 

hearing. 

I would also just let everyone know kind of up front that the witnesses deserve to be heard and the Members deserve to ask their 

questions, and I do not anticipate any outburst or disorderly conduct, but my patience with that is zero. So this will be the one and 

only warning in that regard. 

I will recognize myself for an opening. I will then recognize the 

Ranking Member. I want to let all of our witnesses know how 

grateful I am that you are here. I will need to leave to go next door 

for another hearing, but you will be in much more capable hands 

when I leave than you are currently, so it is no reflection on any 

of the witnesses. I will come back when I am able to do so. 

Once again, we are witnessing a crisis at our southwest border 

as thousands of unaccompanied minors and adults are coming to 

the United States. 

In 2014 we witnessed a massive wave of illegal immigration 

when over 68,000 unaccompanied minors and an equal number of 
2 

family units crossed our southwest border. In the past few months, 

the number of unaccompanied alien minors unlawfully entering the 

U.S. soared to over 17,000, and the number of family units increased to 21,000. If these trends continue, it is projected there will 

be a 30 percent increase in the record high numbers we witnessed 

in 2014. And those numbers in 2014 alone were alarming and concerning. 

Secretary Johnson testified before the Appropriations Committee 

the message we are sending to people crossing the border is you 

will be sent home. Either that message has not been communicated, or it has not been received because the border crossings, 

the unlawful border crossings, continue. 

This Administration claims these aliens are flooding our border 

to flee violence and poverty in their native countries and our government cannot do anything to stop it. However, based on their 

own intelligence reports, this Administration’s policy of non-enforcement is, in fact, sparking the surge in the first instance. 

Based on a report, nearly 60 percent said it was the Administration’s immigration policies that influenced their decision to come to 

the United States. These are the same reasons provided by aliens 

who entered in 2014, and the vast majority of these aliens remain 

in the country today. In other words, no adequate steps have been 

taken to halt the surge or discourage aliens from attempting to 

enter the United States. We must at some point send a clear message to potential unlawful immigrants that discourage entry into 

our country. That would be in the best interests, frankly, of everyone. 

Border patrol agents are currently prevented from initiating removal proceedings against aliens who are unlawfully present simply because there is not enough detention space to hold them. Lack 

of space is especially problematic when entire family units cross 

the border unlawfully. Ninety-eight percent of aliens in removal 

proceedings are not detained nor are they removed. Additionally, in 

order to place aliens in removal proceedings, agents are required 

to observe aliens physically crossing the border. Oftentimes, upon 

being approached by a border agent, aliens will claim to have been 

in the United States since January of 2014 despite the high improbability of such a claim. 

This not only threatens our national security and public safety, 

it also endangers those unaccompanied minors risking their lives 

to travel to the United States. In hopes their children will arrive 

safely from Central America, current unlawful aliens residing in 

the United States are paying thousands of dollars to criminal organizations to transport their children across the border. These 

human smugglers have histories of alliance and allegiance with 

Mexican drug cartels and gangs. These children’s lives are at risk 

during their journey to the United States, but it does not stop 

there. They also face dangerous situations upon arrival to the 

United States. 

A recent Senate report found the Administration failed to properly conduct background checks on all persons with whom minors 

are placed, resulting in children being placed in the hands of abusive and exploitive sponsors. One account even found these children 

working as slaves on a farm. 
3 

In the words of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner, we could very well be seeing the new normal. And let me 

add this new normal is not acceptable at any level. A sovereign 

country is entitled to control who gains access to this country, how 

that access is gained, and in what capacity that access is gained 

and the duration of such access. 

Legal immigration is a privilege this country conveys upon the 

terms and conditions that it sets. Illegal immigration is just that. 

It is illegal, and the motivations for such unlawful acts do not mitigate the criminality or diminish our responsibility to take care that 

the laws be faithfully executed. Actions have consequences. Actions 

send messages. Inaction has consequences as well, and the message 

seems to be if you can get here, no matter the method, you can 

stay. And that is wrong for everyone involved and most significantly the fellow citizens we take an oath to serve. Certain border 

states refuse to wait for action by an unwilling Administration. The 

Texas legislature, for example, has appropriated $800 million over 

2 years to combat the proliferation of smuggling and trafficking of 

aliens and drugs through Texas’ southwest border. 

So I will look forward to hearing from our witnesses from Texas 

to expand on that state’s efforts to handle the surge. However, we 

should not leave the states to employ their own regulations. Securing the border and ensuring the safety of our citizens is a Federal 

responsibility. So I thank the witnesses for their appearances 

today. I look forward to hearing from each one of you, and with 

that, I would recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are in the midst 

of a global refugee crisis, including in our own hemisphere. Women 

and children from the Central American Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are coming to our 

borders seeking safe haven. And contrary to the Ranking Member’s 

description of this as illegal immigration, in fact, our immigration 

laws provide for the possibility of asylum if you are fleeing violence 

and seeking safe haven in the United States. 

Violence in these countries is paralyzing communities, preventing children from attending school, adults from earning a living, and even making public transportation a life-threatening endeavor. According to the Washington Office on Latin America, El 

Salvador’s 2015 murder rate reached a level of violence not seen 

since the end of the country’s civil war: 6,650 homicides in 2015 in 

a country of 6.3 million people, was approximately a 70 percent increase over 2014, making it the most violent country in the hemisphere. El Salvador has the second highest murder rate in the 

world, just behind Syria. 

It is literally an epidemic by the World Health Organization’s 

definition. And Honduras and Guatemala are not far behind. 

Honduras’s murder rate is in the top five in the world, 10 times 

the world’s average, and Guatemala’s is in the top 20. 

A 2015 report by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, found that women in particular face a startling degree of violence in the Northern Triangle including rape, assault, 

extortion, and threats by armed criminal groups. One study estimated that over 80 individuals who came to the United States and 

were returned to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, have 
4 

been murdered since January of last year. Violence pervades every 

facet of life in the vast areas of these countries. 

According to data shared by the Department of Homeland Security, 85 percent of Central American families who arrived since 

summer of 2014 and have been detained, establish threshold eligibility for refugee protection. The continued surge of Central American mothers and children at our southwest border is a humanitarian refugee issue, and not an illegal immigration phenomenon. 

Some would have us believe that desperate women and children 

arriving and giving themselves up to Border Patrol officers shows 

that we are in a porous or uncontrolled border situation. But what 

is actually uncontrolled is the violence in these countries, not our 

borders. Very few, if any, of these women and children are eluding 

the Border Patrol in making their way into the interior of our country. Rather, they are immediately apprehended at our border, detained, and removal proceedings are initiated. 

Yet our strategy of family detention, Spanish language communication campaigns in Central America urging people not to come 

to the United States, and financial assistance to Mexico to deter arrest and return those fleeing violence, has proven to be ineffective, 

and I am afraid that my colleagues want more of what has not 

worked: more deterrence, more border enforcement, more detention, more deportation. But until the situation in Central America 

is successfully addressed, desperate Central American mothers and 

children are going to continue to flee to the United States and seek 

protection. The refugee crisis in our hemisphere will only be resolved when the United States joins with other Nations in the 

Western Hemisphere in a comprehensive regional solution. 

This should include refugee screening and resettlement, use of 

safe havens and appropriate third countries, not only the United 

States, a temporary protected status for those individuals in the 

U.S., the use of priority refugee processing, and other humanitarian remedies. It is critical that this approach include cooperation 

with other countries in the Western Hemisphere. 

The violence in the Northern Triangle of Central American and 

the resulting refugee flow affects our entire region, and the United 

States’ solution should include a regional refugee resettlement program, as well as increased capacity building of asylum systems in 

neighboring countries, not just the U.S. 

For these reasons, I am pleased with the Administration’s recently announced recognition that many Central American qualify 

as refugees under international law, and that we will be partnering 

with UNHCR to resettle refugees from El Salvador, Honduras, and 

Guatemala. I am cautiously optimistic that the use of third country 

temporary processing centers will provide protection for those who 

are unable to remain in their home country during the refugee 

processing period. 

These are important and constructive steps toward a comprehensive regional refugee solution to address violence in the Central 

American region. However, this new Central American refugee resettlement program must not be used as a justification to deny or 

deter refugees from seeking asylum protection under our immigration laws here in the U.S. The U.S. has continued to be a beacon 

of safety and refuge for those seeking protection from persecution. 
5 

This new Central American refugee program should be an expansion of our efforts to provide refuge, not a substitute for existing 

asylum processes. 

Women and children fleeing violence are a vulnerable population, 

and they should be treated with heightened sensitivity, awareness, 

and comprehensive access to counsel. We have a moral, as well as 

domestic and international legal obligation, to ensure that no mother or child is sent back to a country where they face torture or 

death. Every effort must be made to ensure that this vulnerable 

population has access to counsel and full due process protections 

prior to deportation. 

I think it is well past time to start working toward a solution 

that provides a practical and humane response to the mothers and 

children from Central America fleeing for their lives and seeking 

safety and protection. 

I would just close by noting that so many of the Members of this 

Committee have declared themselves to be pro-life, and I think this 

is an instance where those representations about being for life 

should be brought to the forefront. If we care about babies, we 

should care about 10-year-olds who are facing death if returned 

home, and I hope that this hearing will help enlighten us as to that 

issue, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman, the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia. The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Record numbers of unaccompanied alien minors and adults traveling with minors are again surging across our southern border, overwhelming 

Federal and state resources, creating a border security nightmare, 

and ensuring record profits for the criminal organizations that control the drug and human smuggling and trafficking business along 

the border. More than 152,000 unaccompanied minors and families 

are projected to illegally cross our southwest border this year. 

Some estimates project the number to top 177,000, the population 

of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This would surpass the previous high 

mark in 2014 by nearly 30 percent. 

These minors, more than two-thirds of whom are between the 

ages of 15 to 17, travel thousands of miles from Central America 

through dangerous desert areas controlled by Mexican drug cartels, 

and arrive at our southern border with tried and tested instructions from the smugglers leading them. ‘‘Find the first Border Patrol agent and claim asylum.’’ This narrative is repeated thousands 

of times over, and there is little doubt that with every successful 

entry and reunification, it encourages thousands more to illegally 

enter and further degrades our border security. 

We saw a similar surge of mass illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors and adults from Central America in 2014. Tragically, many were killed, assaulted, kidnapped, and extorted during 

their journey by the criminal elements that operate with impunity 

south of our border. This surge will undoubtedly produce similar 

victims. 

Despite these tragic consequences of non-enforcement, there are 

no lessons learned by this Administration. A leaked DHS intelligence report shows the Obama administration’s lax immigration 
6 

policies are fueling this current surge. During July through September 2015, customs and border protections agents interviewed 

345 family units apprehended at the border. Nearly 70 percent said 

they had heard that if they came to the United States, they would 

be released, or receive some sort of immigration relief, such as asylum. Additionally, nearly 60 percent said it was the U.S. immigration policies that influenced their decision to come here. The unresponsiveness by President Obama to this clearly foreseeable crisis 

is truly shocking. 

His instructions to Federal law enforcement agencies? Stand 

down. In some Border Patrol sectors, agents report that they are 

not allowed to initiate removal proceedings against criminal aliens 

who do not have a felony conviction. Aliens convicted of misdemeanors, and those who have pending felony charges, get a free 

pass. Agents also report that they are not authorized to initiate removal proceedings against adult aliens after apprehension at the 

border if no detention space is available. This is outrageous. Such 

aliens are supposedly the Obama administration’s number one priority for removal. And such a policy is a beacon call for foreign nationals to cross our border undetected, including those who would 

do us harm. 

There is no doubt that terrorists from ISIS-controlled countries 

are taking note of the lack of border enforcement. They have publicly announced they will infiltrate this country posing as refugees. 

Rather than taking even minimal steps to stem the flood of illegal 

immigration by simply allowing Federal and state law enforcement 

agencies to do what they do best, enforce the law, the Administration sent the commissioner of customs and border protection to the 

southwest border to survey the calamity. 

His response? ‘‘We could very well be seeing the new normal.’’ 

Americans do not want our government to throw up its hands and 

capitulate to the masses of foreign nationals illegally surging 

across our borders, as though it is inevitable. They want us to address the problem head on and solve it. It is not complicated. The 

President simply must have the will to secure our border. 

But the grave consequences of the President’s failed immigration 

policies extend beyond the debacle at the southwest border. They 

continue into the homeland. The custody and care of unaccompanied minors is entrusted to the Department of Health and 

Human Services, which places minors in the custody of qualified 

sponsors. Troubling reports indicated that HHS failed this most 

basic responsibility to place minors in a safe and secure environment. It did not properly screen prospective sponsors in several 

cases, resulting in minors being placed in the hands of human traffickers who exploited, threatened, and forced the minors to work. 

More concerning is the fact that HHS systematically failed to 

conduct adequate background checks on the household members. 

And even if a background check revealed a felony conviction for a 

sponsor, it would not preclude the placement of the minor. 

No crime is a per se bar to placement. This is deplorable and unacceptable. These failures highlight the irony of the Administration’s misguided immigration policies. They encourage waves of illegal immigration by Central American minors who are victimized 

by criminal organizations along the way, only to arrive in the 
7 

United States and suffer further harm because of the failure of this 

Administration to ensure their proper care. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on these important issues, and I thank them for appearing before the Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chairman yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And top of the morning 

to all of my colleagues. This morning, we are here to discuss the 

plight of thousands of refugees fleeing violence and persecution in 

Central America, the vast majority of whom are mothers and children. These desperate individuals are arriving at our southern border seeking refuge and humanitarian assistance in an effort to escape gang violence, violence toward children, domestic violence, 

and widespread political corruption. Unless we take immediate action to address these root causes of humanitarian crisis, refugee 

mothers and children from Central America will continue to suffer 

and seek refuge on our shores. 

Among the measures we should undertake are the following: to 

begin with, we must first recognize that this crisis is humanitarian 

in nature, and not just a border security problem. It is a crisis that 

demands a regional response. 

Secondly, this response should ensure that Central American 

mothers and children are able to live free from an endless cycle of 

violence and persecution. And third, we should partner with other 

Nations in the hemisphere to provide durable resettlement solutions. 

The new program just announced last month by the State Department, with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is a very encouraging step. This program will 

provide resettlement options for families within Central America 

and in other countries in our hemisphere. Addressing the crisis in 

the region will help desperate mothers and children avoid the dangerous journey through Mexico to the United States as the principle means of escape. 

In addition, we must address the root causes of the humanitarian 

crisis. Resettlement solutions, whether in the United States or with 

the regional partners, are only a Band-Aid to an ongoing crisis of 

violence here at Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, generally referred to as the Northern Triangle. 

Human rights organizations and Federal agencies agree that life, 

particularly for women and children in the Northern Triangle, is 

perilous. Murder rates in this region have the unwelcome distinction of being the highest in the world. But we should not lose hope. 

This crisis, while intractable, is not irreversible. We must assist 

the Northern Triangle in tackling the root causes of this violence, 

and help it create safe and economically-stable societies, such as 

through targeted foreign assistance and capacity building. Only 

then will the humanitarian crisis at our border truly subside. 

And finally, we must recognize that even a fully developed regional solution will not prevent all Central American refugee mothers and children from arriving at our southern border. We have a 

moral as well as legal obligation to provide asylum seekers the op-
8 

portunity to apply for humanitarian protection. Mothers and children requesting protection in the United States are not engaging 

in an illegal act. Rather, they are following our well-established 

asylum laws. 

The legislative proposals that this Committee has considered this 

Congress are not the answer, because they would only result in 

mass deportation of vulnerable refugees. Deporting Central American refugee mothers and children to a region struggling with a 

major humanitarian crisis is, in my view, simply un-American. It 

reminds me of deportations to Haiti at the height of the post-earthquake cholera epidemic. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. 

And so, I thank the witnesses for their presence and participation here today. I thank the Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LABRADOR [presiding]. Thank you. We have a very distinguished panel today. I will begin by swearing in our witnesses before introducing them, if you would please all rise. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you all, please be seated. 

First, I will introduce Mr. Brandon Judd. Mr. Judd is a Border 

Patrol agent and serves as president of the National Border Patrol 

Council, representing more than 16,500 Border Patrol line agents. 

He brings with him nearly 20 years of experience as Border Patrol 

agent, fluency in Spanish, and a thorough understanding of the 

policies effecting border security. Judd started his career as a field 

agent in 1997. Thanks for being here today. 

Next we have Mr. Steven McCraw. Mr. McCraw is the director 

of the Texas Department of Public Safety. He began his law enforcement career with DPS in 1977, as a trooper in the Texas Highway Patrol, and later as a DPS narcotics agent until 1983, when 

he became a special agent with the FBI. He served in Dallas, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Tucson, San Antonio, and Washington, D.C. In 

2004 McCraw retired from the FBI to become the Texas Homeland 

Security director in the Office of the Governor, where he served for 

5 years. Thanks for being here. 

Next is Ms. Jessica Vaughan. Ms. Vaughan currently serves as 

the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. She has been with the center since 1992, where her expertise 

is in immigration policy, and operations topics such as visa programs, immigration benefits, and immigration law enforcement. In 

addition, Ms. Vaughan is an instructor for senior law enforcement 

officer training seminars at Northwestern University Center for 

Public Safety in Illinois. Ms. Vaughan has a master’s degree from 

Georgetown University, and earned her bachelor’s degree in international studies at Washington College in Maryland. 

And last but not least is Ms. Wendy Young. My Wendy Young 

is president of Kids in Need of Defense, KIND. She has spent more 

than two decades advocating for strong U.S. immigration and refugee laws, policies, and practices. Prior to joining KIND, Ms. 

Young worked for Senator Edward M. Kennedy as his chief counsel 

on immigration policy for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

Ms. Young is a graduate of Williams College and holds JD and MA 

degrees from the American University. 
9 

Each of the witness’ written statements will be entered into the 

record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her 

testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, 

there is a timing light in front of you, as you all are, I think, are 

pretty much aware of it. And the light will switch from green to 

yellow, indicating that you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it indicates that the witness’ 5 

minutes have expired. And I recognize all of you to give your testimony. Mr. Judd. Is his microphone one? Microphone? I am not sure 

your microphone’s on. 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE), NATIONAL 

BORDER PATROL COUNCIL 

Mr. JUDD. Okay, sorry. As I was in church this past Sunday, my 

mind was preoccupied about this hearing and my testimony. I was 

thinking about what I could say to shed light on this current situation when one of the basic tenants of my religion’s faith came to 

mind. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and 

magistrates and obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 

All religions that I am aware of believe in rules, tenants, and 

commandments. It is not different with the laws of the United 

States. When persons, whether citizens or not, follow the laws of 

this great Nation, peace and prosperity abound. However, when 

those laws are broken on a large-scale, chaos is the byproduct, and 

make no mistake, chaos defines parts of our southwest border 

today. 

Human and narcotic smugglers are constantly evolving to maintain or grow their profits. Unlike the Border Patrol, these criminal 

cartels operate without bureaucratic red tape. Cartels do not have 

to coordinate their efforts with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Enforcement and Removal Office, Health and Human Services, or the 

Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Instead, the cartels see 

a problem and change their operations almost immediately. 

At the Border Patrol, it can take over a year to adapt. There are 

several examples of how cartels break policies that I have given in 

my written statement, but I am going to skip those. 

Today our largest trouble area is in Texas. Criminal cartels are 

once again proving adept at understanding and working around 

our policies. Late in the year of 2013 and throughout all of 2014, 

an unprecedented number of unaccompanied minors entered our 

country illegally through the Rio Grande Valley sector of operations. Instead of presenting themselves legally at ports of entry 

and asking for asylum, the unaccompanied minors were forced by 

the cartels to enter illegally at dangerous points along the border. 

In most cases, these minors were not trying to escape or evade apprehensions; they were simply crossing the border illegally and giving themselves up. The cartels understood that unaccompanied minors would force the Border Patrol to deploy agents to these crossing areas in order to take minors into custody, thereby creating 

large holes in the border. The creating of holes in the border, in 

Border Patrol operations, was only one benefit to the cartels by the 

unaccompanied minor surge. The other was the exploitation of our 

catch and release policy. 
10 

As this surge became too much to handle, the Border Patrol and 

the enforcement and removal office began releasing nearly everyone we arrested. I believe this release allowed the cartels to increase their smuggling profits. With catch and release, the cartels 

could credibly say to potential customers that they would be able 

to remain in the United States without fear of deportation as long 

as they asked for asylum upon being apprehended. Although the 

problem began with unaccompanied minors, as word quickly spread 

of everyone being released, we started to see more crossings of complete family units, leading to a bigger problem than what we had 

in 2014. And once again, we are playing catch-up to a problem that 

in part we created through policy. 

All individuals that were released during this period of time were 

given an official document that ordered them to appear before an 

immigration judge at some future date. These orders are called Notices to Appear. The only problem, however, is that these official 

orders are usually ignored so much so that Border Patrol agents 

have dubbed them ‘‘Notices to Disappear.’’ 

The latest data that I have seen show that approximately 40 percent of the individuals being issues NTAs do not show up to their 

court proceedings. The willful failure to show up for court appearances by persons that were arrested and released by the Border 

Patrol has become an extreme embarrassment for the Department 

of Homeland Security. It has been so embarrassing that DHS and 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office has come up with a new policy. Simply 

put the new policy makes mandatory the release without an NTA 

of any person arrested by the Border Patrol for being in the country illegally, as long as they do not have a previous felony arrest 

conviction, and as long as they claim to have been continuously in 

the United States since January of 2014. 

The operative word in this policy is claim. The policy does not require the person to prove they have been here, which is the same 

burden placed on them during deportation proceedings. Instead, it 

simply requires them to claim to have been here since January of 

2014. Not only do we release these individuals that by law are subject to removal proceedings, we do it without any means of tracking 

their whereabouts. In essence, we pulled these persons out of the 

shadows and into the light just to release them right back to those 

same shadows from whence they came. 

Immigration laws today appear to be merely suggestions. There 

are little to no consequences for breaking the laws, and that fact 

is well known in other countries. If government agencies like DHS 

or CBP are allowed to bypass Congress by legislating through policy, we might as well abolish our immigrations laws all together. 

I believe it is all our hope that people choose to govern themselves by honoring and sustaining the laws without compulsion. 

However, if they do not there, must be a consequence, and an enforcement mechanism that oversees compliance. In the absence of 

consequences and enforceable laws, innocent people are hurt, criminals are rewarded, chaos abounds, and cartels reap huge financial 

benefits. I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Judd. Mr. McCraw? 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. McCRAW, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Mr. MCCRAW. Mr. Chairman, and honorable Members, thank you 

for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Steve McCraw. 

I am the executive director of the Department of Public Safety and 

colonel, and also the Homeland Security advisor for Governor Greg 

Abbott. Congressman Smith, it is great to see your friendly face 

from Texas, and I know you will be down there meeting with the 

Border Patrol secretary Manny Padilla and Raul Ortiz here later 

on, and I know they are looking forward to seeing you. I think you 

will get a great read from border control. They do a great job down 

there, the Rio Grande Valley Force. 

In an ever-changing threat environment, clearly we have seen, as 

it relates to crime, it is increasingly transitory. It is organized, 

even more violent, and also the discrete and networked. And at the 

same time, we have seen terrorism be more disaggregated. And 

that is very concerning. I know it is concerning for the governor. 

It is concerning for members of the Texas state legislature, because 

the result is consequences that we were not intending, and some 

things you are not even talking about today. And I would agree entirely that there are victims coming across. 

Those children, when they show up, they are victims, and as the 

agent just said next to me, when they get turned back over to the 

cartels, that they are victims. They are a commodity, and if you 

look at the sex traffic alone of children that were induced to come 

to Texas from Central America and Mexico and sit on those wire 

taps, work those cases, you realize the terms of the consequences 

that unsecure border is significant. And the governor and the state 

legislature have made it clear from the Department of Public Safety standpoint is that it, ‘‘Hey, when it is unsecure, Texas is unsecure. The Nation’s unsecure.’’ 

If you have a drug epidemic in the northeast, relates to heroin, 

you got a cartel and an unsecure border problem. If you have MS13 in your neighborhood, they are plundering and raping, you have 

got a border problem as it relates to transnational crime. That is 

the bottom line in terms if you relate to it. It does not just stop 

at the border. 

And who would have thought that Texas border sheriffs and 

chiefs of police would have to invent new categories of crime? Stash 

house extortions, for example, which is in elaborate splashdowns. 

Pseudo cop stops, home invasions. You know, and the ending recruitment of our children in criminal element in the areas by plaza 

bosses to support their criminal operations on both sides of the border. 

So these things are happening, yet it is not talked about. But 

clearly, you know, Texas understands that impact. So much so that 

the governor, and it was mentioned before by the Chairman, the 

governor and the state legislature have dedicated $800 million directly to support border control operations. I say Border Patrol operations because they are truly our partners, and as they go, so 

does the security of our Nation. And from the Texas standpoint, 

you invest in Border Patrol, you invest in national security, you in-
16 

vest in public safety. And we are lined up with them. And we have 

been tasked since June the 23rd to conduct around-the-clock operations with them, with our local partners, to coordinate air, Marine, and ground operations, tactical operations. We put troopers 

into our Border Patrol units rights now, 30 units around the clock. 

We have tactical operations with Texas Ranger recon operations, a 

SWAT that marries up with BORTAC . 

There is a sense of urgency because we realize, even at the 

height in June 2014, the height of the unaccompanied children 

coming across, and as devastating that was and impactful, it clearly was a cartel tactic. They make money on both sides, and they 

overwhelm Border Patrol. 

Just 17 percent of the apprehensions were children in family 

units. That is it. Seventeen percent. And our directive is to focus 

on cartels, cartel operatives, transnational gangs like MS-13 that 

are now overwhelmed parts of Texas, like Houston. And also, the 

focus on the drugs, that they engage in. Heroin. Mentioned it before in terms of the epidemic across the Nation right now. Cocaine, 

methamphetamine; they dominate the methamphetamine market 

and sex trafficking and human trafficking, and that is what we 

face. 

And as the borders remain unsecure, which clearly they are, 

there is no doubt about that, and so does, you know, public safety 

vulnerabilities and national security vulnerabilities. And our mandate has been very clear. We have been operational. When I say 

operational, it does not mean anything to anybody, you know, probably here, but it does when you have got troopers and agents and 

Texas Rangers that have been deployed around the clock. They 

move down every week. They do 7 days straight operations with no 

breaks and they work 12 to 14 hours a day on the river, in the air, 

on the ground with our Border Patrol partners, because it is too 

important to the state security and every day we see victims. 

So as a result of that, you know, our operations have been married up with, like I said before, with Border Patrol. We will be continuing to doing this and we have received great support obviously 

from our local partners and from Border Patrol. 

And I guess there is one thing that I would like to stress, if I 

had not said Border Patrol enough, is that they need to be 

resourced, bottom line is. And I will say this, and you will find on 

my testimony, when you cut back on aviation assets. So the Border 

Patrol, that means National Guard, when they have UH-72s that 

are taken offline and you cut it by 50 percent, that is a problem. 

That directly affects officer safety and by the way, officers get shot 

at from Mexico. You never hear about that. No one comes to the 

Border Patrol’s defense when that happens. I think my time is up, 

so I will shut up. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Ms. Vaughan? 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF 

POLICY STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning. The Obama administration’s handling of the border surge 

has been a colossal disaster. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Just a second, I think, Mr. McCraw, your microphone is still on. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. In the face of this surge of illegal migration, the 

Administration has simply suspended enforcement of the law in 

favor of a charade of deportation proceedings that are routinely 

manipulated, ignored, and defied by the new arrivals and their advocates. The Administration and its allies, including the network of 

social and legal services contractors that receive hundreds of millions of dollars of public funding to process and advocate for more 

and more new arrivals, have tried to characterize this migration as 

a refugee crisis. 

But according to what the migrants have told the Border Patrol 

journalists, and my own colleagues doing field research, most of the 

local migrants are not refugees displaced by war, nor fleeing persecution. Instead, they are driven north by the widely publicized 

Obama administration policies that they have heard will allow 

them to stay in the U.S. for an indefinite period of time. They understand that they will be able to join family members or friends 

and that they will be able to work, and that even if they skip out 

on immigration hearings, nothing will happen to them. And from 

Mr. Judd’s testimony, it appears that the Administration is no 

longer going through even the pretense of enforcement for those 

who arrive illegally at the border these days. 

This policy may make some people feel good, and certainly many 

contractors are earning a good living off this phenomenon, but the 

influx is imposing and enormous fiscal and public safety strain on 

some communities. Even worse, the Administration’s see no evil 

approach has resulted in shockingly negligent Federal policies on 

the placement of unaccompanied minors. 

As we have discussed, it was revealed last week by a Senate investigation that the Department of HHS and its multimillion-dollar 

network of contractors delivered an unknown number of kids right 

into the hands of traffickers, abusers, and other criminals. This occurred because HHS does not verify the identity or relationship 

claims made by sponsors who take custody of these kids or vet 

most of the adults who sponsor juveniles or other adults in the 

household. Even if they did a background check, criminal convictions would not disqualify a sponsor. 

HHS and its contractors actually have no idea how many minors 

have been placed with felons or other criminals, or even where 

many of these kids are. HHS and its contractors sometimes do not 

even lay eyes on the people they are placing the kids with or the 

place they will be living. 

Home studies were conducted in only 4 percent of the cases last 

year, or in the last 3 years. 

While the social welfare contractors are making out very well, 

the communities where they placed these new arrivals are not 
35 

doing nearly so well. The outlays for schooling are enormous, on 

the order of $500 to $700 million a year nationally, which is paid 

by the local taxpayers. Local school systems cannot pull this money 

out of thin air, or depend on state assistance. They have to cut 

other things to pay for the new teachers, counselors, aides, and others to help support these kids. 

The city of Lynn, Massachusetts near me had to come up with 

an additional $8 million last year to cover school expenses for the 

unaccompanied juveniles. And in another town near where I live, 

it was half a million dollars in 1 year for about 20 new illegal arrivals. I realize the sum is a drop in the bucket for some of the 

multimillion-dollar contractors, but it is a lot of money for local taxpayers, and health services are also an expense. All of these are essentially an unfunded mandate of the President’s policies that fall 

onto local and state governments who have no say in the process 

or the policy. 

And finally, I want to touch on one problem that has reappeared 

and worsened apparently as a result of these open door policies. 

Violent transnational gangs such as MS-13, which are based in 

Central America, have taken full advantage of the Obama administration’s careless catch and release policies in order to swell their 

ranks here and also to recruit and smuggle in new members. This 

has contributed to a spike of new violence here as they try to expand their territory and as volatile new recruits try to prove their 

mettle by committing brutal acts. 

One of the places where this is happening is Frederick County, 

Maryland, just north of Montgomery County. Gang violence and 

fighting is now rampant in two of the county high schools: MS-13 

has one floor; 18th Street has another. Just in the last several 

weeks, six juveniles who came as unaccompanied juveniles have 

been arrested and jailed for violent crimes, including attempted 

murder, assault, armed robbery, weapons charges, and unprovoked 

vicious attack on a deputy and more. All are documented MS-13 

members. Gang investigators believe that they were recruited from 

El Salvador by two older illegal alien MS-13 shot callers who have 

been residing in the area for a longer time. One of these older gang 

members was approved for the President’s Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals. And one was employed as a custodian in a middle school. 

There are similar stories out of Boston. At least three murders 

attributed to unaccompanied minors just in September near where 

I live. Virginia has problems, Long Island, and even here in Washington, D.C. The answer is not just to get used to this surge in illegal immigration as a new normal, but to reverse the controversial 

policies and interpretations of the law that end up rewarding the 

illegal crossers and the traffickers and smugglers. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. Ms. Young? 

STATEMENT OF WENDY YOUNG, PRESIDENT, 

KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE (KIND) 

Ms. YOUNG. On behalf of KIND, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before 

you to share our views on the surge of Central Americans to the 

U.S. 

KIND was founded to ensure that unaccompanied immigrant and 

refugee children are provided protection through pro bono legal 

representation, assistance to children returning to their countries 

of origin, and guidance to children applying for resettlement to the 

U.S. We have assisted more than 8,500 children and trained 11,000 

volunteer attorneys in our 7 years of operation. This work gives us 

a comprehensive understanding of the urgent protection needs of 

children on the move throughout the region. 

KIND is deeply concerned about the increasing emphasis on a 

law enforcement approach toward addressing the surge on unaccompanied refugee children and families from Central America that 

jeopardizes the protection of vulnerable individuals from the rampant violence the characterizes their home countries. 

While the recently announced U.S. resettlement program is a 

step in the right direction, it is a limited response that must be accompanied by full and fair access to the U.S. asylum system for 

those Central American families and children who reach our borders seeking safety. It must be underscored that it is not illegal to 

seek asylum in the U.S. 

El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala rank among the top six 

countries with the highest murder rates in the world. Sadly, children have been specifically targeted by the gangs and criminal 

rings that terrorize large parts of the Northern Triangle. The gangs 

attempt to forcibly recruit children, especially those in their early 

teens, but sometimes as young as kindergarten age. Girls are 

forced to become girlfriends of gang members, which in fact are 

nonconsensual relationships that result in rape by gang members. 

Children effectively have no one to turn to protect them due to the 

weak governance and corruption that characterizes the region. 

According to the UN Refugee Agency, at least 58 percent of children arriving at the U.S border have been forcibly displaced and 

are potentially in need of international protection. Moreover, the 

U.S. is not the only country receiving asylum seekers. UNHCR has 

documented an over 1,000 percent increase in asylum applications 

from the Northern Triangle filed in Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, 

Nicaragua, and Panama. 

In the absence of serious efforts to control this violence and provide meaningful opportunities for children to remain home safely 

and sustainably actions to deter unaccompanied children and families from coming to the U.S. will not work. Raids on families in addition to being ineffective are egregiously harmful to communities, 

particularly children. 

The threat of deportation will not stop people from coming when 

their lives and those of their families are at stake. While the numbers of children coming alone dropped in January, it is not at all 

clear that the raids prompted this decline. A child referred to 
46 

KIND explained to us that he faced the difficult choice to flee or 

die. We have heard this sentiment repeatedly among the thousands 

of children with whom we work. Approximately half of these children do not have attorneys to help them make their case for U.S. 

protection. It is fundamentally unfair for any child to face removal 

proceedings without legal representation. Our staff has witnessed 

children as young as 3 years old appear in court without an attorney. This contradicts U.S. principle of due process and the values 

upon which this great Nation has been built. 

Some proposals before Congress, including the Child Protection 

Act, would in fact undermine the protection of unaccompanied children by subjecting them to cursory border screenings, prolonging 

their detention with CBP, and fast tracking the adjudication of 

their asylum claims. In a similar fashion, the Asylum Reform and 

Border Protection Act, would roll back critical protections for children under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 

expand the inappropriate use of immigration detention for children, 

limit access to due process and protections available to children 

under both asylum and the special immigrant juvenile status program, and fail to provide for the safe and sustainable repatriation 

of children. 

A robust asylum process that ensures due process and fundamental fairness is the most critical component in addressing a refugee crisis. Resettlement programs can be used strategically to 

support this response, but must not be viewed as a substitute for 

U.S. asylum obligations. 

In closing, Congress has a critical role in the response to the increased number of unaccompanied children seeking protection in 

the U.S. Strong oversight of and provision of resources to the agencies charged with the care of unaccompanied children is essential 

to ensure that these children are housed in safe facilities and conditions while they are in Federal custody. Children’s immigration 

proceedings must be fully and fairly adjudicated. And children 

must be represented by pro bono counsel when they cannot afford 

counsel themselves. Congress should ensure that children are safely and quickly released to their families during the pendency of 

their immigration proceedings, utilizing procedures that ensure 

that such releases are in the best interests of the child and protect 

their safety and well being. 

Ultimately, the solution to the Central American refugee crisis 

lies in addressing the root causes of the flow. We must remain 

steadfast in our commitment to protecting vulnerable refugees. And 

remember that unaccompanied children are children first and foremost. KIND looks forward to working with Congress to improve the 

responses of our immigration asylum and refugee systems to the 

protection of unaccompanied children. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Young follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. We will now proceed on 

the 5-minute rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself 

for 5 minutes. This Committee is well aware that the 2014 surge 

along the southwest border caught the Department of Homeland 

Security by surprise. It was almost completely unprepared. The 

lagging response and the resulting executive actions have proved 

disastrous in the year since. Current immigration law and enforcement have taken a clear back seat to policy and political gain. I 

have heard the same troupe here today. It is not illegal to seek asylum in the United States. We all know that. It is not illegal to seek 

asylum, but the reason you seek asylum is because you are here 

illegally in the United States. Asylum is a defense to being in the 

United States illegally. 

So that is totally meaningless, and I have heard that three times 

already today. Current immigration law enforcement have taken a 

clear backseat. It has become all too apparent that the Administration’s own actions have largely contributed to this surge, and I am 

truly offended that this crisis on our border could be labeled as the 

new normal, or to be actually accepted as something that is normal. 

As we now face the start of another possible surge, I look forward 

to working with the Committee to continue this discussion beyond 

today’s hearings and to create a viable solution to our crisis. Mr. 

Judd, what is the percentage of people who appear in court after 

an NTA? 

Mr. JUDD. There has been several hearings on this topic, and it 

has been as much as 80 percent according to Senator Johnson, and 

as little as 40 percent, according to other statistics. The actual 

number is not completely known, but it is somewhere in between 

that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Between 40 and 80 percent, is that what you are 

saying? 

Mr. JUDD. I am sorry? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Between 40 and 80 percent? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Based on your communication with Border Patrol 

agents along the southwest border, do you believe that we are at 

the beginning of a surge similar or worse than what we witnessed 

in 2014? 

Mr. JUDD. We are actually seeing a lot more at this point than 

what we did in 2014. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you believe that the Border Patrol currently 

has the resources including manpower to adequately respond to the 

growing surge? 

Mr. JUDD. No, we do not. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Your written testimony gives very clear examples 

of the flagrant disregard for our immigration laws. You refer to it 

as mere suggestions that carry little or no consequences. How 

would Border Patrol be better equipped if agents were not required 

to comply with priority enforcement program directives or policies 

mandating release? 

Mr. JUDD. Well, at a minimum we would set up deportation proceedings on these individuals that we arrest. But unfortunately, 
68 

right now, as long as they claim to have been here before January 

of 2014, we just let them go. We do not even set them up for—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. And they do not even have to prove it as you said 

in your testimony. They just have to claim it. 

Mr. JUDD. They just have to tell us that they have been here. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And an attorney could suggest to them that all 

they have to do is claim it because they are not, right? 

Mr. JUDD. A lot of agents will actually ask them where they 

heard this from and they will tell the agents, ‘‘Well, I was just told 

to tell you.’’ 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay, and you say a lot of agents say that they 

were told to tell them. So when they come to you, do they tell you 

that they are leaving those countries because of the violence for the 

most part? 

Mr. JUDD. There is two separate individuals that we have to look 

at. The juveniles when we first arrested them, starting in 2014, 

they were told that all they have to do is ask for asylum. And right 

now, the Border Patrol has actually told us that we can no longer 

ask them that question, why are they coming anymore. Cannot 

even ask them that question? In some places we still do, but we 

are being told that you cannot even ask why they are coming here. 

Mr. LABRADOR. What do you think are the consequences for 

agents who are unwilling to comply with these limiting policies? 

Mr. JUDD. They will be terminated. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So for wanting to enforce the law that is in the 

books, they are going to be terminated from their jobs? 

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely. If they do not comply with the policies that 

are given. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Have you had any experience of any agents being 

terminated? 

Mr. JUDD. No, our agents comply with the policies that we are 

given. 

Mr. LABRADOR. What can this Committee and this Congress do 

to assist the Border Patrol in its mission and in order to respond 

to the growing surge? 

Mr. JUDD. Well, the first thing is we have to understand that the 

laws are the laws. Policies should not trump the laws. We should 

not be able to bypass Congress and set policies to trump the laws 

as long as we are enforcing the laws. Again, if these juveniles or 

family units would come through the ports of entry, that is legal. 

That is perfectly legal. If they would come through the ports of 

entry and ask for asylum, but to cross the border, that is illegal, 

and therefore we must support a consequence for that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Mr. McCraw, what would happen, 

you have vast experience with law enforcement so I am going to 

ask a question not about immigration. What was your area of expertise when you were in the FBI? 

Mr. MCCRAW. It was organized crime. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Organized crime. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Mexican drug trafficking organizations, Columbians and South American. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So if I would have sent a message to the organized crime community in your area that ‘‘Hey, it is illegal to do 
69 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee. Also, see For the Record Submission—Rep. Lofgren at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104402. 

X but we are just not really going to enforce it,’’ what would have 

happened to organized crime in that area? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Everybody is going to exploit the seams, as Agent 

Judd appropriately noted that they were very flexible, adaptable 

and networked and they are going to exploit all opportunities, including the recruitment of our children. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. My time has expired, and I now recognize Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before my questions, 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record statements from 13 primarily religious groups, along with a letter regarding temporary protected status from a number of groups.* 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection, they will be entered into the 

record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for being 

here today. And obviously, when you take a look at a complex situation, there is never just one thing going on. Obviously there are 

smugglers taking advantage of the situation. But I am mindful that 

we have—I got these statistics from the Border Patrol just yesterday. In terms of unaccompanied minor children apprehensions, 

from Belize, there was one child; from Costa Rica, there were two 

children; from Nicaragua, there were 52 children; from Panama 

none; from El Salvador, 5,000 some odd; Guatemala, 6,000; Honduras, 2,800. Something is going on in those three countries, and 

that is not going on elsewhere in the region. And so, I think it is 

important. None of us wants to see thousands of children showing 

up at the border, they have been exploited on the way, on the journey. It is not a good situation. 

But the question is how to deal with this? What is causing this 

situation? And I know, KIND, and first, what a great name for an 

organization, KIND. Nobody thinks little children should have to 

fend for themselves without a representation. Your organization 

has represented thousands of kids. Can you give us some examples 

of the kinds of stories that you are hearing when you really get 

into it with these kids and what is going on, why did they come, 

what has happened to them? So we can get a flavor for what is 

really driving this situation? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Your mic is not on. 

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you. First, I would like to say it should be 

an immediate red flag when you see a child who is under age 18 

migrating across this world alone leaving their homes, leaving their 

communities crossing international borders. That is not normal for 

a child. So something is going wrong at home that is causing them, 

driving them out, and in fact, in this situation, it is the violence 

in three countries: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. About 97 

percent of our case load at KIND currently is from those three 

countries. Conditions in countries like Panama are not that way. 

These are countries that are much more stable, so children are not 

fleeing, simply put. 

To share one story, Claudia, a 14-year-old girl who eventually 

won asylum when we matched her with a private sector lawyer, 
70 

she was abducted from her home by gangs. She was held in captivity. She was gang raped by those gangs for 4 days. Her family 

during this period sought the assistance of the police and the community who told the family we cannot help you. Claudia eventually 

escaped. She went home. Her family relocated to another part of 

the country. The gangs found her there and began to threaten her 

again. Again, the family turned to the local police and asked for assistance and the police said, ‘‘We cannot help you.’’ 

Claudia’s family did the only thing they could. They sent her out 

of the country in search of protection. These are not young people 

who can line up and apply for a visa at a U.S. embassy. They are 

running for their lives. 

To share another story, documented by a board member of KIND, 

an 8-year-old child’s body, her corpse, was found on the streets of 

Honduras, her throat slit and her panties stuffed in the wound. 

These families are doing the only thing they can. These children 

are doing the only thing they can. They are running for their lives, 

because they will be murdered if they remain home. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you, in terms of the violence that is 

going on in these Central American, in these three countries. The 

United Nations is now going to engage with the U.S. and other 

countries in the Western Hemisphere to provide some kind of refugee processing in those countries, and hopefully, safe haven in a 

third country. Not necessarily the U.S. I mean, it could be Costa 

Rica or Chile. We do not know. Have you been in touch with that 

process, and do you know where that process is at this point? 

Ms. YOUNG. We have been engaged in the first stage of the refugee resettlement program, which is the so called CAM program 

where children can present themselves while still in their home 

country, and apply for resettlement. We are very gratified by the 

decision of the Administration to work with the UNHCR to expand 

this processing into third countries, so that people are able to be 

safe in a country such as Mexico or Belize, somewhere in the neighborhood, while they go through the resettlement process. 

I should note, however, that resettlement is a limited response. 

They are targeting roughly 4,000 individuals for resettlement to 

the United States and resettlement takes a very long time. So 

while it will be a critical option for some, it is not the full solution 

to the crisis. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will just close. I agree. I mean, we have probably 

more refugees in the world today since World War II. I mean, you 

take a look at what is going on in Europe, I mean, in Central 

America, it is huge. But the answer is not just resettlement. It is 

peace, so that people do not have to flee, and I was talking to 

Chairman Gowdy before he left about what had been going on in 

Columbia. And we are no longer seeing refugees from Columbia, 

because with the help of the United States and other Nations in 

the Western Hemisphere, and the Colombian people themselves, 

they got control of their situation. And it is not a perfect situation. 

There are problems, but we do not have a complete failed state in 

Columbia anymore and it is clear that we have to work with others 

so that these three countries can be stabilized and have the rule 

for law so that people do not have to flee for their lives. And with 

that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
71 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, and I now recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me address my 

first question to Mr. Judd, Director McCraw, and Ms. Vaughan, 

and it is this: Do you feel that the majority of individuals trying 

to enter the United States illegally from those three primary Central American countries are motivated by the President’s policies 

that they feel will allow them to stay in America? Mr. Judd? 

Mr. JUDD. We no longer ask the individuals what the motivation 

is, but in early 2014, yes. When we asked what the motivation was, 

yes, it was based upon policy. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. And the Department of Homeland Security report said around 70 percent, I believe. Mr. McCraw? 

Mr. MCCRAW. I do not have enough information to comment on 

that, Congressman. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, Ms. Vaughan? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes, I would agree with that. Based on what we 

have seen from intelligence reports from the Border Patrol and 

ICE, and based on what the migrants themselves tell journalists, 

and also a team of researchers we sent down to the area to interview people, the vast majority are coming because they understood 

that they would be allowed to stay, and that the smugglers are telling them and advertising in the news media in their home countries that if they get to the border, that they will be released and 

allowed to stay for an indefinite period of time. 

I do not doubt that there are a few, you know, very compelling 

cases of people who would benefit from our protection, but the majority of them are simply here to join family, friends, or because 

they heard they could get away with it. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Mr. Judd, was that a directive from the Administration that said ‘‘Do not ask that question any longer?’’ 

Mr. JUDD. No, sir it was not. That came from our management. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, from the management as well. Maybe they did 

not like the result they were getting, I do not know. The other 

point I think to make is we sometimes hear about the violence in 

those three Central American countries. Crime rates are actually 

going down in two of the three of those countries, and the crime 

rates themselves are still less than the crime rates in several 

American cities. 

Unfortunately, I think there is a lot of biased media coverage 

and you seldom see the media acknowledge that the primary motivation are the President’s policies and the expectation of amnesty 

when they arrive. 

Ms. Vaughn, and Mr. Judd too, and Director McCraw, I would 

like to get some figures just to have a better idea of the extent of 

the problem. And let me ask you all if you have information in regard to last year, 2015, as to how many individuals entered the 

United States illegally or came in on visas and over stayed or are 

in an illegal capacity now? Do we have a figure, a rough estimated 

figure for those number of people who contributed to the illegal 

population? Ms. Vaughan? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. The number, according to the Border Patrol statistics, there are about a quarter of a million Central American juvenile—— 
72 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, I am not talking about Central America. I am 

talking about overall, any country. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I do not have a number off the top of my head 

of the total number of people who have come illegally. We do not 

know, because they do not know who evaded the Border Patrol. As 

far as over stayers, it is about half a million people in 2015 who 

did not depart when their visa—— 

Mr. SMITH. Half are just the visa over stayers? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Not all of them are still here. They think just over 

400,000. That is just the visitor visas. That does not count the 

guest worker visas or the exchange. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, I had no idea the problem was that great. To 

me that is a huge change from what I have heard before. A change 

that hundreds of thousands of more people in the country illegally 

than we might have imagined. 

Mr. Judd, do you have any estimate as to the number of people 

who come into the United States each year that are not—we just 

heard about the visa over stayers, people coming across our southern border. What is the estimate as to how many coming in illegally? 

Mr. JUDD. I am not privy to the agency statistics, but I can give 

you from the Border Patrol agents what they tell you. Just to give 

you a real quick story. Chairman Chaffetz was down on the border, 

and he was allowed to patrol the border with Border Patrol agents. 

He had every single resource available to him. You name it, he had 

it. He had helicopter, he had ATVs, he had horse patrol, he had 

every single resource available to him. There were seven drug 

smugglers that crossed the border while he was there that he got 

to chase. Of those seven drug smugglers that he got to chase with 

every single one of those resources, they caught zero. 

When he was talking to the patrol agent in charge of the Border 

Patrol station, he asked, ‘‘What would you estimate the percentage 

of those that cross the border illegally, what would you estimate 

the percentage is that you actually arrest.’’ And the patrol agent 

in charge, the highest-Ranking Member of that station of about 350 

agents, he told him that if they hit a sensor, we arrest probably 

50 percent. If they do not hit a sensor, it is well below 50 percent 

of what we arrest. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. What is your estimate as to the number, just 

estimate, as the number of individuals, or maybe I should say the 

fraction of individuals who are apprehended versus who get successfully get into the United States illegally? 

Mr. JUDD. A safe estimate from the Border Patrol agents would 

be that we arrest about 40 percent of what actually crosses. So, if 

you got the official numbers from the agency of what we arrest, 

that is about 40 percent. 

Mr. SMITH. So if we arrested 400,000, then 600,000 would be 

coming in illegally? 

Mr. JUDD. Correct. 

Mr. SMITH. Something like that. When I have talked to Border 

Patrol agents in south Texas, the estimates have been anywhere 

from we only apprehend one out of two to one out of five, and that 

is about I think what you are saying. Okay. 
73 

Mr. MCCRAW. The challenge you have is you do not know what 

you do not know, Congressman. Until you have sufficient detection 

capability in place, you cannot really tell how many you did detect 

and apprehend or did not, and I can tell you from a Texas standpoint the border region, you know as of in fiscal year 2014, these 

are unofficial Border Patrol statistics. They had 341,132 apprehensions. And it can also tell you the trending because we talked about 

Central America and the three countries. It is also trending, just 

as in children, it also trends across in terms of all OTMs, it parallels about 75 percent of the apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley, which was the center of gravity for drug and human smuggling 

right now. 

Mr. SMITH. As you pointed out I am going to be there at tomorrow. My time has expired. Let me just say that I do not think we 

have ever had a President of the United States less willing to enforce immigration laws and implement policies that I think encourage illegal immigration. I thank you all for your testimony. 

Mr. LABRADOR. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Attorney Young, you have got a great 

organization, KIND. I think many people would be surprised to 

learn that children are expected to appear before an immigration 

judge and a trained government attorney without legal representation. What do you think can be done to increase the number of lawyers for unaccompanied children? 

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you, Congressman Conyers, and that is a 

very good question. Bottom line, our experience has been that the 

private sector actually is very willing to step forward to represent 

these children on a pro bono basis. There has really been an extraordinary response from our over 300 major law firm corporate 

legal department, law school, and bar association partners, and at 

the height of the crisis in 2014, we had companies like Disney call 

us and say, ‘‘We want to help you. What can we do?’’ And 70 of 

their attorneys appeared at a training 2 weeks later. 

So that is one part of the response that I think it would be very 

wise to capitalize on, and with groups like KIND behind those attorneys, what we see is that they provide very high quality representation to the children, and in fact, the children that we work 

with, over 90 percent of them are granted some form of relief under 

our immigration laws, asylum or otherwise. 

In addition, however, there are some cases that are not appropriate for placement with private sector attorneys who tend not to 

be immigration lawyers. These are corporate lawyers, tax lawyers, 

whatever else. 

And those cases can be very well handed by the NGO community 

that has expertise in children’s immigration law. I would also just 

like to point out that our experience is that the court system runs 

much more efficiently when children are represented by counsel. 

Immigration judges find it very difficult to proceed on a case when 

they have a 3-year-old standing in front of them with no lawyer. 

How do you question that child? 

I, in fact, saw a 5 year old in court one day clutching a doll. The 

immigration judge asked her a series of questions about why she 

was in the United States, where she was living. That child just 
74 

looked at him, her head barely above the microphone, could not answer a single question until he finally asked her, ‘‘What is the 

name of your doll?’’ And she said in Spanish, baby, baby doll. And 

that was the only question that was answered during that hearing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Why is legal representation so critical in solving 

the crisis at our southwest border? 

Ms. YOUNG. Again, our experience is that most of these children, 

when provided the opportunity to present their case before an immigration judge, when they are provided a full and fair hearing, 

are in fact eligible for protection, that legal counsel is critical to assist the child through that process. Some of my co-panelists mentioned Border Patrol questioning children. I would suggest to you 

that a Border Patrol agent who is in a chaotic Border Patrol station 

wearing a uniform armed is not going to elicit information from a 

child about why they are here. These kids are terrified. They are 

tired. They are traumatized. They need time to recover. They need 

an adult who is advocating for them to elicit the kind of information that can form the basis for a claim for immigration relief. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. You know, many have suggested that 

the journey for Central American children is dangerous and we 

should do everything we can to prevent these children from leaving 

their homes in order to protect them from harm. How do you respond to that kind of view? 

Ms. YOUNG. I would just quote one family who I think said it 

best, ‘‘I would rather see my child die on the way to the United 

States than on my own doorstep.’’ I am not going to defend smugglers. This is a large illicit business. The smugglers are very abusive to these children, but when these kids are facing the kind of 

dangers they are in their home countries, they would rather take 

that risk and hope that they will find safety in the United States 

than stay home. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, many suggested that violence, particularly 

gang violence, is prevalent in many of our United States cities. And 

the situation in the Northern Triangle is no different. Would you 

agree with that finding? 

Ms. YOUNG. Two points: first, the rates of violence in Central 

America are much higher than cities across the United States, such 

as Detroit. Secondly, I would also say the big difference is in the 

United States there are functioning police forces. There is a functioning judicial system that can address crime in this country. 

What you see in Central America is these countries are too weak, 

they are too corrupt. Law enforcement does not follow through to 

pick these criminals up. The judicial system fails to prosecute individuals, so these crimes are committed with complete impunity in 

these three countries. 

Mr. CONYERS. Let me squeeze in this last observation. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you think it is appropriate to use the term ‘‘gang’’ to describe the kinds of organized 

crime and violence in these three countries? 

Ms. YOUNG. What we see increasingly are organized transnational criminal cartels, and the same cartels that are involved in 

creating the violence in the home countries are the same cartels 

that are then preying on children and families as they migrate and 
75 

conducting the human smuggling and human trafficking operations. So, this is highly organized across the region. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired 

and I recognize the gentlemen from Illinois. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here this 

morning with all my distinguished colleagues. Once again, it is always good to see a labor union that the Republicans actually invite 

to come and give testimony. It is the only one. Just to show you 

there is always an exception to the rule, even when it comes to the 

labor unions and I wonder why they love you so much. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I think we love the labor unions and Obamacare 

as well, but that is all right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But Mr. Chairman, you cannot interrupt when 

I am speaking, it is my time. That is unfair. You get your time 

later on, right? I want my 10 seconds back. But having said that, 

it is always interesting. And I was really fascinated by Mr. Judd, 

because he said that Mr. Chaffetz went down there, and they had 

ATVs and they had helicopters, and that the seven people that 

crossed the border, the drug smugglers that crossed the border, 

none of them were apprehended. It is always amazing to me how 

seven people can cross the border, but we know that they were 

drug smugglers. We did not catch them. We did not interview 

them, but they were drug smugglers. Because that kind of fits, 

right? Let’s always talk about anybody that crosses the border as 

a drug smuggler and not anything else coming to the United 

States, because crime and immigration always seem to rhyme very 

well with the majority’s perspective when it comes to immigration 

in this country. 

So, I would like to interview those seven too to see if it is really 

true. It is amazing just how you can see just what it is that has 

brought them here to this country. So I would like to speak a little 

bit about the situation that is going on, because it just seems to 

me that—I said yesterday, I gave a speech on the House floor. And 

I said watch tomorrow Judiciary Committee is going to have a 

hearing. They are going to do a couple of things. They are going 

to equate immigration to crime, and they are going to say that it 

is all Obama’s problem. 

Well, I guess I did it. I pat myself on the back because that is 

exactly what has happened here. It does not resolve the problem, 

because even if we built the best, greatest wall between Mexico and 

the United States, they would still ask the testimony by those offered by the majority here today they would still be hundreds of 

thousands of people coming to the United States and staying illegally in the United States once their visas expire. That is the testimony that we have been given here. But all we want to do is focus 

on building a wall or a fence. Of course paid for by Mexico, yet by 

the very testimony of the people here, the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people did not come from Mexico, yet that is 

where we are going to build the wall. Which speaks to the fantasy 

about what we are doing. 

What we should do is we should create a system that allows people to come not through Coyotajes, not through drug smugglers, not 

through human traffic, but with a plane ticket, with a visa, a legal 
76 

way to come to the United States of America, so that we can have 

an organized fashion in which we have our immigration policy set 

forth. That is what we should be doing. Instead, we continue to 

have a system that allows the drug smuggler to exploit the children. I would like to thank the gentlelady from California by addressing the issue. 

They are not coming from Belize. They are not coming from 

Costa Rica. Nicaragua is the poorest country in Central America. 

They are not coming from Nicaragua. They are coming, fleeing the 

drug cartels in three Central American countries, and I get offended that Members of this Judiciary Committee say that they are 

coming here illegally. It is not illegal to come to the border of the 

United States of America and to ask for political asylum in the 

United States, to ask for refugee status in the United States. That 

is not illegal. That is a law and a statute of the United States of 

America. 

So, we always, but we always have to equate them, right? Illegal, 

criminal, even children applying. Now, as you can tell, I am not 

going to ask any questions, because I have a few things that I want 

to respond. Here is one of the things, and it is in the testimony by 

Ms. Vaughan, but that nobody talks about. Nobody talks about. In 

addition there are a large in flow of illegal Cuban immigrants into 

Texas. A large flow? A large flow? Eight thousand? There are more 

people seeking refugee status from Cuba coming through the border, yes, the Texas border between Mexico and the United States, 

than any other single country that has been testified to here. 

As a matter of fact, in the last year, 43,000 people, the immense 

majority of them coming through ports of entry to the United 

States of America, but nobody ever talks about them, and they get 

automatic—what do they get: automatic. Because you do not even 

ask them, right? As soon as they say, ‘‘I am from Cuba,’’ refugee 

status, and here is your green card and American citizenship 3 

years later. 

And by the way, why do you not have the food stamps and get 

on SSI and every other government ability to government service. 

But nobody has ever talked about that, and I think it is a shame 

that we are talking about the border and we do not talk about people seeking—children—as Ms. Young has—children fleeing drug 

cartels, fleeing murders, rapists, drug traffickers. Fleeing them for 

their very lives, and yet we have 43,000 people coming from Cuba; 

they are automatically given asylum in the United States with not 

one question asked. All they have to do is say they come, and they 

come through those ports of entry. And I think we all know why. 

We all know why. Because it is politics, when it comes to a certain 

group of people, and politics when it comes to another group of people, and I think that is shameful. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. The gentleman’s time has expired. This concludes 

today’s hearing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? May I ask unanimous consent to 

put into the record the data from the Border Patrol that I referred 

to earlier? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:] 
77 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That will be entered into the record. Anything 

else? This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of our witnesses. Just in closing, I agree that if somebody is coming here to 

seek asylum, they should be allowed to seek asylum. I think every 

one of the witnesses agrees with that. I just do not think that you 

should be coming here with a border search and use the excuse of 

asylum. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Chairman, I want to say one thing. Often, the only 

one that rescues those children from those cartels and transnational gangs are the Border Patrol agents. A trooper or a deputy 

sheriff. If they stay in the custody of them when they go between 

the ports of entry, they are enslaved and I can give you numerous 

cases that will just rip your heart out in terms of what happens 

to children when they stay in the hands of Mexican cartels, and are 

not rescued by Border Patrol or deputy or a trooper. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Without objection, all Members will 

have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for 

the witnesses or additional materials for the record, and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(79) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
80 

Response to Questions for the Record from Brandon Judd, President, 

American Federation of Government Employees 
81 

f 
82 

Response to Questions for the Record from Steven C. McCraw, Director, 

Texas Department of Public Safety 
83 
84 
85 

f 
86 

Response to Questions for the Record from Jessica M. Vaughan, 

Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies 
87 
88 

Æ