U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–107 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

A ‘‘CARAVAN’’ OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: A TEST 

OF U.S. BORDERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2018 

Serial No. 115–77 

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

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

SHARON ESHELMAN, Subcommittee on National Security Staff Director 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Ron DeSantis, Florida, Chairman 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 12, 2018 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Colonel Steven McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

The Honorable Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, Center 

for Immigration Studies 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Mr. Michael Breen, President & CEO, Truman Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 52 

APPENDIX 

Statement for the Record of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ..................... 70 

Letter for the Record from Amnesty International, submitted by Ranking 

Member Lynch. ..................................................................................................... 74 

Letter from Civil Rights Groups in California to Governor Brown, submitted 

by Mr. Gomez ....................................................................................................... 78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

A ‘‘CARAVAN’’ OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: A 

TEST OF U.S. BORDERS 

Thursday, April 12, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Gosar, Hice, Comer, 

Lynch, Welch, DeSaulnier, and Gomez. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security will come 

to order. Without objection, the presiding member or the chair is 

authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Over the course of the last 2–1/2 weeks, we’ve heard news accounts of a wave of foreign nationals headed for the U.S. southern 

border. We’re here today to discuss the impending arrival of what 

was initially called an immigrant caravan, which remains a challenge of U.S. border security. 

The San Diego-based group, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, or People 

Without Borders, has taken credit for organizing the effort. While 

they claim to provide humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees, 

what they are doing now is undermining the rule of law. 

For 10 years now, this group has escorted foreign nationals on 

an annual trek from Central America through Mexico, encouraging 

many to continue to the United States, to take advantage of asylum laws. This year they drew their biggest crowd yet, more than 

1,200 people. In some ways there are similarities to what we experienced in 2014, when waves of unaccompanied minors and young 

mothers with children streamed across the border. 

Unlike his predecessor, President Trump called out the Mexican 

Government’s failure to step up and do their part to accommodate 

these refugees. For far too long, Mexico has been derelict in its 

duty. For far too long, Mexico has been content to let these caravans pass on through and become our problem. Not anymore. 

Coincidentally, a few days after this group decided to begin its 

annual march, DHS released its monthly apprehension statistics, 

which showed an alarming resurgence of illegal border crossers. 

What we saw in response was the consistency of conviction of 

President Trump’s administration, of course, who campaigned on 

building a wall and who backs the brave men and women of ICE 

and Border Patrol and law enforcement everywhere, who are working hard. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

It took courage to mobilize the National Guard without manufacturing a humanitarian crisis, like the previous administration. As 

Commander in Chief, the President has every right to take meaningful measures to protect our way of life, maintain the integrity 

of our borders, and safeguard our immigration system. 

We all know the National Guard cannot serve in this capacity indefinitely. We need to take a hard look at what our existing laws 

and capabilities are, and be honest about what can actually be 

done to not only enhance border security, but to reduce the magnet 

of illegal immigration going forward. 

The caravan had the unintended consequence of helping the 

Trump administration identify its operational and legal 

vulnerabilities, and provided us with an opportunity to conduct 

much-needed oversight of some key immigration loopholes. It reminds us of how porous our borders still are, with people and drugs 

being smuggled in daily. We also see how, by directing our finite 

resources to illicit activity in one direction, we may be leaving a 

gaping hole for cartels and gangs to pass through in another. 

Now, there are promising actions that can be taken to get a handle on this. The Trump administration should follow the President’s first immigration executive order and properly interpret the 

Wilberforce Act. 

In addition, to combat the abuse of asylum laws, both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 

should send asylum officers directly to the border for a rocket docket, to immediately hold a rapid-fire field hearing and conclude that 

folks trying to abuse the asylum laws are, in fact, ineligible and 

then allowing them to be placed in expedited deportation. 

What is more, both Article II of the Constitution, and the delegated authority given to the President by the Congress to keep 

anyone who has not already entered and even override refugee and 

asylum policies when he determines it’s against our interest. That’s 

in the law now. When you have criminals, gangsters, drug crisis, 

and the political nature of the mass illegal immigration, this clearly fits that description. 

And finally, Congress, as part of any effort to tighten immigration statutes, must limit at least the power of the lower courts to 

block expedited deportation or denial of entry, except when there 

is a prima facie claim of a plaintiff being a U.S. citizen. 

We have a lot of work yet to do, and I’m glad to introduce our 

distinguished panel of experts who are here to help shed light on 

this important issue. 

Mr. Brandon Judd is here to speak on behalf of the approximately 15,000 Border Patrol agents in his capacity as the President 

of the National Border Patrol Council. Colonel Steven McCraw currently serves as the Director of the Texas Department of Public 

safety, which oversees 13 State criminal justice and public safety 

divisions. We also have the Honorable Arthur, resident fellow with 

the Center for Immigration Studies and former immigration judge. 

And lastly, we welcome Mr. Michael Breen from the Truman Center, a national security expert and Iraq War veteran. 

I’d like to add that we did invite the U.S. Border Patrol to join 

us here today, and they chose not to send a witness to testify on 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

this important matter. Again, I’d like to thank all the witnesses 

who decided to join us today and look forward to their testimony. 

Finally, I just want to make sure we will be maintaining order 

in the hearing room. So I thank you and I yield to my ranking 

member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d also like to thank and 

welcome our witnesses today. Thank you all for helping this committee with its work. As evidenced by the bipartisan omnibus appropriation bill passed last month, there are members on both 

sides of the aisle who share a commitment to providing our border 

security and enforcement personnel with the resources necessary to 

perform their critical missions on behalf of the American people. 

This agreement, which I supported, I voted for, provides a total 

of $14 billion for Customs and Border Protection, including $4.4 billion for CBP, Customs and Border Patrol and security operations, 

and $3.7 billion for U.S. Border Patrol training, development, assets, and other activities. It also makes funding available for the 

hiring of 351 new Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers. 

And while the omnibus agreement was a result of hard-fought 

negotiation and is not a perfect bill, I believe that it does represent 

a meaningful step towards enhancing our border security. However, it is imperative that the Federal Government utilizes these 

and other new funding sources provided by the agreement in a wise 

fashion. 

In the interest of national security, policies designed to secure 

our borders against the threat of terrorism, criminal networks, and 

other illicit activities cannot be based on misinformation, or derived 

from arbitrary Presidential tweets. Rather, the strength of our border security framework is dependent on policies developed through 

bipartisan consideration, and grounded entirely in fact. To this end, 

they must also be undertaken in a manner that avoids demonization, and affords maximum respect to the fundamental principles 

of America as a Nation of immigrants, and also adheres to the 1951 

Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. 

In view of all these considerations, it is important to review 

President Trump’s recent decision to order deployment of up to 

4,000 National Guard personnel to the U.S.-Mexican border. Clearly, this decision is not unprecedented. Both President George W. 

Bush and President Obama previously invoked so-called Title 32 

authority to temporarily deploy thousands of National Guard units 

to the southwest border to provide technical, logistical, and administrative support to the U.S. Border Patrol. 

It is noteworthy that while the U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions 

for illegal border crossings exceeded 1 million apprehensions in 

2006 and over 460,000 apprehensions in 2010, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection reports that in 2017, the agency recorded, quote, 

‘‘the lowest level of illegal cross-border migration on record, as 

measured by apprehensions and inadmissible encounters at U.S. 

ports of entry,’’ close quote. The approximate 310,000 arrests for illegal border crossings recorded for 2017 represents the lowest annual apprehension figure since 1971, 46 years ago. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

In articulating his plan to deploy National Guard units, the 

President has stated, quote, ‘‘We are looking from 2,000 to 4,000 

and will probably keep them, or a large portion of them, until such 

time as we get the wall,’’ close quote. 

Given that Congress has not authorized funding for the entirety 

of the President’s desired border wall and absent further clarification of the President’s tweet, the deployment of our National Guard 

units to the southwest border appears to be indefinite in duration 

at this point. It also remains largely undefined, in terms of scope 

and cost. According to the independent Government Accountability 

Office, the collective cost of the two previous National Guard border operations under President Bush and President Obama exceeded $1.35 billion. 

It’s important, I think, for Congress to learn which priorities or 

programs the military will need to reduce in order to reprogram 

the necessary funding to pay for this border operation. In order for 

this committee to examine the merits of the President’s action, 

today, Ranking Member Cummings and I join ranking members 

from the House Homeland Security, Armed Services, and Judiciary 

Committees in requesting a series of documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security pertaining to the rationale behind the announcement of deploying National Guard troops to the border, as well as the specific activities, 

duration, and costs associated with this operation. This includes 

any memoranda of understanding the administration has negotiated with relevant States in the National Guard Bureau. 

Along these lines, it would have been very helpful for us to hear 

from the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security witnesses at today’s hearing as we continue to conduct oversight over our border security policies and seek to identify commonsense steps that we can take to better secure our borders in a balanced and sustainable way. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to discussing these 

issues with our witnesses, and I yield back the balance of our time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

I’m pleased to introduce our witnesses. We have Mr. Brandon 

Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council; Colonel Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety; 

the Honorable Art Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the 

Center for Immigration Studies; and Mr. Michael Breen, President 

and CEO of the Truman Center. 

As you can see, there is an empty chair for the uninvited witness, Ms. Carla Provost, acting chief at the U.S. Border Patrol, 

should she choose to attend the hearing. 

Welcome to you all. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses 

will be sworn in before they testify. So if you could all please stand 

and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Please be seated. All witnesses 

answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of you shows the remaining time during your opening statement. The light will turn 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is 

up. Please also remember to press the button to turn your microphone on before speaking. 

And, with that, we’ll recognize Mr. Judd for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD 

Mr. JUDD. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. I want to discuss with you the 

issues of border security and the magnets that draw people across 

our border illegally. This includes, but is not limited to, the catchand-release program, manpower, and the use of agents. The catchand-release policy is a term that was coined by Border Patrol 

agents many years ago. It refers to persons arrested for crossing 

the border illegally, and subsequently, released into the United 

States on their own recognizance and prior to having their deportation proceedings adjudicated by an immigration judge. 

Under this program, most individuals are released, with the 

promise to appear before a judge at a later date that is to be determined. Due to an extensive backlog of cases, the date is usually at 

least 2 years from the time of release, but it might as well be 10, 

15, or 20 years, because the vast majority of these individuals 

never appear before a judge as ordered. Instead, they disappear 

into the shadows of society. 

On January 25th, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Executive Order. Its 

intent was to implement new policies designed to stem illegal immigration. In support, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued implementation directions by a memoranda to all corresponding department 

heads, stating the catch-and-release policy shall end immediately. 

Notwithstanding the clear guidance, catch-and-release policies 

have not ended. In November of 2017, field office directors for both 

San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, ICE ERO field offices sent email 

messages to Border Patrol leadership stating, in part, ‘‘I have directed my staff to not accept files or custody of any FAMUs,’’ family 

member units, ‘‘that are not processed as NTAs, notices to appear, 

that are not FRC eligible.’’ FRC is field relocation center. ‘‘My position may change subsequent to discussions with HQ, but for now, 

ERO San Antonio and El Paso position is that we will not process 

cases like male HOH,’’ head of household, ‘‘unless we accept custody, as the transfer of cases is not automatic.’’ 

By processing illegal border crossers with WA/NTAs, we consciously continue the catch-and-release program and send a clear 

message to criminal cartels that we are not serious about following 

through with the President’s or Secretary’s orders. 

Criminal cartels continue to exploit our policies, specifically catch 

and release. They force large groups of people to cross the border 

illegally in dangerous locations instead of through ports of entry, 

a controlled environment, in an effort to create gaps in our coverage. By creating gaps, criminal cartels are able to cross highervalue contraband, such as opioids, criminal aliens, persons from 

special interest countries, and other narcotics without detection, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

apprehension, or seizure. By continuing policies like catch and release, we are putting innocent people, like women and children, 

into the hands of dangerous criminal enterprises. 

The single biggest challenge that we face right now to securing 

our border is manpower, as we are currently 2,000 agents below 

our congressionally mandated floor of 21,370 agents. There are currently three challenges that we face: Retention, recruitment, and 

the use of agents. The National Border Patrol Council also views 

the reinstatement of FLSA as a top priority and one that will significantly improve our urgent retention crisis. I want to be clear 

about this. Until we address these issues, we will not be able to 

secure the border. 

Along with catch and release and manpower, the deployment of 

our limited resources is an important piece of the border security 

puzzle. The Washington Times recently published an article highlighting gross mismanagement of the Border Patrol workforce in 

the McAllen Border Patrol Station. A little more than 700 agents 

are assigned to the station, and when annual leave, sick leave, and 

days off duty are calculated, there are approximately 400 agents 

that show up to work on any given day. Of those 400 agents on 

duty, only around 50 are deployed to the border. That’s unacceptable. 

This is well below par for a station that controls approximately 

60 miles of the border and is the busiest station in the country. The 

Federal Government’s decision to devote only 12 percent of the 

workforce to perform the duties they were hired to perform is lost 

on me, but for the sake of border security, this is entirely unjustifiable. 

If you are angry about this, you should be. Protecting our borders 

is paramount to ensuring homeland security, economic prosperity, 

and national sovereignty. It is my hope that that the members of 

this committee recognize this and exercise their oversight responsibility to hold Border Patrol management accountable. I want to 

thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any of your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31107.001

National Border Patrol Council 

Testimony of Brandon Jndd 

On behalf of the National Border Patrol Council 

Before the U.S. Honse of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on National Security 

A 'Caravan' of Illegal A Test of U.S. Borders 

April 2018 

Background 

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: l would like to 

thank you all for the opportunity to is Brandon Judd and I currently serve as the 

President of the National Border Patrol I represent 15,000 Border Patrol Field 

I <un an active Border Patrol Agent with over 20 years' served in California, 

Maine, and now Montana. 

As you all know, the news cycle has recently been dominated by the Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which translates to 

"People Without Borders", caravan from Honduras. Although we have never seen this level of press coverage 

before, Pueblo Sin Fronteras has been organizing these caravans during Holy Week for the past 10 years. 

Ironically, the exposure Pueblo Sin Fronteras has long after, may now be working against them. The 

Mexican govemment is refocusing efforts on their southern the President has ordered the National 

Guard to the harder, and we are all here this afternoon to discuss what steps need to he taken to better 

strengthen border security. 

Catch-and-Release 

The "catch-and-release policy" is a tcnn coined by Border Patrol many years ago. It refers to persons 

arrested for crossing the border illegally and subsequently released the United States on their "own 

recognizance" prior to having their deportation proceedings adjudicated by au immigration judge. Under this 

program, most individuals are released with the promise to a judge at a later date that is "to be 

detcrn1ined." Due to an extensive backlog of cases, the usually at least two from the time of 

release, but might as well be 10, 15. or even 20 the vast individuals never 

appear before a judge, as ordered. Instead, they into the "shadows" The last number l 

received from the agency was that 88 percent of persons released on their own never show up for 

their court dates, 

Sometime in 20!0 or 2011. ICE ERO started at an unprecedented rate. 

Although DHS and ICE denied the program was several most notably Judicial Watch, 

caught ICE in the act and filmed busloads of persons dropped off by ICE ERO at Greyhound bus stations 

in Phoenix, Arizona. Judicial Watch published their and DHS began admitting that the catch·andrelcase program was, in fact, taking place. However, oftermittatiingthe progmm, DHS/ICE/CBP/OBP 

decided to expand it cutting the middle man, ICE FRO, out of the and forced Border Patrol Agents 

to release people out front doors" within mere hours of anest. mandate, transferal of custody 

ICE ERO was eliminated, 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31107.002

Under the catch-and-release program, illegal border crossings surged to numbers not seen since the economic 

crisis of 2008. Individuals in mass numbers crossed the border illegally and simply gave themselves up, not 

even attempting to escape detection and avoid apprehension. While in custody and during the interview process, 

detainees freely admitted to Border Patrol Agents that they were coached to give themselves up because they 

would be released into the United States after only a few hours in custody. In short, people no longer feared 

violating our immigration laws because they knew no consequence would be affixed, and as a result the 

numbers went to levels that had not been seen in several years. 

On January 25, 2017 President Donald Trump signed the "Border Security and Immigration Improvement" 

Executive Order. Its intent was to "implement new policies designed to stem illegal immigration and facilitate 

the detection, apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens who have no lawful basis to enter or remain in the 

United States." In support thereof, and on February 20, 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly iss ned implementation 

directions via memoranda to all corresponding department heads. The first two paragraphs under Section A of 

the memoranda state: 

The President has detennincd that the lawful detention of aliens arriving in the United States and 

deemed inadmissible or otherwise described in section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA) pending a final determination of whether to order them removed, including determining 

eligibility for immigration relief, is the most efficient means by which to enforce the immigration laws 

at our borders. Detention also prevents such aliens from committing crimes while at large in the United 

States, ensures that aliens will appear for their removal proceedings, and substantially increases the 

likelihood that aliens lawfully ordered removed will be removed. 

These policies are consistent with INA provisions that mandate detention of such aliens and allow me or 

my designee to exercise discretionary parole authority pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the INA only on 

a case-by-case basis, and only for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Policies that 

facilitate the release of removable aliens apprehended at and between the ports of entry, which allow 

them to abscond and fail to appear at their removal hearings, undermine the border security mission. 

Such policies, collectively referred to as "catch- and-release," shall end. 

Notwithstanding the clear guidance, catch-and-release policies have not ended. Surrogates and career 

employees tasked with carrying out the President's orders have failed to do so. In November of2017, the Field 

Office Directors for both the San Antonio and El Paso, Texas ICE ERO Field Offices sent email messages to 

Border Patrol leadership stating in part: 

"I have directed my staff to not accept files or custody of any FA MUs that are not processed as NT As 

that arc not FRC eligible. My position may change subsequent to discussions with HQ, but for now ERO 

L San Antonio and El Paso] position is that we will not reprocess cases (like male HoH) unless we accept 

custody, as the transfer of cases is not automatic. Again, I will be discussing this with ICE leadership 

and my position will conform with their direction." 

Processing individuals with NTA (Notice to Appear) instead of ER (Expedited Removal) allows ICE ERO to 

release the individuals. This decision by ICE management that was carried out by the San Antonio and El Paso 

Field Office Directors was based strictly upon bed space. It did not conform to the narrow guidelines set forth 

by then Secretary Kelly on when it would be appropriate to release individuals before seeing a judge. 

Although the Border Patrol did not have to acquiesce, it did. By processing illegal border crossers with 

W A!NTAs we consciously continued the catch-and-release program, and sent a clear message to criminal 

cartels that we arc not serious about following through with the President's or Secretary's orders. And since 

April of 2017, we have seen a steady increase of border apprehensions nearly every month. In the last two 

months, February and March 2018, the Border Patrol exceeded the number of apprehensions that took place 

during the same months within the last two years of President Obama's Administration. Despite the clear 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31107.003

month-by-month trend of increased illegal border crossings, CBP and the Border Patrol have made no effort to 

enact new policies or enforcement operations to address the trend. 

Criminal Cartels continue to exploit our policies, specifically catch-and-release. They force large groups of 

people to cross the border illegally in dangerous locations instead of through ports of entry, a controlled 

environment, in an effort to create gaps in our coverage. When we have to devote Agents to take groups of 

"give ups" into cnstody, criminal groups capitalize on the limited resources that are taken out of the field. By 

creating gaps, criminal cartels are able to cross higher value contraband such as opioids, criminal aliens, persons 

trom special interest countries, and other narcotics without detection, apprehension, or seizure. By continuing 

policies like catch-and-release, we are putting innocent people like woman and children into the hands of 

dangerous criminal enterprises. 

Manpower 

The single biggest challenge that we face right now to securing our border is manpower, as we arc currently 

2,000 Agents below our congressionally mandated floor of21 ,370 Agents. There are currently three challenges 

that we face: 

1. How do we retain the employees that we already have in place? 

2. How can we more effectively recruit and hire additional Agents? 

3. How can we more effectively use the Agents we already have? 

Personnel Shortages and Retention Problems 

Regardless of the amount of funding being appropriated to CBP for tactical infrastructure or emerging 

technologies being deployed on the border, the fact remains that the most crucial asset that the Border Patrol has 

are its agents. The men and women of the Border Patrol are some of the finest law enforcement professionals in 

the world but unfortunately we're losing agents faster than we can hire them. Just this past November, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that according to CBP, "from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 

2016, Border Patrol hired an average of 523 agents per year while experiencing a loss of an average of904 

agents per year." With agent attrition rates far outpacing hiring year in and year out, the Border Patrol has 

found itself with a critical shortage of agents in the field. 

Congress has previously mandated that the Border Patrol maintain a minimum staffing number of21,370 agent 

positions. However, due to the steady pace of attrition, the Border Patrol currently has only approximately 

19,300 agents. This is roughly 2,000 agents short of where Congress has said the agency's staffing level needs 

to be and is simply unacceptable. In large part, agents are leaving the Border Patrol for other federal law 

enforcement jobs. Based on information provided by CBP leadership itself, GAO's November 2017 report 

summarizes the key reasons why agents are leaving the Border Patrol for other agencies and states that, "Border 

Patrol agents are deployed to less desirable duty locations, and Border Patrol agents generally receive lower 

compensation." 

This pay disparity issue dates back to December 2014 when former President Obama signed into law the Border 

Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act (BPAPRA). This legislation overhauled the overtime system that agents had used 

for over 40 years. While initial drafts of the legislation were revenue neutral, during the legislative process, the 

Obama Administration pushed Congress to cut roughly $100 million per year over 10 years from agents' 

salaries. As a result, rank-and-file Border Patrol Agents took a significant pay cut of roughly $5,500 per agent 

per year. It is of note that the same high-level managers who were tasked with working with Congress on the 

BP APRA took no pay cut. While NBPC ultimately supported the final bill because the Obama Administration 

had already begun limiting agent pay through other administrative means, we believe that this pay cut has 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31107.004

seriously exacerbated attrition rates across the Border Patrol and hope that Congress can help remedy this 

problem. 

I want to be clear about this: If we do not address this issue we will continue to hemorrhage Agents and we will 

never secure our border. It is that simple. Senator John Cornyn included language in the Grassley Amendment 

during DACA debate in the Senate that would have restored our Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime we 

lost in 2014. !fa border security and immigration reform bill is considered again by this Congress, it is 

imperative that this FLSA language be included. NBPC views the reinstatement of FLSA as a top priority and 

one that will significantly improve our urgent retention crisis. 

Recruitment 

Executive Order 13767 mandated the hiring of5,000 new Border Patrol Agents. We currently face three 

significant challenges to recruitment that must be overcome. First, it takes CBP over 300 days to hire a Border 

Patrol Agent. The current hiring period is ridiculous in my opinion, but keep in mind that this is considered 

progress at CBP - two years ago it took 460 days. We have record low unemployment at the moment and we 

cannot compete for talent in the market when it takes nearly a year to be hired. 

The second challenge is that the Office of Professional Responsibility is failing two-thirds of our applicants in 

the polygraph. That is three times the amount of what most law enforcement agencies face. Please do not 

misunderstand, no one wants to work with an Agent who may be compromised by the drug cartels. But it is 

critical that we stop treating our job applicants like criminal suspects. 

Finally, the Administration proposed the hiring of an additional500 Agents in the FY 2018 budget. Regrettably, 

not a single new Agent of the additional500 were funded in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that was recently 

passed. No funding was included for additional manpower and frankly the men and women in the field are 

scratching their heads right now. 

Accenture Recruiting Contract Waste 

While new recruitment efforts are certainly necessary and crucial going forward, I am deeply concerned that 

CBP leadership is continuing to ignore our persistent agent retention problems and the detrimental impacts to 

budgeting, morale and border security that stem from these sustained attrition rates. As the Subcommittee is 

aware, in November oflast year, CBP awarded Accenture Federal Services a contract to recruit and hire 

additional CBP personnel, including 5,000 Border Patrol Agents. CBP has obligated over $42 million for the 

first year of the contract and the total value of the 5-year contract could reach as high as approximately $297 

million. 

With news of this contract award, lam deeply concerned that the agency is once again putting the cart before 

the horse and spending hundreds of millions of dollars without addressing CBP's underlying personnel issues. 

We must fix our retention problems first. Then we can address recruitment issues once the agency stops 

hemorrhaging agents. If we don't address why agents are leaving the agency, then we will forever be stuck in a 

cycle in which the agency, and thereby taxpayers, loses tens of millions of dollars every year and never actually 

solves the root problem. 

Based on only the limited information available regarding this contract, I am afraid that this contract award is at 

best a gross waste of taxpayer dollars and worse yet, likely mismanagement at the highest levels of CBP. I urge 

the Subcommittee to continue its oversight of this contract award and related decision-making by CBP to ensure 

that some light is shed on these matters. 

Use of Agents 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31107.005

Along with catch-and-release, the deployment of our limited resources is an important piece of the border 

security puzzle. The Washington Times recently published an article highlighting gross mismanagement of the 

Border Patrol workforce. 

The McAllen Border Patrol Station is one of the largest stations in the nation, and out of more than !50 stations, 

it is also the busiest. A little more than 700 Agents arc assigned to the station and when annual leave, sick leave, 

and days off duty are calculated, there are approximately 400 Agents that show up to work on any given day. Of 

those 400 Agents on duty, around 50 are assigned to actually patrol the border in a 24-hour period of time. This 

is well below par for a station that controls approximately 60 miles of the border and is the busiest sector in the 

nation. 

The Federal Government's decision to devote only 12 percent of the workforce to perfonn the duties they were 

hired to perform is lost on me, but for the sake of border security, this is entirely unjustifiable. Although the 

sector is reporting an official apprehension rate of 79 percent, Agents have relayed to me that the sector would 

be lucky to have an apprehension rate of 50 percent, pointing to the misuse of resources. When a single Agent is 

assigned to patrol a zone of 14 miles, it becomes nearly impossible to determine the number of people that 

crossed the border illegally, thereby reducing illegal entry figures to guesswork. 

If you are angry about this, you should be. Protecting our borders is paramount to ensuring homeland security, 

economic prosperity, and national sovereignty. It is my hope that the Members of this Committee recognize this 

and exercise their oversight responsibility to hold Border Patrol management accountable. 

Conclusion 

While sit,'llifieant progress has been made in securing onr border over the past year, much work remains to be 

done. President Trump has worked tirelessly over the past year to improve border security and stop illegal 

immigration. He's made it crystal clear that he intends to finally secure our Southern border with Mexico and 

fix our broken immigration system, but sadly career bureaucrats and Obama holdovers at DHS, CBP and ICE 

have slowed our progress. Whether it's the continued implementation of the catch and release policy or 

mismanaging manpower resources, CBP management continues to perform poorly. I implore the Members of 

this Snbcommittee to use your oversight powers and jurisdiction to hold CBP management accountable. 

Lastly, Congress must take a stand and pass legislation to secure our borders and reform our broken 

immigration system. l implore both sides of the aisle to quit politicizing border security and illegal border 

entries, and work with the men and women of the Border Patrol to invest in and ensure we have the 

infrastructure, personnel resources and technology we need. By so doing, l have no doubt in my mind that 

Border Patrol Agents will once and for all secure the border. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify this aftemoon and look forward to answering your questions. 
12 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. Colonel, you’re up. 

Colonel MCCRAW. Chairman, distinguished members, Steve 

McCraw, director of Texas Department of Public safety. 

You have my written testimony, so I will not go into anything 

that I discussed in there, but four things I would like to mention. 

First, I mean, obviously, the Texas-Mexico border is unsecure. 

Because of that, the consequence of that is it is a public safety and 

national security threat, not just to Texas but to every community 

in the United States. And Ranking Member Lynch, you noted some 

of those things in your comments along that. Everyone is concerned 

about the impact of criminal organizations on their communities. 

And we all recognize that we’re concerned about fentanyl. We’re 

concerned about methamphetamine. If you got a drug problem, you 

have a cartel problem. You have got an unsecure border problem. 

If you have an MS–13 problem in New York, you have a border 

problem. So clearly, it’s the most significant vulnerability that we 

face right now from a national security and public safety standpoint. 

From a Texas standpoint, you know, we recognize that it’s a sovereign responsibility of you, the Federal Government, to secure the 

border, but when it doesn’t happen, it impacts our communities. 

And Governor Abbott and the State Legislature in Texas is not 

going to sit around and do nothing. And what they have done is 

they’ve allocated billions of dollars to support, provide direct support to U.S. Border Patrol, not compete, complement and provide 

direct support to deter, detect, and interdict smuggling incidents 

between the ports of entry. And that includes marine assets, a tactical marine unit we put in place. I have got over 1,000 troopers 

right now engaged in border security activities. We have 13 aircraft, including nine helicopters and four airplanes, that are dedicated full-time to border security operations. We have got 13 tactical boats that are done. We have got 42 Texas Rangers that we’ve 

established to address public corruption, but also to work on occasion—prior, we had to work assault on Federal officers, because 

they weren’t being handled at the Federal level. They are now, 

thanks to the new U.S. Attorney in the Southern District. But 

those are the types of things that are important to Texans. And as 

Texas goes, so goes the Nation. 

And we recognize also that not only is it the sovereign responsibility of the Federal Government, it can be done. This is not rocket 

science. And Mr. Judd mentioned a few of those things that are 

clearly—clearly would enhance or secure the border, without question. And some of those things is people, technology, infrastructure, 

and the equipment that they need and resources that they need. 

And there is no question that they could do it if they had that. But 

because they don’t have it, the Department of Public Safety, the 

State of Texas and Governor Abbott, they’re dedicating resources 

and time and energy to be able to complement what they’re doing 

in the Border Patrol. 

I will say this, though. We do appreciate the Texas military 

forces and Texas National Guard in Texas. They do a great job. In 

fact, we’ve had them involved in border security operations from 

the beginning, and we’ll continue to do. And thankfully, recently 

they’ve been able to plus up. They bring with them not just the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

UH–72s, but also other resources that we can use, in terms of observation/listening posts. And I can defer to Mr. Judd on how important those things are to be able to deny cartels access to those 

key areas. 

And I’m sure I’ve outlived my time, so I’ll stop right now and 

move on. Thank you, Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Colonel McCraw follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31107.006

Colonel Steven C. McCraw 

Director of the Texas Depa1iment of Public Safety 

Subcommittee on National Security 

April12, 2018 

Good afternoon, Chairman DeSantis and the distinguished members of the Subcommittee on 

National Security. My name is Steven McCraw; I am the Director of the Texas Department of 

Public Safety. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the 

vitally important homeland security issue of an unsecured border with Mexico, and the 

consequences it has had for the state of Texas and our communities. 

In an ever-changing threat environment where crime is increasingly transitory, transnational, 

organized, and discreet, and terrorism has become more disaggregated, an unsecure border with 

Mexico represents a grave national security vulnerability. As the members of this committee 

know well, a porous border with Mexico provides Mexican Cartels a reliable means to smuggle 

people, some of whom are members of transnational gangs, criminal aliens or foreign nationals 

from countries that are state-sponsors of terrorism and/or have a large presence of terrorist 

organizations committed to destroying us and our way of life. The Mexican Cartels continue to 

prey upon young women and children from Central America and Mexico seeking to enter the 

U.S. illegally, subjecting them to the vilest of depravations. 

Importantly, the Mexican Cartels have exploited the porous U.S./Mexico border to dominate our 

nation's lucrative illicit drug market, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, 

and now, fentanyl- and Texas has become the drug and human transshipment center for the 

nation. The opiate crisis that some of the members of this committee have experienced in your 

districts illustrates the Mexican Cartel's ability to quickly diversify drug smuggling and 

trafficking operations to quickly become the largest supplier of our nation's heroin- and now 

fentanyl. For example, over the last decade, Texas State Troopers routinely seized large loads of 

cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin transported from Mexico, but never large 

loads of fentanyl until recently. In less than four months in three traffic stops alone -our 

State Troopers seized 23.977 kilograms of fentanyl. 

According to DEA, "as little as two milligrams [offentanyl] is a lethal dosage in most people." 

See the picture below. Using this calculation, the amount of fentanyl seized in the last few 

months by our Texas Troopers is equivalent to nearly 12 million (11. 988 million) lethal doses. 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31107.007

When we think about the potential of 12 million people losing their lives, it underscores the 

serious public health threat this drug presents now that the Mexican Cartels are increasing its 

availability to communities throughout the nation. To further put this in perspective, 12 million 

people is approximately equivalent to the *combined state populations of three members on this 

committee- Vermont (623,657- Rep. Peter Welch), Maryland (6.052 million- Rep. John 

Sarbanes) and Kentucky (4.454 million- Rep. James Comer). (*combined population: I 1.129 

million) 

An unsecured border with Mexico has resulted in other negative consequences. The Mexican 

Cartels work closely with transnational and U.S.-based gangs to support their criminal operations 

on both sides of the U .S./Mexico Border, and they provide a readily available retail distribution 

chain for their drugs. In Texas border communities, the Mexican Cartels recruit children to 

support their smuggling operations, and they actively recruit and corrupt local, state and federal 

officials. 

In Mexico, they engage in kidnappings, robberies, torture, extortions and murders for profit. The 

level of violence in Mexico is unconscionable, and reports have shown that murders in Mexico 

arc at a historic high with more than 29,000 homicides reported in 2017. Cartels employ 

corruption and terrorism tactics and strategies to protect their criminal operations, and they pose 

a serious threat to the domestic security of Mexico. 

ln Texas our Governor and members of the Legislature have been clear, "an unsecured border 

with Mexico is a federal responsibility but a Texas problem." The State of Texas understands 

that securing our nation's border with Mexico is the sovereign responsibility of the federal 

government. Yet in the absence of adequate federal resources to secure the border, it has been 

necessary for the state to provide substantial resources to support the brave men and women of 

the U.S. Border Patrol in protecting the state and nation from the many threats stemming from 

the failure to secure the U.S./Mexico border. 

Governor Abbott has repeatedly called on the federal government to provide the U.S. Border 

Patrol with sufficient personnel, technology, aircraft, tactical boats and infrastructure beginning 

in the areas with the highest concentration of human and drug smuggling in the Rio Grande 

Valley of Texas, which has been the epicenter for the nation. 

We applaud the brave men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol for their commendable actions 

in addressing this formidable task with the limited resources they have been provided. We arc 

grateful for their dedication to keeping our nation safe from an array of public safety and 

homeland security threats. Texas is concerned that if we see a repeat of2014- when waves of 

foreign nationals including children and family units showed up at the U.S./Mexico border to 

turn themselves into law enforcement U.S. Border Patrol agents will again be overwhelmed 

with detaining, transporting and processing large numbers of individuals through federal 

immigration procedures. A scenario where droves of individuals seeking asylum once again 

arrive at the U.S./Mexico border will result in substantial security gaps along the border, and 

Mexican cartels and other criminal elements will be eager to exploit those national security 

vulnerabilities. 

2 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31107.008

In 2014, the situation was so dire, the Texas leadership and legislature directed the Texas 

Department of Public Safety to deploy State Troopers, Special Agents and Texas Rangers to the 

Rio Grande Valley from other areas of Texas to conduct around-the-clock ground, marine and air 

operations. We sustained these statewide deployments for over three years until the Governor 

and legislature provided an additional 500 State Troopers pennanently assigned to the border 

region along with additional tactical marine boats, aircraft and detection technology assets. 

Unlike natural disasters, the state of Texas was not been reimbursed for providing direct 

assistance to the federal government, and the local communities in our border regions directly 

impacted were never reimbursed for their tremendous contributions at the height of the 2014 

crisis. 

The State of Texas also deployed the Texas National Guard to the border, and Governor Abbott 

has kept them in place since. The Governor and legislature also funded additional Texas Game 

Wardens and the Texas Border Prosecutors Unit (BPU), and both have played an essential role in 

enhancing the level of security at the border. The BPU has also played a key role in addressing 

the Mexican Cartel smuggling infrastructure in border communities, which includes gang 

networks. 

I can assure you that the state leadership and legislature would much rather use state revenue to 

address other vital priorities to our taxpayers, such as education, transportation and public health. 

We are grateful for the recent actions by the Administration to deploy additional National Guard 

Troops to the TexasiMexico border, and we are hopeful that the U.S. Border Patrol will 

ultimately receive the resources needed to secure the border. Securing our international border 

with Mexico can be and should be done as soon as possible as there are serious public safety and 

national security consequences on a daily basis -not to just Texas, but the entire nation- in 

failing to do so. Included below is a list of some of the resources that the State of Texas has 

provided to assist the U.S. Border Patrol with their vital mission. 

Lastly, I would like to again thank Chainnan DeSantis and the other distinguished members of this 

subcommittee for your unwavering commitment to national security and securing our nation's 

borders in a way that helps ensure the safety of all Americans. 

3 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31107.009

Texas Border Security 

January 2018 

Strategic Intent 

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) will work with its local and state partners to 

provide direct assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to deter, detect and 

interdict smuggling along the Texas/Mexico border through the deployment of an integrated 

network of detection and communication technologies and an increase in ground, air and 

marine interdiction assets. 

DPS will work with its local and federal partners and the Border Prosecution Unit to degrade the 

smuggling infrastructure used by the cartel plaza bosses to smuggle drugs and people into 

Texas. 

The Texas Rangers will work with the Border Prosecution Unit and our federal partners to deter 

smuggling related corruption along the border by increasing the number of public corruption 

investigations, arrests and prosecutions. 

DPS will work with its local and federal partners to target transnational criminal activity including 

drug trafficking, labor trafficking, sex trafficking and money laundering in key Texas 

transshipment and trafficking centers and other impacted areas throughout the state. 

{I) DPS Deterrence and Detection Assets Deploved 

DPS enhances the level of detection coverage directly on the border through the deployment of 

motion detection cameras, day and night tactical boat patrols, helicopter patrols, and fixed wing 

aircraft patrols with FUR and integrated communications technology. 

A. DPS Maritime Assets 

The State of Texas has deployed DPS and TPWD boats on the Rio Grande River to deter and 

detect smuggling activity. 

DPS Boats Assigned to the Border: 

4 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31107.010

B. Detection Cameras 

The State of Texas has implemented a camera detection program leveraging low-cost, highcapability motion-detection and low-light camera technology. Through this program, detections 

are immediately relayed to U.S. Border Patrol and DPS Command Posts, and directly to 

interdiction assets on the ground and DPS surveillance aircraft. The Texas Rangers and the 

U.S. Border Patrol work closely together to dramatically expand the ability to detect smuggling 

events in real time through this program. 

i. DPS Installation Team 

U.S. Border Patrol Technical Agents have installed and provided maintenance service for the 

vast majority of these cameras to date. Most recently, the DPS Special Operations Group has 

provided installation support to U.S. Border Patrol. To further increase capacity, DPS has 

established an installation team using Texas State Guard personnel. 

ii. Detection Cameras Deployed 

4,300 detection cameras are currently deployed throughout the border region. 

C. Aviation Assets 

The State of Texas has deployed DPS and Texas Military Forces aircraft to detect smuggling 

attempts along the Texas-Mexico border and to assist in interdicting those attempts. The fixedwing aircraft receive direct alerts from U.S. Border Patrol ground sensors and DPS motiondetection camera activations, and the helicopters receive the DPS motion-detection camera 

alerts. All DPS aircraft can communicate directly with U.S. Border Patrol Agents and Troopers 

on the ground. 

5 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31107.011

(II} Interdiction 

Once detected, it is important the smugglers either be interdicted or denied entry, which 

requires a well-coordinated and timely law enforcement response that can only be achieved with 

a sufficient number of personnel staffed around the clock. 

A. Troopers 

Trooper Positions Currently Permanently Assigned: 

New Permanent Trooper Positions Hired and Deployed: 

Pilots and Tactical Flight Officers Permanently Assigned: 

Total Personnel Strength*: 

945 

356 

25 

970 

*New Permanent Trooper Positions are included in Trooper Positions Currently Permanently 

Assigned 

B. Tactical Operations 

DPS Special Operations Group and U.S. Border Patrol Special Operations conduct joint tactical 

operations in remote and high-threat areas. The Texas Rangers oversee DPS tactical 

operations, which include Ranger Recon teams, the DPS Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) 

team, and six Regional Special Response Teams (SRT). 

C. Intelligence and Information Sharing 

The Joint Operations Intelligence Centers (JOIC) centralize all of the border incident data 

across 53 counties and 171 law enforcements agencies to provide a shared view of the threat 

picture and trending patterns. 

Joint Operations Intelligence Centers: 6 

Texas Rangers: 2 

DPS Border Liaison Officers: 5 

State Guard Personnel: 13 

HQ Intelligence Analysts Permanently Assigned: 5 

Border Region Intelligence Analysts Permanently Assigned: 18 

Total Personnel Strength: 43 

D. Communications 

Communications Operators Permanently Assigned: 

Radio Technicians Permanently Assigned 

Total Personnel Strength: 

6 

55 

6 

61 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31107.012

(Ill) Targeting the Smuggling Infrastructure 

The arrests of members and associates of smuggling groups and criminal networks operating in 

the border region, such as cartel operatives, statewide and regional gangs, transnational 

criminal gangs, wanted and convicted felons, and criminal aliens, degrades the smuggling 

infrastructure and increases community safety. 

Special Agents Permanently Assigned: 137 

(IV) Targeting Border Corruption 

The Mexican cartels seek to corrupt individuals and institutions on both sides of the border to 

support their smuggling operations. Successful investigations degrade the cartels' smuggling 

ability and serves as an important deterrent to those who would betray public trust and the rule 

of law. 

Texas Rangers Permanently Assigned*: 42 

*Texas Rangers a/so assist local law enforcement agencies in the investigation of major crimes 

such as homicides, kidnappings, robberies and sexual assaults. 

*Does not include the number of DPS Special Operations Group Personnel assigned to border 

tactical missions. 

7 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31107.013

DPS Operational Activities 

*Felony OW/, intoxication manslaughter and other serious traffic offenses, felony Offenses against 

the Family, as well as Illegal Alien detentions and referrals to US. Border Patrol, are not included 

in the arrest statistics above. 

8 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31107.014

Total Appi'&heilsit>rt Suppott tl) 

U;S; Border Patrol 

*DPS did not capture Texas Highway Patrol Illegal Alien Detections and Referrals prior to 

December 1, 2015 and is now being captured state-wide. Recent reporting may be lower than 

the actual amount due to a transition in the method of capturing the data. 

9 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31107.015

Smuggling Trends 

The Texas Legislature provides funding to centralize the collection and sharing of border 

incident data across all jurisdictions in the border region, which comprises local, state, and 

federal agencies across 53 counties and more than 171 separate law enforcement agencies in 

the border region. 

Jan 2014- Dec 2011 

Jan 2017- Dec 2017 

-52.29% -------------, {RGVOnly) 

10 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31107.016

*Unofficial U.S. Border Patrol statistics. **CBP reconciled apprehensions. 

Paso Sector, which comprises parts of TX and NM 

11 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31107.017

Drugs Seized (lbs)- Last 24 Months 

Jan 2016 • Dec 2017 

12 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31107.018

$1,600,000 

$1,400,000 

$1,200,000 

$1,000,000 

$800,000 

$600,000 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$0 

"' <.0 "' ,... '"""' '" 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

Currency Seized - Last 24 Months 

Jan 2016- Dec 2017 

~ "' "' '" '7 >..0 \.0 1..0 1.0 t""'l .-i ..:-! M "' rl " '"' '"' ~ :::; rl rl '" 0. ,;.. c ~ "' ~ i ~ ~ ~ " c J:, ~ 0. ,;.. (l) 

~ ~ "' <( :;;; Cl :;;; <( :;;; 

~ ~ c: 

~ ~ 

-RGV -coastal Bend ·--~Laredo -Del Rio -Marfa Paso 

Note: The above border region statistics represent local, state and federal seizures. 

13 
27 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Arthur for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW R. ARTHUR 

Mr. ARTHUR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to speak today about this crucial topic 

of national interest. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Make sure your mic is on. There you go. 

Mr. ARTHUR. I should know that, shouldn’t I? 

A caravan, organized by an immigrants rights group in the middle of March 2018 in Tapachula had grown to more than 1,000 people, mostly Honduran nationals, by the end of the month. This was 

the 8th year such a caravan had been assembled, but the most notable because of the large number of participants. 

This year’s caravan, however, illustrates a little noticed issue 

along the southwest border, and that is a sharp increase in the 

number of alien apprehensions and inadmissibles, reversing a 

downward trend that had begun in November 2016. From 66,712 

in October 2016, the number of aliens entering illegally or seeking 

entry without proper documents along the southwest border, had 

dropped to 15,780 by April 2017. The numbers, however, began to 

slowly increase between the spring and early winter of 2017, before 

declining into the mid 30,000s. In March 2018, with Congress having debated amnesty for DACA applicants and others, however, 

those numbers skyrocketed to 50,308 apprehended and inadmissible aliens. If this continues, that would be 600,000 aliens in a 

year. 

This increase and the phenomenon of the caravan in particular 

brought into focus some crucial loopholes and flaws in U.S. immigration law. The first is credible fear. In 1996, Congress amended 

the immigration law to expedite the removal of aliens coming without visas or entering illegally. These amendments, however, included a provision to allow aliens fleeing harm to avoid expedited 

removal by asserting a credible fear of persecution, allowing them 

to apply for asylum. 

In fiscal year 2009, the asylum office completed 5,523 credible 

fear cases. By fiscal year 2013, as news spread that aliens applying 

for credible fear were being released from custody, that number increased to 33,283. At its height in fiscal year 2016, there were 

81,864 credible fear cases. These are people arrested at the border, 

claim credible fear to get into the United States. 

The majority of aliens, up to 90 percent who apply, are found to 

have credible fear. There are many reasons for this, including a 

lack of clear guidance in adjudicating asylum claims, the low credible fear standard, and lax evidentiary burdens to make such a 

claim. The fact is most of the aliens in the caravan, should they 

come to the United States and claim credible fear, would likely be 

released to await an asylum hearing that may be years in the future, if they appear at all. 

This is not the only flaw in our immigration laws, however, that 

renders our borders insecure. Interpretations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, or TVPRA, have resulted in the release from removal of tens of thousands of minors 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

from countries other than Mexico or, as we call them, OTMs, including many, if not most, of whom were never trafficked to begin 

with. This has provided incentives for thousands of other OTM 

alien minors and their parents to trust those minors’ lives to smugglers and undertake the perilous journey to the United States. 

Similarly, a 20-year-old settlement agreement in Flores versus 

Reno has created a presumption that alien minors who are apprehended along the border, even those who came with their parents, 

should be released into the interior of the United States. This provides even greater incentives for illegal entry, and more money for 

the smugglers and cartels who facilitate such entry. 

Finally, a 2008 expansion of eligibility for special immigrant juvenile visas has provided a third incentive for alien minors to enter 

the United States illegally, and for their parents to entrust their 

children to smugglers, debased criminals who deal in human misery. 

The fact is, most of the OTM alien minors in the caravan will 

likely be processed and released into the United States if they decide to come here. The administration has taken steps to stem the 

recent flow of illegal aliens to the United States, including ending 

catch and release, as we discussed earlier, sending National Guard 

troops to the border, and establishing a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry prosecutions. 

Each of these efforts, however, will fail to secure the border as 

long as the loopholes and flaws that I have described exist. I want 

to thank each of you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Arthur follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31107.019

Testimony of Andrew R. Arthur 

Resident Fellow in Law and Policy 

Center for Immigration Studies 

To the Subcommittee on National Security 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

For A Hearing Titled: 

"A Caravan of Illegal Immigrants: A Test of U.S. Borders" 

Aprill2, 2018 

2:00p.m. 

Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you 

for inviting me here today to discuss this issue, which is not only critical to our national security, 

but also to our system of justice. 

Background on the Caravan 

As my colleague, Kausha Luna, reported on March 30,2018: 

As part of Holy Week, over a thousand Central American illegal aliens set out to 

complete a "Stations of the Cross", traversing through Mexico, to reach the 

United States' southern border. Upon arrival, they hope to make asylum claims. 

The caravan, marching under the slogan "Migrantes en Ia lucha" ("Migrants in 

the Fight"). was announced about a month ago by the group Pueblo Sin 

Fronteras. The organization askedfor donations on its Facebook page and 

encouraged people to send them a message if they were interested in 

volunteering. The organization's mission statement reads as follows, "Our 

mission is to provide shelter and safety to migrants and refugees in transit, 

accompany them in their journey, and together demand respect for our human 

rights." 

As ear(v as March 18, participants gathered in Tapachula, on Mexico's southern 

border (the point of departure). Organizers shared a video on their Facebook 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31107.020

page which showed the migrants playing ice-breaker games. According to the 

post, the organization also conducted some introductory workshops. 1 

The next day, BuzzFeed News reported that there were more than I ,000 Central American 

migrants in that caravan, 80 percent of whom were Honduran nationals. 2 

Press reports on the original plans for that caravan differ. For example, Deutsche Welle reported 

on April 7, 2018: "The caravan of migrants from Central America [which had reached 1,500] 

that prompted Trump's criticism and subsequent border troop deployment was never intended to 

reach the United States.''3 That article states: 

The migrants were said to be fleeing violence and poverty and would seek asylum, 

but they also sought to draw attention to the plight of immigrants. The Mexican 

government had allowed the caravan to pass through its territory by issuing 

humanitarian permits validfor 20 days. 

The caravan began to break up in southern Mexico on April 5 and organizers said 

the remaining bus loads of migrants ended the caravan in Mexico City's Basilica 

de Guadalupe late [Apri/6, 2018/. From there, the migrants will be on their own, 

though many plan to stay in Mexico, while others will try to seek asylum in the US 

or attempt to cross the border. 4 

The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, indicated that the organizers of that march (which the 

paper states has been an annual ritual since 20 I 0) were overwhelmed by the number of migrants 

who took part this year5 It reports that the organizers "admit their original plan of making their 

way to the U.S. border has likely changed": 

"We cannot arrive to the border with 1,000 people. The group is too large, we 

never had seen this amount of people before, "said Irineo Muiica, one of the 

leaders of the caravan. He said previous caravans had about 300 people. 6 

The Mexican government had stopped that caravan in the town of Matias Romero, in the state of 

Oaxaca, during the first week of April. 7 

The Journal reported: 

1 Kausha Luna, Caravan of' Central American Illegal Aliens Heads to the U.S., CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, 

Mar. 30, 2018, available at: https://cis.org/Luna/Caravan-Central-American-lllegal-Aiiens-tleads-US. And 

'Adolfo Flores, A Huge Caravan Of Central Americans Is Headed For The US, And No One In Mexico Dares To 

Stop Them, BUZZFEED NEWS, Mar. 31, 2018, available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com.ladolfoflores/a-huge-caravanof-cenlral-americans-is-headed-for-the-us?utm term~.spoJewXPe#.njrADRBrD. 

3 US deploys troops to Mexico border, as migrant caravan ends, DEUTSCHE WELLE, Apr. 7, 2018, available at: 

http:i/www.dw.com/en/us-dep!oys-troops-to-mcxico-border-as-migrant-caravan-ends/a-43290089. 

4 Id. 

5 Juan Montes, Caravan in Trump's Crosshairs Stalls Far From Border, WALL STREET JOURNAL, April4, 2018, 

available at: https:/iww"'. wsj.com/articles/caravan-in-tr\tmps-crosshairs-stalls-far-from-bordcr-1522863!81. 

6 !d. 

'!d. 

2 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31107.021

Mexican immigration officials are now offering most of the caravan migrants 

either a 20-day transit visa through Mexico or a 30-day humanitarian visa for 

those who want to apply for asylum in Mexico. 8 

Those migrants who were given 20-day transit visas will likely make their way to the United 

States. For example, in article dated April 7, 2018, USA Today reported that while many of the 

migrants had decided to stay in Mexico, "some of the migrants are determined to continue on 

their journey all the way to the U.S. border to apply for asylum in this country."9 The paper 

stated: 

By [Apri/6, 2018}, roughly 630 migrants- about half are women and children 

-arrived via bus in Puebla, about a two-hour drive south of [Mexico City]. They 

are staying in four shelters. 

This weekend, they will be meeting one on one with volunteer Mexican and U.S. 

lawyers. The lawyers will explain the asylum laws in each country to see ({the 

migrants might qualifY, according to Jordi Ruiz Cirera, a freelance photographer 

who said he has been traveling with the caravan. 

On [April9, 2018]. the migrants plan to head for Mexico City, where the caravan 

will end after a series of demonstrations participants plan to hold at key sites to 

call attention to the plight of migrants fleeing Central America. 10 

March Increase in Border Crossings 

The caravan is not the only recent development that calls the security of the border into question. 

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump made it clear that he 

intended to enforce the immigration laws if elected. 11 Backing up this rhetoric as it pertained to 

those entering illegally, on January 25,2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13,767, 

captioned "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements." 12 While each of the 

sections of that order enhance immigration enforcement, four in particular were targeted at 

reducing the number of aliens entering the United States illegally. 

8 !d. 

9 Daniel Gonzalez, Migrant caravan in Mexico smaller, but not disbanded, as travelers meet with lawyers, USA 

TODAY, Apr. 7, 2018, available at: ll!!P§:I/www.usatodav.com/stoa,!news/nation-now/?018/04/07/immigrant-

"See Miriam Valverde, Compare the candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on immigration, POLITIFACT, dated July 15, 

016 ("Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have taken opposite roads on their quest for 

immigration reform. Trump calls for mass deportations, migrant bans and a wall to keep away people from corning 

into the country, while Clinton wants a pathway to citizenship, immigrant integration and protection from 

deportation."), available at: http://www.politifact.comitruth-o-meter/articlel20 I 6iiu1/l5/compare-candidates-clintonvs-trurnp-immigration/. 

12 E. 0. I 3, 767, "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, THE WHITE HOUSE, Jan. 25, 2017, 

available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive .. order-border-security-immigrationenforcement-improvements/. 

3 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31107.022

First, section 2 of that order makes it clear that it is the policy of the Executive branch to: 

(a) secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate 

construction of a physical wall on the southern border. monitored and supported 

by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human 

trafficking, and acts of terrorism; 

(b) detain individuals apprehended on suspicion of violating Federal or State 

law, including Federal immigration law, pending further proceedings regarding 

those violations; 

(c) expedite determinations of apprehended individuals' claims of eligibility to 

remain in the United States; 

(d) remove promptly those individuals whose legal claims to remain in the United 

States have been lawfully rejected, after any appropriate civil or criminal 

sanctions have been imposed; {and} 

(e) cooperate fully with States and local law enforcement in enacting FederalState partnerships to enforce Federal immigration priorities, as well as State 

monitoring and detention programs that are consistent with Federal law and do 

not undermine Federal immigration priorities .

13 

Section 5 of that order, captioned "Detention Facilities," stated: 

(a) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally 

available resources to immediate{v construct, operate, control, or establish 

contracts to construct, operate, or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the 

land border with Afexico. 

(b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally 

available resources to immediately assign asylum officers to immigration 

detention facilities for the p!apose of accepting asylum referrals and conducting 

credible fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(l) of the INA (8 US. C. 

1225(b)(l)) and applicable regulations and reasonable fear determinations 

pursuant to applicable regulations. 

(c) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action and allocate all 

legally available resources to immediately assign immigration judges to 

immigration detention facilities operated or controlled by the Secretary, or 

operated or controlled pursuant to contract by the Secretary, for the purpose of 

conducting proceedings authorized under title 8, chapter 12, subchapter II, 

United States Code. 14 

13 !d. at section 2. 14 Id. at section 5. 

4 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31107.023

Section 6 of that order, captioned "Detention for Illegal Entry," specified that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security: 

[Sf hall immediately take all appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens 

apprehended/or violations of immigration law pending the outcome o.f their 

removal proceedings or their removalfrom the country to the extent permitted by 

law. The Secretary shall issue new policy guidance to all Department of 

Homeland Security personnel regarding the appropriate and consistent use of 

lm~fitl detention authority under the INA, including the termination of the practice 

commonZv known as "catch and release," whereby aliens are routinely released in 

the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration 

law15 

Section 13 of that order, captioned "Priority Enforcement," provided: 

The Attorney General shall take all appropriate steps to establish prosecution 

guidelines and allocate appropriate resources to ensure that Federal prosecutors 

accord a high priority to prosecutions of offenses having a nexus to the southern 

border. 16 

The theory behind these provisions appears to be that, if a foreign national considering illegal 

entry into the United States knows that he or she will be arrested and detained (and possibly 

prosecuted) pending a determination of removability and relief; that foreign national will be less 

likely to try to enter illegally. If this is true, the order ostensibly had its intended etiect, at least 

fora while. 

The number of aliens apprehended along the Southwest border dropped precipitously after the 

election and the issuance of this order, in the short term. Specifically, according to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP), the number of apprehensions along the border and of inadmissible 

persons at ports of entry declined from 66,712 in October 2016 to 63,364 in November 2016, 

58,426 in December 2016,42,473 in January 2017, 23,563 in February 2017, 16,600 in March 

2017, and to 15,780 in April2017. 17 They began to increase in May 2017 (19,940), reaching a 

post-inauguration high of 40,511 (in December 20 17) before declining again in January 2018 

(35,822), with a slight uptick in February 2018 (36,695). 18 

15 !d. at section 6. 16 !d. at section 13. 17 Southwest Border Migration FY2017. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Dec. 15, 20!7, available at: 

https:/ /www .cbp.gov /newsroom/ slats/ sw-border-mi gration-fv 20 17. 

"Southwest Border Migration FY2018, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Apr. 4, 2018, available at: 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration. 

5 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31107.024

Unfortunately, after Congress began to discuss amnesty for DACA beneficiaries (and others) 19, 

the number of apprehensions and inadmissible aliens skyrocketed, reaching 50,308 in March 

2018.20 

Of these numbers, CBP states Southwest border apprehensions in FY 2017 dropped 76 percent 

from a high of 47,211 aliens in November 2016 to 11,126 aliens in April2017, before ticking up 

in May (to 14,535 aliens), and increasing to 22,537 in September 2017. 21 Those apprehensions 

increased again to 29,077 (in November 2017), before dropping slightly in December 2017 

(28,978), January 2018 (25,978), and trending upward again in February 2018 (26,666), and as 

noted in March 2018 (37,393). 22 

Significantly, according to CBP, total apprehensions along the Southwest border declined by 25 

percent bcrwecn FY 2016 and FY 2017.23 The latest influx of aliens across the Southwest border 

threatens to reverse this trend. 

Presidential Response 

The president has responded to this March 2018 influx and to the caravan by taking a number of 

actions. 

First, he ordered that National Guard troops be sent to the border. 24 On Friday, April 6, 2018, 

Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered up to 4,000 National Guardsmen be deployed to the 

Southwest border through September 30,2018, "under the 'command and control of their 

respective governors. "'25 

Second, on April 6, 2018, the president ordered an end to "catch and release" policies that 

restricted the number of aliens who could be detained. 26 The Hill reports: 

President Trump signed a memorandum on Friday ordering agencies to 

"expeditiously end" the practice known as "catch and release" that allows 

immigrants caught in the U.S. without proper documents to be released from 

detention while their cases play out in court. 

19 See Dylan Scott and Tara Golshan, The Senate's failed votes on DACA and immigration: what we know, Vox, Feb. 18, 2018, available at: !>ttps:llwww. vox.comipolicy-and-politics/20 18121121170035 52/senate-immigration-billfloor-debate. 

20 Southwest Border Migration FY2018, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Apr. 4, 2018, available at: 

https://W\\'W,cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-borderwmlgration. 

21 Southwest Border Migration FY2017, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Dec. 15,2017, available at: 

https:/ lwww.cbp. gov /newsroomistatslsw-bordcr-migration-fy20 1 7. 22 Southwest Border Migration FY2018, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Apr. 4, 2018, available at: 

https:llwww.cbp.gov/newsroomlstatslsw-border-migration. 

23 See id. 24 Dave Montgomery and Manny Fernandez, Texas Begins Sending National Guard Troops to Mexican Border, 

N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 6, 2018, available at: https:llwww.nytimes.comi2018/04/06/us/national-guard-border-lexas.html. 25 Id. 26 Jesse Byrnes, Trump signs memo ordering end to 'catch and release' practices, THE HILL, Apr. 6, 2018, available 

at: 

6 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31107.025

The memo signed by Tntmp orders the Department of Homeland Security, in 

coordination with other agencies, to submit a report to the president within 45 

days "detailing all measures that their respective departments have pursued or 

are pursuing to expeditiously end 'catch and release' practices." 

The report instructs departments to share information on any contracts to 

construct or operate detention facilities along the border as well as steps taken to 

assign asylum officers at detention facilities, among other measures. 

As part of the order, Trump is requesting "a detailed list of all existing facilities, 

including military facilities, that could be used, modified, or repurposed to detain 

aliens for violations of immigration law at or near the borders of the United 

States." 

Trump has also directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security 

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to identifY any other resources or steps "that may be 

needed to expeditiously end 'catch and release' practices. "

27 

Also on April6, 2018, Attorney General Sessions also issued a memorandum28 directing: 

[E) ach United States Attorney's 0./}ice along the Southwest border- to the extent 

practicable, and in consultation with [the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS)} -to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for 

prosecution under section 1325(a). 

The referenced provision of the law renders an initial illegal entry into the United States a 

criminal misdemeanor subject to a sentence of up to six months (and a fine), and illegal reentry a 

felony that carries with it a fine and a sentence of up to two years29 

Shortcomings in U.S. Immigration Law 

Each of these actions will have a deterrent effect on aliens who arc considering entering the 

United States illegally. Unfortunately, until various loopholes and flaws in our immigration laws 

are addressed, even these actions will not be sufficient to secure the border. 

Prosecuting aliens under section 1325(a), particularly if those convicted receive significant 

sentences, will make it less likely that foreign nationals will attempt illegal entry into the United 

States. Logic dictates that the higher the penalty (including jail time) imposed for a criminal 

violation, the less likely that the criminal will attempt the offense. This is especially true in 

immigration, where convictions make it less likely that an alien will receive discretionary relief, 

and where the vast majority of aliens are coming to the United States to work. If they are 

27 !d. 

28 The Attorney General, Memorandum: Zero Tolerance for Offenses under 8 U.S. C. .9' 1325(a), U.S. DEP'TOF 

JUSTICE, April6, 2018, available at: https://www.justice.gov/opalpressreleasc/filel I 049751/download"utm medium~email&utm source~govdelivery. 

29 8 US. C.§ 1325(a), available at: https:liwww.law.comell.eduluscode/tcxt/8/1325. 

7 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31107.026

detained and convicted (and subsequently deported), they will have spent money on smuggling 

fees that they will not be able to recoup. 

Similarly, an increase in detention will make it less likely that aliens will enter the United States 

illegally, and make it more likely that aliens without meritorious claims for relief who entered 

illegally will take orders of removal or voluntary departure and go home. Again, logic and 

experience suggest that aliens enter the United States illegally to remain at large in the United 

States. The longer that the alien is able to remain at large and work, therefore, the better. If the 

alien is detained and cannot work, however, there is no longer an incentive to remain; instead, 

accepting an order of removal or a grant of the privilege of voluntary departure is more 

advantageous to the alien than continued detention. 

Finally, the presence of National Guard troops in support roles will free up Border Patrol Agents 

to make apprehensions of aliens who entered illegally. 

This is not the first time that the National Guard has been deployed to the border. As PBS notes: 

From 2006 to 2008, the Guard fixed vehicles, maintained roads, repaired fences 

and performed ground surveillance. Its second mission in 2010 and 2011 involved 

more aerial surveillance and intelligence work. People involved in both 

operations say the Guard was the Border Patrol's "eyes and ears. "30 

According to news reports, during this deployment, Air National Guard helicopters will likely 

provide surveillance and back up, and check areas where censors have been triggered "to 

determine the number of immigrants having crossed the line."31 In addition, "Guardsmen will 

also repair vehicles, monitoring and maintaining video surveillance to help provide real-time 

intel to border agents.'m 

As noted, even these efforts will be frustrated, however (at least to some degree) by flaws and 

loopholes in current U.S. immigration law. 

First, border security is undermined by our current "credible-fear" system. When they arrive at 

the United States border without proper documents, aliens seeking entry take one, or both, of two 

separate actions: entering the United States illegally across the border, or presenting themselves 

at a port of entry. 

If they present themselves at a port of entry without proper documents, they will be deemed 

inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA).33 If they enter the United States illegally, and arc apprehended by the 

30 Elliot Spagat, National Guard's last border deployments offer clues to the future, PBS NEWS HOUR, Apr. 6, 2018, 

available at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/national-guards-last-border-deployments-offer-clues-to-the-

:Mure. 

31 William Lajeunesse, National Guard will only play supporting role to agents at the border, Fox NEWS, April 6, 

2018, available at: http://v<iww.foxnews.com/us/20 18/04i05/national-guard-will-only-play-~upporting-role-toagents-at-border.html. 

32 !d. 

33 Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(l) ofthe INA, available at: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTMLISLB/O-O-Ol/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html ("In generaL-Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, any 

8 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31107.027

Border Patrol, they will likely be detained and in charged with removability under section 

212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA. 34 

Under section 235(b)(l)(A) of the INA35, when apprehended shortly after entry at the border or a 

port of entry, each of these classes of aliens are subject to expedited removal. Specifically, that 

provision states that "the [immigration] officer shall order the alien removed from the United 

States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for 

asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution. "36 

It appears that the aliens in the caravan who reach the United States will be requesting asylum 

under the "credible fear" process. Attorney General Sessions explained that process in a speech 

he delivered on October 12, 2017 before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): 

The Department of Homeland Security is tasked in thefirst instance with 

evaluating whether an apprehended alien's claim of fear is credible. lfDHS finds 

that it may be, the applicant is placed in removal proceedings and allowed to 

present an asylum claim to an immigration judge. 

If, however, DHSfinds that the alien does not have a credible fear, the alien can 

still get an immigration judge to review that determination. In effect, those who 

would otherwise be subject to expedited removal get two chances to establish that 

their fear is credible. 37 

Under section 235(b)(l)(B)(v) of the INA38 , "the term 'credible fear of persecution' means that 

there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the 

alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien 

could establish eligibility for asylum under section 208." "[S]ignificant possibility . . . that the 

alien could establish eligibility for asylum" is lower than the standard required for asylum itself, 

which requires proof of either "past persecution" or "well-founded fear of persecution." 39 

immigrant at the time of application for admission- (!) who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, 

reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this Act. and a valid 

unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality jf such document is 

required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 211 (a) .... is inadmissible."). 34 Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA, available at: https:/lwww.uscis.govlilink/docView/SLBIHTMLISLBi0-0-0-

l/0-0-0-2910-0-0-2006.htm1 ("In generaL-An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or 

who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is 

inadmissible."). 

35 Sections 235(b)(l )(A) and (iii)(II) of the INA, available at: 

https:/lwww .uscis.gov lilink/ doc V iew/SLB/HTMLISLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-53 89 .html. 

36 I d. 37 Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks to the txecutive OfficefiJr Immigration Review, U.S. DEP'T OF 

JUSTICE, OFC. OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, Oct. 12. 2017, available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speeehiattorney-generaljeff-sessions-delivers-rcmarks-executive-office-imrnigration-review. 

38 Section 235(b)(l)(B)(v) of the INA, available at: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTMLISLB/O-O-Ol/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-518'.l.h.tml. 

39 See section 208(b )( 1) of the INA ("The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant 

asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by 

the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland 

9 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31107.028

In the aforementioned October 2017 speech, Attorney General Sessions identified a number of 

key problems with the "credible-fear" system: 

[I}n 2009, the previous Administration began to allow most aliens who passed an 

initial crediblefear review to be released from custody into the United States 

pending a full hearing. These changes- and case law that has expanded the 

concept of asylum well beyond Congressional intent-created even more 

incentives for illegal aliens to come here and claim a fear of return. 

The consequences are just what you'd expect. Claims of fear to return have 

skyrocketed, and the percentage of claims that are genuinely meritorious are 

down. 

The system is being abused to the detriment of the rule of law, sound public 

policy, public safety, and (){just claims. This, of course, undermines the system 

and frustrates officers who work to make dangerous arrests in remote areas. 

Saying a few simple words is now transforming a straightforward arrest and 

immediate return into a probable release and a hearing- if the alien shows for 

the hearing. 

Here are the shocking statistics: in2009, DHS conducted more than 5,000 

credible fear reviews. By 2016, that number had increased to 94,000. The number 

(){these aliens placed in removal proceedings went from fewer than 4,000 in 2009 

to more than 73,000 by 2016 nearly a 19-fold increase- overwhelming the 

:,ystem and leaving those with just claims buried. 

The increase has been especially pronounced and abused at the border. From 

2009 to 2016, the credible fear claims at the border went from approximately 

3,000 cases to more than 69,000. 

All told the Executive Office for Immigration Review has over 600,000 cases 

pending- tripled from 2009. 

And the adjudication process is broken as well. DHSfound a credible fear in 88 

percent of claims adjudicated. That means an alien entering the United States 

illegalZv has an 88 percent chance to avoid expedited removal simply by claiming 

a fear of return. 

Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 10l(a)(42)(A) 

."),available at: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTMLISLB/O-O-O-I/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html; section 

10l(a)(42)(A) of the INA ("The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's 

nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last 

habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself 

of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, 

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion ... . "),available at: 

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrarv/assets/training/xus/crcl/asvlumseekers/crcl asylum/pdfs/lmmigration%20and%20Nati 

onality%20Act%20 1 01 (a)(42).pdf. 

10 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31107.029

But even more telling, half of those that pass that screening-- the very people 

who say they came here seeking asylum never even file an asylum application 

once they are in the United States. This suggests they knew their asylum claims 

lacked merit and that their claim of fear was simply a ruse to enter the country 

illegally. 40 

(Emphasis added). In cases in which a credible fear determination was made in the first three 

months ofFY 2018, credible fear was established in 90 percent of cases (October 2017 and 

November 2017), and 89 percent of cases (December 2017)41 This number does not include 

"closings," that is, cases in which a request for credible fear was withdrawn or some other action 

was taken on the alien's case. Even when those numbers are added in, however, credible fear 

was found in more than 75 percent of cases (October 2017), 77 percent of cases (November 

20 17), and 78 percent of cases (December 20 17). 42 

It is doubtful that DOJ will attempt to prosecute aliens who have entered illegally but who have 

been found to have a "credible fear" of persecution. Therefore, the Attorney General's "zerotolerance" policy will likely have no effect on the flow of such aliens to the United States 

illegally. Further, the deployment of National Guard troops to the border to supplement the 

efforts of the Border Patrol will likely have little effect on aliens claiming credible fear, as those 

aliens often will tnm themselves in to the first Border Patrol Agent they encounter. 43 

It should be noted that some credible fear claims are simply fraudulent, advanced by aliens in 

order to gain access to the United States, and that some are legitimate. That said, many aliens 

claim credible fear because they are in flight from areas where there are high levels of criminal 

danger, some of which may have affected those aliens themselves. The lack of clear guidance on 

adjudicating such claims has, unfortunately, the swelled the numbers of aliens found to have 

credible fear. 

In particular, many asylum claims in recent years from Central America have related to criminal 

violence, and in particular gang violence, in those countries, a fact magnified by the number of 

unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who have entered the United States in recent years. 

40 Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Executive Officefor Immigration Review, U.S. DEP'T OF 

JUSTICE, OFC. OF Pusuc AFFAIRS, Oct. 12. 2017, available at: https:/iwww.justice.goviopaispeech/attorncy-gencraljeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-cxecutive-office-immigration-review. 

41 See Credible Fear Workload Report Summary, FY 20/8 Total Caseload, U.S. CITIZENSHIP ANO IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES, undated, available at: 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED CredibleF 

earandReasonableFearStatisticsandNationalityReport.pdf. 

42 Id. But the 43 See Amanda Sakuma, Illegal Immigration Is Changing. Border Security Is Still Catching Up, NBC NEWS, Oct. 

17, 2016, available at: https://w\vw.nbcnews.com/storylinelimmigration-border-crisislillegal-immigration changingborder-security-still-catching-n667916 ("U.S. officials have known for years that a significant number of Central 

American migrants arc actually turning themselves in at Border Patrol stations and begging for protection. And 

because they're asylum-seekers, agents can't simply turn them away or immediately deport them. The United States 

has a legal obligation to accept the thousands ofmi&>rants until their asylum claims are processed."). 

11 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31107.030

In a September 5, 2014 report44, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found: 

When considered by the [Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)j or appellate 

courts in light of how the INA's definition ~f'refugee is construed, claims to 

asylum based on gang-related violencefrequently (although not inevitably) fail. 

In some cases, this is because the harm experienced or feared by the alien is seen 

not as persecution, but as generalized lawlessness or criminal activity. In other 

cases, persecution has been found to be lacking because governmental 

ineffectiveness in controlling the gangs is distinguishedji·om inability or 

unwillingness to control them. In yet other cases, any persecution that is found is 

seen as lacking the requisite connection to a protected ground, and instead 

arising from activities "typical" to gangs, such as extortion and recruitment of 

new members. The particular social group articulated by the alien (e.g., former 

gang members, recruits) may also be seen as lacking a "common, immutable 

characteristic, "social visibility (now, social distinction), or particularity. 

Four of the five factors for asylum relief are fairly straightforward: race, religion, nationality, and 

political opinion.45 The BIA and the courts, however, have struggled with the parameters of 

"membership in a particular social group." In Matter of the M-E-V-G-46, for example, the BIA 

held: "The phrase 'membership in a particular social group,' which is not defined in the Act, the 

[United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees], or the [United Nations Protocol 

Relating to the Status of Refugees], is ambiguous and difficult to define." In Fatin v. INS' 7

, 

then-Judge (now Justice) Ali to, writing for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, noted: 

"Read in its broadest literal sense, the phrase is almost completely open-ended. Virtually any set 

including more than one person could be described as a 'particular social group."' 

In the gang violence context, this is complicated by the fact that generally, as the BIA recognized 

in Matter of Sanchez and Escobar48, "the tragic and widespread savage violence [in a general 

population] as the result of civil strife and anarchy is not persecution," and that, as the BIA 

recognized in Matter ofT-M-B-49, victims of crime (in that case, extortion) not related to one of 

44 Kate M. Manuel, Asylum and Gang Violence: Legal Overview, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Sep. 5, 

2014, available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R437!6.pdf. 45 See section 10l(a)(42)(A) of the INA ("The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of 

such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such 

person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself 

or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account 

of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion .... "), available at: 

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/training/xus/crcl/asylumscekers/crcl asylum/pdfs;1mmigration%20and%20Nati 

onality%20Act%20 10 !(a)( 42).pdf. 46 Matter ofM-E-V-G-, 26 l&N Dec. 227 (BIA 20!4), available at: 

https ://www.justice.gov /sites/ default/files/coir/legacy/20 !4/07/25/3 79 5 .pdf. 47 Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d !233 (3d Cir. 1993), available at: 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar case0 case= ll9909360802025!4559&hl=en&as sdP=6&as vis-l&oi-scholarr. 48 Matter of Sanchez and Escobar, 19 I&N Dec. 276 (BIA 1985), ajfd, Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571 (9th 

Cir. 1986), available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaultifiles/eoir/legacy/2012/08/14/2996.pdf. 49 Matter ofT-M-8-, 21 l&N Dec. 775 (BIA 1997), available at: 

https://w\vw.justice.gov/sites/dcfimlt/filcs/eoir/leg;~nl2Ql4/07/25/3307.pdf. 

12 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31107.031

the five factors for asylum relief have not been subject to "persecution" for purposes of that relief 

as a result of such criminality. 

The BIA summarized these issues as they relate to gang violence in Matter ofM-E-V-G-50: 

The prevalence of gang violence in many countries is a large societal problem. 

The gangs may target one segment of the population for recruitment, another for 

extortion, and yet others for kidnapping, trafficking in drugs and people, and 

other crimes. Although certain segments of a population may be more susceptible 

to one type of criminal activity than another, the residents all generally suffer 

from the gang's criminal efforts to sustain its enterprise in the area. A national 

community may struggle with significant societal problems resulting from gangs, 

but not all societal problems are bases for asylum. 

Notwithstanding this, certain courts have held that aliens have been able to establish eligibility 

for asylum based on gang violence. For example, in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch51 , the Court of 

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that a Salvadoran national who had received death threats 

from Mara 18 members unless she allowed her son to join the gang had established eligibility for 

asylum. It held: "Mara 18 threatened Hernandez in order to recruit her son into their ranks, but 

they also threatened Hernandez, rather than another person, because of her family connection to 

her son," concluding that those "threats were ... made 'on account of her membership in her 

nuclear family," a particular social group. 

Fortunately, it appears that the Attorney General is poised to address these issues, and provide 

clarity to the immigration courts, the BIA, and asylum officers. On March 7, 2018, he directed 

the BIA to refer Matter ofA-B-52 to him for his review, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 

1003.l(h)(l)(i)53 In that case, the Attorney General is inviting briefing on: "Whether, and under 

what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable 

'particular social group' for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of remova1."54 

By providing immigration judges, the BIA, and asylum officers with better guidance on these 

issues, the Attorney General will be able to limit the number of claims (and in particular 

"credible fear" claims) that are considered in the immigration courts, and enable immigration 

judges and asylum officers to decide those cases more quickly. 

50 MatterofM-E-V-G-, 26l&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), available at: 

https:llwww. justice.govlsitesl defau lt/filesleoir/legacy/20 1410712513 795 .pdf. 51 Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F. 3d 944 (4'" Cir. 2015), available at: 

http://www.ca4.uscoUJ1s.gov/Opinions/Published/14133l.P.pdf. 

52 Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A. G. 2018), available at: 

https:llwww.justicc.gov/eoirlpagclfilell 041481/download. 53 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (h)(! ){i), available at: https:/lwww.law.eomell.edu/cfrltext/8/!003.1. 54 MatterofA-B-, 271&N Dec. 227 (A. G. 20!8), available at: 

https://www.jnstice.gov/coir/page/file/l 041481 /download. 

13 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31107.032

There is also pending legislation to address other flaws in the "credible fear" process. 

Specifically, the Securing America's Future Act of2018 (SAFA) 55 contains two provisions that 

would amend section 235 of the INA to put asylum officers in a better position to make crediblefear determinations. 

Section 4402 of division B, title IV of that bill 5

6 would amend the definition of"crcdible fear of 

persecution" in section 235(b)(l)(B)(v) of the INA to apply the same credibility standards that 

are used in asylum adjudications, and to make it clear that credible fear should only be found 

where "it is more probable than not that the statements made by, and on behalf of, the alien in 

support of the alien's claim are true." All too often, it appears that asylum officers believe they 

are required to accept the credible fear applicant's statements at face value absent significant 

inconsistencies. This provision would address that issue. 

Second, section 4403 of division B, title IV 5

7 of that bill would direct uniformity in questioning 

by asylum officers in credible fear cases, and require recording of credible fear interviews, which 

would be made available to the immigration court considering the alien's asylum claim. The 

second provision is particularly important, as aliens who have passed credible fear and are 

applying for asylum will often claim that they were misquoted during their credible fear 

interviews when confronted with inconsistencies between the record of those interviews and their 

testimony in court. 

Another factor that will frustrate the president's border-enforcement efforts is the current 

iteration of The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Protection Act of 

2008 (TVPRA) 58 

By way of background, section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 59 vested jurisdiction 

over the care and placement ofUACs in removal proceedings with the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Section 235 of the TVPRA distinguishes between UACs from "contiguous" countries (Canada 

and Mexico) and aliens from "non-contiguous" countries. Under section 235(a)(2) of that act, a 

UAC from a contiguous country can be returned if that UAC has not been and will not be a 

"victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons," does not have a credible fear, and "is able to 

make an independent decision to withdraw" his or her application for admission. 

As CRS has found, however: 

55 Securing America's Future Act of2018, H.R.4760, !15th Congress (2018), available at: 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/ll5th-congress/house-bill/4760/text. 

56 !d. at div. B, tit. IV,§ 4402. 57 Id. at div. B, tit. IV,§ 4403. 58 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of2008, Pub. L. II 0-457 (2008), 

available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill!!l Oth-congress/housebill/7311 ?g~%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22William' Wilberforce-' Trafficking+Victims+ Protection+Reauthoriz 

ation+ Act+of+ 2008%22%50% 7D&r= I. 59 Homeland Security Act of2002, Pub. L. 107-296 (2002), § 462, available at: 

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr 5005 enr.pdf. 

14 
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31107.033

The TVPRA mandated that unaccompanied alien childrenji-om countries other 

than Mexico or Canada-~along with UACfrom those countries who are 

apprehended away from the border-are to be transferred to the care and custody 

of HHS and placed in formal removal proceedings_ 60 

Specifically, section 235(b)(3) of the TVPRA directs "any department or agency of the Federal 

Government that has an unaccompanied alien child in custody" to "transfer the custody of such 

child to [HHS] not later than 72 hours after determining that such child is an unaccompanied 

alien child."61 

As my colleague Joseph J. Kolb described the TVPRA in a November 3, 2016 Backgrounder 

from the Centerfor immigration Studies: 

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Protection Act of 

2008 was a well-intentioned attempt to protect immigrant children from 

exploitation, but it actually applies to veryfew of the more than 200,000 

unaccompanied minors that have crossed the southwest border from the Northern 

Triangle countries of Central America since 2013. Most of these kids are not 

victims of trafficking, but came to the United States voluntarily with the assistance 

of a human smuggler, and with the intent of being reunited with a parent or family 

member. 

According to the Associated Press, with information obtained through a Freedom 

of information Act request from the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, between February 2014 and September 2015, 56,000 (80 percent) of the 

children were placed with sponsors illegally in the United States and an 

additional 700 were placed with sponsors in deportation proceedings. Only 4,900 

were placed with sponsors legally in the country. 

The TVP RA calls for the HHS secretary to have the children promptly placed in 

the least restrictive setting that is in their best physical and emotional interest. 

This is the loophole HHS uses to place children with designated sponsors illegally 

in the United States. The law only refers to checking the sponsors' immigration 

status, not acting upon it. The perception by ORR is that regardless of 

immigration status, placing the children with a parent is the preferred solution. 

The AP report found that more than 50 percent of the children were placed with 

parents. 

* * * * 

60 William A. Kandel, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, at 4, 

Jan. 18, 2017, available at: https:/lfas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf. 61 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of2008, § 235(b)(3), Pub. L. 110-457 

(2008), available at: https://www.congrcss.gov/bill/ll Oth-congress/bousebill/73ll''g=% 7B%22search%22%3A %5B%22William+ Wilberforce+ Trafficking;-Victims+Pro_tection+Reauthoriz 

ation + Act:+-gf+ 2008%22%50% 7D&F I. 

15 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31107.034

One congressional staffer, who declined to be identified, told the author that the 

current policy exploits a humanitarian law to manufacture additional reasons for 

illegal immigrants to remain in the country instead of being returned home. And it 

creates a huge demand for more minors to flood across the U.S. border to take 

advantage of it. In some cases, these unaccompanied minors should not qualifY 

for the protections of this law because not only were they not trafficked, they were 

placed with their parents or legal guardians, which by definition means they are 

no longer unaccompanied. 

The Obama administration and welfare advocates have professed that UA Cs are 

attempting to escape gang violence in Central America, and many have been. But 

there is also an awareness of the current policies that will enable them to stay for 

an inde_finite period. The author's understanding, after seeing Border Patrol intel 

reports, news media accounts, and results (){interviews by some o{my colleagues, 

is that there was not so much awareness ofDACA as just the fact that they would 

be released with a court date far in thefuture. According to one intel report, 

something like 90 percent (){the UACs and family arrivals interviewed said they 

were coming because they heard they would be released with a "permiso' which 

is the slangfor Notice to Appear in immigration court, which is de facto 

permission to stay pending the conclusion of deportation proceedings. This has 

resulted in a massive advertising campaign throughout Central America 

attempting to stem the migration north by saying that their hopes for admission to 

the United States based on this interpretation of the law is risky. 

Pedro Sanchez, Consul at the El Salvadoran Consulate in New York City, 

acknowledges that many children from his country hedge their bets on this 

interpretation. 

"People continue to send their children with this misunderstanding, " Sanchez 

told the author62 

It is doubtful that UACs would be prosecuted for illegal entry (or even illegal reentry), regardless 

of the Attorney General's policies. Moreover, it would appear that "catch and release" will 

continue to apply to this population of aliens, regardless of the president's pronouncements. 

Again, this law provides an incentive for older UACs to attempt to enter the United States 

illegally, and for the parents of younger UACs to have their children smuggled illegally to the 

United States. 

This is particularly problematic because of the nature of smuggling, and in particular the debased 

nature of smugglers. U.S. Immigration and Customs nforccment (ICE) put it best when they 

stated: 

62 Joseph J. Kolb, Implementation qfa Law to Protect Trafficking Victims Has Become a Public Sa{ety Issue, 

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, Nov. 3, 2016, available at: https:l/cis.orgiReport/lmplementation-Law-ProtcclTrafficking-V ictims-fj_as-Become-Pub!ic-Safcty-1 ssuc. 

16 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31107.035

While smugglers most often transport adult males, the number of women, children 

and famiZv units seeking transport has increased dramatically in recent years. 

They often find themselves at risk for assault and abuse such as rape, beatings, 

kidnapping and robbery. Smugglers regularly overcrowd living and sleeping 

accommodations, and withholdfood and water. In addition, individuals who are 

smuggled may be forced into human trafficking situations upon their arrival in the 

U.S. or theirfamilies may be extorted. Even knowing these dangers, the majority 

of people who travel with a smuggling organization do so voluntarily. 63 

Again, SAFA attempts to plug the loopholes in section 235 of the TVPRA. Division B, title V, 

section 5501 64 of that bill eliminates the conflicting rules between nationals from contiguous and 

non-contiguous countries, and subjects all minors to expeditious return if they have not been 

trafficked and do not have a credible fear of persecution. In addition, it ensures that minors who 

are victims of severe forms of trafficking are afforded a hearing before an immigration judge 

within 14 days, while extending the ability of DHS to hold a UAC for up to 30 days to ensure a 

speedy judicial process. 

Moreover, that section ofSAFA requires HHS to provide DHS with biographical information for 

the sponsors or family members to whom the UACs are released, a requirement that does not 

exist in current law. In the absence of such information, there is a distinct possibility that UACs 

could become lost in the removal system, or worse, possibly be handed over to abusers and other 

criminals. 

Further, section 5501 provides authority for the Secretary of State to negotiate agreements with 

foreign countries regarding UACs, including protections for minors who are returned to their 

country of nationality. 

Finally, section 5503 of division B, title V of SAF A 65 would eliminate section 208(b )(3)(C) of 

the INA 66, which gives UACs the opportunity to have their asylum applications heard by both 

asylum officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and immigration judges, 

even if they would are subject to expedited removal under section 235(b) of the INA Again, this 

provision of current law provides UACs greater incentives to enter the United States illegally and 

make an asylum claim, regardless of its validity. 

Yet another factor complicating the president's border agenda is the so-called Flores67 

settlement, which regulates the treatment and conditions of detention of UACs in immigration 

custody. As CRS has described that agreement: 

63 Human smuggling equals grave danger, big money, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. updated 

January 16, 2018, available at: https://www.ice.gov/features/human-smuggling-danger. 64 Securing America's Future Act of2018, H.R.4760, !15th Congress, div. B, tit. V, § 5501 (2018). available at: 

https:/ /www.congress.gov/bill/ll5th-congress/house-bill/4 760/text. 65 !d. at§ 5503. When the 66 Section 208(b)(3)(C) of the INA, available at: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/llTML!SLB/O-O-O-l/0-

0-0-29/0-0-0-l687.html. 

67 Flores v. Reno, Stipulated Settlement Agreement, available at: 

https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/attachments!flores v. reno settlement agreement !.pdf The 

17 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31107.036

During the 1980s, allegations ofUAC mistreatment by the former Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (INS) caused a series of lawsuits against the 

government that eventually resulted in the Flores Settlement Agreement (Flores 

Agreement) in 1997. The Flores Agreement established a nationwide policy for 

the detention, treatment, and release o.fUAC and recognized the particular 

vulnerability ofUAC as minors while detained without a parent or legal guardian 

present. 68 

Human Rights First has explained: 

The Flores Settlement Agreement (Flores) imposed several obligations on the 

immigration authorities, which fall into three broad categories: 

The government is required to release children from immigration detention 

without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult 

relatives, or licensed programs willing to accept custody. 

If a suitable placement is not immediately available, the government is 

obligated to place children in the "least restrictive" setting appropriate to 

their age and any special needs. 

The government must implement standards relating to the care and 

treatment of children in immigration detention. 69 

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that the Flores settlement agreement creates a presumption in 

favor of the release of alien minors. 70 

It should be noted that the Flores agreement docs not only apply to UACs; rather, a July 2016 

circuit court opinion 71 held that the 1997 Flores settlement applies to both accompanied and 

unaccompanied alien children. 

The Flores settlement agreement is problematic in many ways. It encourages UACs to enter the 

United States illegally, and encourages the parents ofUACs to hire smugglers to bring their 

children to the United States. Further, it encourages people to bring their own children (or 

children whom they claim to be their own) with them when they make the perilous journey to the 

United States, thinking that it will make it more likely that they (the parents or purported parents) 

are more likely to be released if they are travelling with those children. 

68 William A. Kandel, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, at 3, 

Jan. !8, 20!7, available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf. 69 The Flores Settlement: A Brief History and Next Steps, Human Rights First, Feb. 19, 2016, available at: 

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resourec/flores-settlement-bricf-history-and-next-steps. And 70 Flores v. Lynch, 828 F. 3d 898 (9'h Cir. 2016), available at: 

hitps:// cdn.ca9. uscourts. gov/datastore/op inions/20 !6/07/06/ 15-564 34. pdf. 71 /d. 

18 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31107.037

Ironically, in cases where the alien parents are detained, and their alien child is released, the 

child would, in fact be, a UAC; it is questionable that this is a result that Congress or the courts 

intended. 

Again, it is doubtful that the president's efforts to end "catch and release" or the Attorney 

General's "zero-tolerance" policy will be directed toward these UACs, and therefore will have 

little or no effect on the illegal entry of such aliens to the United States. Moreover, it is doubtful 

that the presence of National Guard troops supporting Border Patrol activities will stem the flow 

of these UACs; with the prospect of release into the United States, they would have no reason 

not to tum themselves in to the Border Patrol, or at least not be inhibited by additional Border 

Patrol agents enforcing the laws along the border. 

Moreover, and as a significant practical matter, almost every UAC in the caravan (other than a 

Mexican or Canadian national) would be able to usc the TVPRA and the Flores settlement 

agreement to come to the United States with the expectation of being released into the interior of 

this country, to await a hearing that might be years in the future. 

Again, SAFA provides for a fix to Flores as it pertains to accompanied children. Specifically, 

division B, title V, section 5506 of that bill72 clarifies that there is no presumption that an 

accompanied child should not be detained, and vests jurisdiction over detention determinations 

for accompanied children with the Secretary of Homeland Security. It also mandates that 

accompanied children be released only to the alien's parent or legal guardian. 

One final provision that undermines the president's border agenda relates to so-called special 

immigrant juveniles (SIJs), for whom a visa is available under section 101(a)(27)(J) of the 

INA. 73 USCIS's website explains: 

If you are in the United States and need the protection of a juvenile court because 

you have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent, you may be eligible 

for [SIJ] classification. If SIJ classification is granted, you may qualify for lawful 

permanent residency (also known as getting a Green Card). 74 

Again, SIJ classification (which in appropriate instances can be a necessary form of protection) 

provides an incentive for foreign national children and young adults to enter the United States 

illegally. As CRS reported in August 2014: 

There has been a tetifold increase in the number of children requesting SIJ status 

between FY2005 and FY2013. In terms of approvals, the numbers have gone from 

73 in FY2005 to 3,432 in FY20!3. While the data do not differentiate among those 

unauthorized children who arrived unaccompanied by their parents and those 

72 Securing America's Future Act of2018, H.R.4760, 115th Congress, div, B, tit. V, § 5506 (2018), available at; 

https://www.congress. gov /bill/115th-congrcss/housc-bi ll/4 7 60/tcxt 73 Section 101(a)(27)(1) of the INA, available at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB 23 3K 3.pdf. 74 Special immigrant Juveniles, U.S. CITJZENSHJP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, updated Apr. 4, 2018, available at; 

https:iiwww.uscis.gov/green-card/sij. 

19 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31107.038

who were removed from their parents because of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, 

many observers point to the similarity in the spiking trends of both categories. 75 

Why the increase? It is possible that amendments in the TVPRA are to blame. According to 

CRS: 

In 2008, Congress amended the SL! provisions in the INA to broaden their 

applicability. The {TVPRA}, among other things, amended the SIJ eligibility 

provisions to (1) remove the requirement that a juvenile court deem a juvenile 

eligible for long-term foster care and (2) replace it with a requirement that the 

juvenile court find reunification with one or both parents not viable. 76 

(Emphasis added). This means that an alien can nonetheless still be granted SIJ classification, 

even though another parent is present in the United States and is able and willing to care for 

them. 

SAF A provides a fix to this loophole as well. Section 5502 of division B, title V of SAFA 77 

would make it clear that an alien is only eligible for SIJ classification if the alien is unable to 

reunite with either of his or her parents "due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis 

found under State law."78 

Summary 

After months in which a fewer number of aliens than usual attempted illegal entry into the 

United States following the election and inauguration of President Trump, in March 2018, more 

than 50,000 aliens were apprehended along the border or were deemed inadmissible of the ports 

of entry. This upward trend is illustrated by the 1,000 to 1,500 foreign nationals in the Pueblo 

Sin Fronteras caravan, some if not all of whom had the intention of making their way to the 

United States. 

The Trump Administration has taken steps to address the surge of aliens coming in recent weeks 

illegally across our Southwest border. Specifically, the president is phasing out "catch and 

release," National Guard troops will be mobilized to the border, and the Attorney General has 

announced a "zero-tolerance" policy for illegal entry prosecutions. While each of these steps 

will serve to stem the tide of aliens entering the United States illegally, there are still 

shortcomings and flaws in U.S. immigration law which draw aliens, and in particular alien 

minors, to enter the United States illegally. These shortcomings and flaws still need to be 

addressed, which could require Congressional action. 

I thank you again for your invitation to attend today's hearing, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

75 Ruth Ellen Wasem, Special Immigrant Juveniles: In Brief, Congressional Research Service, Summary, Aug. 29, 

2014, available at: https:/lfas.org/sgp/crs/homeseQ'R43703.pdf. 76 Id. at 3. 77 !d. at § 5502. 78 Section !Ol(a)(27)(J) of the INA, available at: http://www.comts.ca.gov/documents/BTB 23 3K 3.pdf. 

20 
49 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Breen, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BREEN 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member 

Lynch, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

The situation at our southern border represents a foreign policy 

problem, a drug policy problem, an immigration policy problem, a 

series of legal problems, a humanitarian problem, a law enforcement problem, and much else besides. It is not at this time, definitively not a military problem. 

I want to preface my testimony by saying how much I respect the 

service and the sacrifice of Border Patrol agents, Texas Department 

of Safety troopers, and other law enforcement agents who safeguard our borders and our communities. My own uniformed service 

was in the military, not in law enforcement, but I’m a proud member of a three-generation law enforcement family. And with respect 

to the Border Patrol, my dad was serving as a New Hampshire 

State trooper who was involved in the apprehension of Carl Drega 

in 1997, alongside a Border Patrol agent who was shot and wounded during that incident. 

So we show our military men and women a great deal of appreciation in this country, but not frequently enough with law enforcement and their families. So thank you for everything that you both 

do and all that you represent. 

Ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the resources 

they need must be a national priority, and there is no question that 

a secure border is essential. Fortunately, we’ve been on the right 

track toward both of those goals over the past several decades. 

We’ve tripled the Border Patrol’s budget since 2001, even as apprehensions have dropped dramatically, from over 1.2 million in 2001, 

to just over 300,000 in 2017, a large portion of whom were asylum 

seekers who appeared at ports of the entry or actively sought out 

Border Patrol agents rather than attempting to avoid them. 

There is much more important work to be done, of course, and 

it’s critical that we do it, but these numbers point to a success 

story for the Nation and they reflect important political and economic changes in the hemisphere. What these numbers do not 

point to, and what we do not, in fact, face, is a true crisis or emergency on the border. We face challenges, of course, but those challenges are best addressed by strengthening the institutions we already have, to support safe and orderly migration and through foreign policy and economic statecraft in Latin America, not by using 

the military. 

Nonetheless, President Trump frequently speaks of the need for 

a great wall across nearly 5,000 miles of the southern border. He 

initially claimed this wall would be paid for by the Government of 

Mexico, which, of course, declined to do so. He then sought the 

funding from Congress, which has also, in large part, declined up 

to this point. 

So now President Trump has declared his intention to deploy up 

to 4,000 National Guardsmen to the border. In the President’s own 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

words, ‘‘Keep them there, or a large portion of them there, until 

such time as we build the wall,’’ close quote. 

There may be some marginal benefit to the deployment, but 

there are a great many causes for serious concern, although more 

so, because it does not appear to be the result of a deliberative 

planning or decision-making process. The decision is likely to negatively impact readiness for the National Guard, potentially for the 

Active Duty force as well, do nothing to improve the capabilities or 

strength of the Border Patrol itself in the long run, and do precious 

little to improve security. 

Time does not permit me to lay out all the reasons this is so, 

which are detailed much more fully in my written testimony, but 

essentially, it comes down to readiness and cost, two issues which 

are, of course, extremely interrelated. It’s still unclear where the 

funds for this will come from, but costs are likely to be in the hundreds of millions, at a minimum. And if that funding is repurposed 

from within the Department of Defense, Congress should ask hard 

questions about the impact on other defense priorities, especially 

readiness. 

There is also a direct readiness cost to the National Guard since, 

by definition, Guardsmen who are standing tower duty, clearing 

brush, maintaining fences, doing other things on the border are not 

training with their brigade combat teams for their primary mission, which is combat. That impacts our national security as a 

whole, because, as an operational reserve, the Guard is an integral 

part of our military team. 

If we faced an actual emergency on the border, those costs and 

risks would perhaps be worth incurring, but consider the so-called 

threat that prompted this very hearing. A caravan of Central 

America migrants that presented no serious national security 

threat to the United States in the first place, and that is now largely dissipated, with only a fraction of the original 1,200 travellers 

planning to continue their journey northward through Mexico, 

where, by all indications, they intend to present themselves at a 

port of entry and seek asylum. 

So, in short, the situation at our southern border is, in many 

ways, better than it’s been in decades; but meanwhile, the National 

Guard is an increasingly integral part of our military, and our military faces a more challenging environment around the world than 

it has in decades: Ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq; 

counterterrorism work in East Africa, West Africa, Yemen; ongoing 

commitments to NATO and our mission in Kosovo, which the 

Guard entirely owns; critical deterrence missions in the Persian 

Gulf and the Korean Peninsula, where that border is more dangerous than it’s been at any point since the last Korean War. 

Our military is facing all of these challenges just as the services 

are finally digging out of a serious readiness gap, as Secretary 

Mattis is testifying to down the hall, left by 15 years of war. So 

this is not the time to pull troops and dollars away from their primary mission to fight and win the Nation’s wars, especially in the 

absence of a genuine threat. 

There is much we can do and should do to improve the situation 

on our southern border. I hope we do those things. But deploying 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

the National Guard in this manner right now is not one of those 

things. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Breen follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31107.039

Written Testimony of Michael Breen, President and CEO of Truman Center 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on National Security 

A 'Caravan' of Illegal Immigrants: A Test of U.S. Borders 

12 April 2018 

Chairman Desantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the planned deployment of our National 

Guard to the southern border of the United States by President Trump. 

I want to preface my testimony by saying how much I respect the service and sacrifice of the 

Border Patrol agents, Texas Department of Safety troopers, and other law enforcement officers 

who safeguard our border areas and protect our communities. While my own uniformed 

service was in the military rather than law enforcement, I'm proud to be a member of a threegeneration law enforcement family. We show our military men and women a great deal of 

appreciation in this country, and that is well deserved, but we don't recognize law enforcement 

officers and their families nearly enough. So thank you for all that you do. 

The situation at our southern border represents a foreign policy problem, a drug policy 

problem, an immigration policy problem, a series of legal problems, a humanitarian problem, a 

law enforcement problem, and much else besides. At this time, however, it is definitely not a 

military problem. 

The security and integrity of our border with Mexico is a serious matter, deserving of a serious 

approach from policymakers. In significant part, this is because a positive relationship with 

Mexico is both a benefit to and a necessity for the United States. There are an estimated 5 

million American jobs tied to our economic relationship with Mexico, which accounts for 

approximately $600 billion in trade-all part of what is arguably the most complex and 

intertwined relationship that America has with any foreign nation. There is much about the 

relationship that is productive, including a strong trade surplus in services, as well as a strong 

and growing Mexican middle class with a demonstrated affinity for American culture that 

represents an important market for U.S. businesses. 

In this context, it is clear that orderly migration, trade, and other activity at the border relies on 

a positive working relationship with Mexico. Every time we needlessly strain that relationship, 

whether through poorly-crafted policy or careless rhetoric, we make it harder to work with a 

partner we need in order to execute successful national security policy, and much else besides. 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31107.040

That said, the issue at hand in this hearing today is protecting our border with Mexico. This 

important duty falls primarily to the U.S. Border Patrol. I will leave it to others to describe daily 

life in this line of work, but it is fair to say that the organization is not currently staffed or 

resourced at an adequate level to meet the challenges it faces today. As of May 2017, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Customs and Border Patrol was operating 

with approximately 1,900 fewer agents than its congressionally-mandated floor, and that 

attrition was outpacing hiring at "an average of 904 agents compared to 523 agents" in recent 

years.; 

Presumably in part to make up for these deficiencies, President Trump frequently speaks of the 

need for a great wall across nearly five thousand miles of the southern border. He initially 

claimed that this wall would be paid for by the government of Mexico, which declined to do so; 

he then sought the funding from Congress, which has also in large part declined up to this 

point. Now, President Trump has declared his intention to deploy up to 4,000 National 

Guardsmen to the southern border.;; In the president's own words, he plans to "keep them ... or 

a large portion of them [there], until such time as we build the wall.";;; 

There may be some marginal benefit to this deployment, but there are a great many causes for 

serious concern. This decision is likely to impose a significant cost, negatively impact readiness 

for the National Guard and the Active Duty force alike, and do nothing to improve the 

capabilities or strength of the Border Patrol and precious little to improve security. 

The National Guard's current budget for FY18 allocates approximately $19 million fortraining 

and operations on the border. Even if this operation lasts only six months-not enough time to 

complete the (anywhere from $12 to $70 billion dollar) wall by a long shot-it is certain to cost 

many times that.iv In 2013, the Department of Defense's Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation prepared a report entitled, "Unit Cost and Readiness for the Active and Reserve 

Components of the Armed Forces," which estimated the annualized full-time cost of an E7 

Guardsmen at $lOOK (additional costs were $175K for an 05, and $58K for an E4).V Using those 

numbers, the annualized cost of placing 4,000 troops on the border comes to approximately 

$400 million, or $200 million if the mission lasts only six months. That puts the Guard about 

$180 million over the budget allocation, even in a very conservative scenario. 

This is concerning not only from the perspective of the American taxpayer, but also because it is 

so far unclear where that additional money-beyond the $19 million already allocated-is 

going to come from. Repurposing it from within DoD, just as the services are finally digging out 

of a serious readiness problem, would be deeply unwise and detrimental to both the Active 

Duty force and the National Guard. 

In the FY18 budget recently agreed to by Congress, funds were specifically allocated to address 

a serious readiness gap across the services. This gap has long been discussed in the context of 

the budgeting process; in 2017, Secretary of Defense Mattis-who has previously fiercely 

criticized Congress for limits on defense spending-characterized recently approved spending 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31107.041

as getting the military "back on its feet" and "in the right direction."v' Meanwhile, rising 

tensions with adversaries from Russia to North Korea underscore the deadly serious need for 

our forces to be prepared to fulfill their primary function: fighting and winning the nation's 

wars, against any and all adversaries. Given these realities, it should be no surprise to anyone 

on this committee that Chief of Staff of the Army General Mark Milley is fond of saying that 

"Readiness for ground combat is-and will remain-the U.S. Army's #1 priority ... and there is no 

other #l."v" 

It would be ironic and unfortunate in the extreme if, only weeks after allocating those funds, 

Congress were asked to approve repurposing millions of those carefully designated dollars for a 

short-term deployment to the border that will do nothing at all to improve readiness, and is in 

fact likely to do the opposite for the units involved. Since 9/11, the National Guard has clearly 

proven itself as an essential element in our national defense, and a high-capacity partner for 

the Active Duty Force. Simply put, the National Guard can no longer be fairly described as a 

"strategic reserve" to be used only in case of major war. It is now an "operational reserve," 

capable of seamlessly integrating with Active Duty elements as part of ongoing operations 

around the world. The National Guard has ably owned the Kosovo mission for 15 years now, 

proven itself in combat by playing essential roles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and responded 

admirably to natural disasters and other needs here at home. 

Americans and their elected policymakers should be proud of their National Guard for all of this 

and more. Yet we also must recognize that this level of performance requires a genuine focus 

on training and preparing units for the range of challenges they will face, ensuring that 

adequate forces are available to meet challenges as they emerge, and taking care of 

Guardsmen and their families. 

Like the Active Duty Army, today's Army National Guard is primarily organized into units of 

approximately 5,000 soldiers, known as Brigade Combat Teams {BCTs}. Forming a complete BCT 

typically requires drawing Guardsmen from across an entire state, or several states in many 

cases. Training a full BCT together is a top current priority for the National Guard, and an 

essential component of the Army National Guard 4.0 readiness initiative. In the words of Army 

Lt. General Timothy Kadavy, the director of the Army National Guard, "We are implementing 

this because our country needs us to do so. This is due to the current size of the total Army and 

the multiple threats that our country faces from potential adversaries."viii 

Deploying the National Guard to the border directly undermines these clearly stated training 

and readiness priorities by making it difficult or impossible for full BCTs to train together. 

Deploying a few hundred Guardsmen from a number of different states may ease the burden 

on any one state, but only serves to break up a larger number of BCTs for longer periods of 

time. For those on the border, the already questionable training value of the deployment is 

further eroded by the fact that they will be operating in very small units, which is not how they 

would operate in most combat scenarios. Even if the National Guard were to somehow deploy 

an entire BCT to the border as an intact unit, they would either be spread out over thousands of 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 31107.042

miles (and therefore by definition not training together), or concentrated in a small area 

providing very limited benefit to border security (and very likely causing increased tensions with 

Mexico, since a massed US Army BCT is a truly formidable presence on any border). 

This is to say nothing of the very questionable training value of the missions the Guard will 

likely be asked to conduct on the border. While details of the deployment are still emerging, a 

Department of Defense spokesman said on Tuesday that Guardsmen would not be "arresting 

migrants or carrying out armed patrols along the border;" instead, they will focus on 

surveillance and infrastructure improvement.;' In plain English, this means staring at the desert 

through binoculars, staring at the desert on a video screen, and repairing roads and fences This 

isn't meant to be glib, but is a critical point because it underscores the opportunity cost of this 

deployment in terms of the skills that the National Guard needs to continue developing in its 

volunteers. 

The U.S. military faces crises around the world: ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; indefinite 

deployments in Syria; counterterrorism work in Africa and Yemen; ongoing commitments to 

NATO and our mission in Kosovo; and critical deterrence in the Persian Gulf and Korean 

Peninsula, accompanying each of which is the significant risk of a war. Due to the nature and 

number of these threats, the National Guard is, as I mentioned before, continuing to transition 

from a strategic reserve to ability as an operational reserve-in other words, focused on better 

preparing its guardsmen to rapidly deploy in combat scenarios. The training in surveillance and 

infrastructure improvement that troops deployed to the southern U.S. border will receive will 

be of some marginal value, but performing these duties will undeniably put training for more 

complex operations on hold. Put another way, sitting in surveillance towers and moving 

barricades will do nothing to increase the lethality of the National Guard or otherwise prepare 

them to fight effectively abroad or respond to disasters at home-and it will preclude them 

from receiving the training they need to do so. 

Guardsmen's time is finite in other ways, as well. Just as Guardsmen deployed to the border 

cannot be deployed elsewhere, a Guardsman deployed to the border is not going to work at his 

or her civilian job. They are not with their families, or taking an active role in their communities. 

The National Guard has very good employer support programs, and many employers take 

considerable pride in supporting their employees as citizen-soldiers. Nonetheless, the decade 

and a half since 9/11 have taught us clearly that there is a cost to asking a volunteer, part-time 

force to spend too many long months and years far from home. 

In sum, this is likely to be a losing proposition for the Active Duty force, which stands to see 

much-needed funding repurposed, a losing proposition for the Guard in a number of ways, and 

a losing proposition for the Border Patrol, which will receive only temporary support at best. 

The National Guard is by definition a temporary force, and at the end of this mission, we will 

have lost capacity across the board rather than building it. 
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31107.043

There is also a broader question to be called here: Is this the proper use of the U.S. military at 

all? The Department of Defense will respond, within its legal authorities, to whatever mission it 

is asked to perform by the president. The highly-trained men and women of the U.S. military 

will lean into that mission, and no doubt do everything in their power and more to accomplish 

it. But in a democratic society, we have rightly placed limits on what we ask them to do on our 

own soil. And while this deployment may not violate the letter of the law, it is arguably contrary 

to its spirit. 

In the case of an actual emergency on the border, all these costs would perhaps be worth 

incurring. In its 2017 Border Security Report, however, Customs and Border Patrol "recorded 

the lowest level of illegal cross-border migration on record," and noted that apprehensions 

were down by 23.7 percent from the previous year.' Crossing and apprehension numbers 

certainly fluctuate back and forth, and there has purportedly been a more recent increase in 

certain areas-including larger numbers of children, accompanied by family members or not, 

seeking entry to the United States. That hardly seems to constitute a risk to our national 

security, though. 

Moreover, consider the so-called "threat" that prompted this very hearing: a caravan of Central 

American migrants. It is true that migrants travel through Mexico-usually in 'caravans,' or 

simply groups, to stay safe-in the course of fleeing discrimination or extreme violence in home 

countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The particular caravan that led to this 

deployment was deliberately organized by Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a nonprofit organization that 

has, in the past, facilitated such mass movements to raise awareness of the suffering of these 

migrants.'; While historically large in number (peaking at approximately 1,200), this 

demonstration and the people participating in it present no national security threat to the 

United States; indeed, the caravan has now largely dissipated, with only a fraction ofthe 

original travelers planning to continue their journey northward. xii 

For those that do reach our border, they intend to plead for asylum as they are entitled to do 

under international humanitarian law-not simply enter the country illegally. These are people 

seeking a safer and better life for themselves and their families. Simply put, nobody wants to 

leave their home and take their children on a perilous journey across the desert. This is an act 

of necessity and desperation, not aggression; those who make this journey are not a national 

security threat in any meaningful sense, and in my opinion, it defies common sense and 

American values to say that they are. The broader question of how to reduce this flow of 

migrants would be far better answered by a robust and thoughtful conversation about U.S. 

foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere, including smart development policy to alleviate 

human suffering and strengthen the weak governance from which that suffering stems. 

Ultimately, a column of soldiers marching on the United States border is a military issue that 

would merit a mobilization response-including the National Guard. But this was not a column 

of soldiers. Considering our challenges to readiness and the number of legitimate threats we 

face abroad, America's Guardsmen have more pressing work to do, competencies to develop, 
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 31107.044

and places to be at this hour; moreover, it is unclear how their presence on the southern 

border will be of a long term benefit to our Border Patrol agents, who would be far better 

served by more permanent resources specific to their work. In sum, while the costs (material 

and opportunity) of this development will continue to emerge over the weeks and months to 

come, it is hard to see how this deployment is justified as a proper response to a legitimate 

national security threat. 

Thank you for your consideration of my testimony, and I look forward to your questions. 

i https://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-18-50 

ii http://www .nationalguard .mil/News/ Article/1487 429/national-guard-troops-deploy-tosouthern-us-border/ 

iii https :/ /www. reuters. com/ article/us-usa-trump-border /tru mp-wa nts-nationa 1-gu ard-onmexican-border-until-wall-built-idUSKCN1HC2SH 

iv https ://www. brookings. ed u/ essay /th e-wa 11-the-rea !-costs-of -a-barrier -between-the-unitedstates-and-mexico/ 

v https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/fi\cs/CAPE%20FINAL%20ACRCMixReport.pdf 

vi http:/ /thehill.com/policy/defense/337533-mattis-slams-congress-for-inhibiting-militaryreadiness 

vii https://www.army.mil/e2/rv5_downloads/leaders/csa/lnitiai_Message_39th_CSA.pdf 

vili 

https://www.army.mil/articlc/201131/rcadincss enhanced with army national guard 40 initiat 

1ve 

ix https :/ /www. washington post. com/wo rid/ n ationa 1-secu rity /troops-sent-by-trump-to-borderwill-fly-d ron es-gath er -intel--a nd -clear -brush-too /20 18/04/09/8f6082 50-3c08-11e8-a 7 d 1-

e4efec6389f0_story.html 

x https://www .cbp .gov I sites/default/files/assets/ docu ments/2017 -Dec/ cbp-border-securityreport-fy2017.pdf 

xi https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/6/17206042/caravan-mexico-trump-rape 

xii https:/ /twitter .com/SecNielsen/status/981317335 708520448 
58 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes himself for 

5 minutes. 

Colonel McCraw, when they had the border surge in 2014, was 

that something that was good or bad for the drug cartels? 

Colonel MCCRAW. It’s always good for the cartels if they can 

overwhelm Border Patrol’s resources, and that’s what happened in 

2014. It overwhelmed the resources. And the threat is more significant than, I think, that some have let on to. When you’re talking 

about Mexican cartels that are powerful and ruthless and dominate 

the entire lucrative drug and human smuggling market, engage in 

trafficking of people and drug trafficking as well, when you’ve got 

transnational gangs, when you’ve got criminal aliens. 

When you have these smuggling communities recruit our children, all these things, you know, result in a serious public safety 

threat. Like I said before, not just Texas. What happens on the 

Texas-Mexico border happens throughout the Nation. So clearly, it 

was a problem, and we saw that. And less Border Patrol agents 

were there and they were involved in detention activities and trying, in an overwhelmed situation trying to deal with unaccompanied children and family units, and could not put enough people 

in line. 

And Texas, at that point in time, the leadership and State Legislature decided to spend enough resources to conduct and send 

troopers around, 24 and 7, from around the State, maintain surge 

operations for 3–1/2 years, until we can permanently assign troopers down to that area. 

So, from a Texas standpoint, they’ve been paying the bill thus 

far. And anything you can do to support Border Patrol, we’re all 

for. If it’s National Guard right now, fine. But the long-term solution is clearly invest in Border Patrol. 

When you get right down to it, the patrol function in the Federal 

Government has never been valued, period. The investigative function, yes, but not the patrol function. They don’t have the incentive 

bonuses. They don’t have the salary. They don’t have the things 

that recruiting, they can readily recruit and compete with some of 

the other services at the Federal level. 

Patrol in a post 9/11 environment is extremely important. It’s a 

deterrent capability. And unless you invest in it, you’re not going 

to have the type of capability that you need. And clearly, again, I’ve 

said it a number of occasions and not just here, is that Border Patrol can do it. They don’t need Texas to help them if they’re given 

the proper resources to do it. 

And if it’s National Guard right now, we’re all for it. Anything 

you can, because we look at it every day matters. Every day a community is impacted in Texas. Every day something goes on that’s 

criminal that’s transnational crime that we have to deal with in 

Texas. So anything we can do and the Federal Government can do, 

we’re all for. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Judd, in terms of the cartels and bringing— 

because I think we’re seeing in our country a huge problem with 

fentanyl and some of these opioids. These are street drugs. You 

know, they’re being brought in. A lot of it is across the border. A 

lot of it originates in China. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Where is the majority of that coming in, in terms of are these 

controlled access points that they’re just sneaking past the guards, 

or are they parts of the border that are unsecured? 

Mr. JUDD. No, most everything that’s coming across is coming between the ports of entry, because it’s easy. If you go through a controlled environment, you’ve got all kinds of people, you’ve got the 

K–9 handlers, you’ve got to get past all of that. 

What it’s very easy for the smugglers to do is it’s easy for them 

to send people across the border illegally, which they force them to 

do. They force us to take our resources out of the field to deal with 

that, create the gaps, and then they cross their products right behind in the gaps that they created. 

You got to remember, of those 50,000 apprehensions that we had 

in March, only 13,000 was at the ports of entry. 38,000 was between the ports of entry. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Arthur, in terms of asylum, how does it work? 

I mean, if somebody is living in a poor country where there’s crime, 

can they just kind of come here and say asylum, or do they have 

to qualify for certain types of—maybe they were persecuted on the 

basis of race or religion or something like that? Can you just give 

us how is it supposed to work and then how is it actually working? 

Mr. ARTHUR. To be granted asylum in the United States, you 

have to show either past persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group or political opinion. 

Four of those are easily defined. The fifth one, membership in a 

particular social group, unfortunately, is rather vague, vague in the 

law and vague in its interpretation. But, fortunately, Attorney General Sessions has certified a case to himself in which he will clarify 

what exactly the parameters are for granting asylum on the basis 

of being a victim of a criminal activity, such as by gangs in a foreign country. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So, I mean, you know, I think most of us believe 

that, you know, there is a role for people who are being persecuted. 

The United States does want to be a refuge for folks in that situation. 

But if you’re coming in because, you know, better job opportunities are here, using some amorphous thing, I mean, isn’t that kind 

of a runaround just the normal legal immigration process, where 

they should just be applying to come here, if they’re not actually 

in any of those buckets that you’re talking about? 

Mr. ARTHUR. Unfortunately. And unfortunately, it’s actually 

worse than that, because the fact is the bad claims take away from 

the good claims. They take away from the time that the judges 

have to grant asylum to individuals who are actually in fear of 

harm in their home countries. 

Once granted asylum by an immigration judge, those individuals 

could then petition to bring their families out of that dangerous situation. But when the system gets clogged up with fraudulent 

claims or non-meritorious claims, the system breaks down. And 

that’s what we’re seeing right now in our immigration courts. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I’m out of time, so I’m going to recognize the 

ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

Firstly, I’d like to have entered into the record a letter from Amnesty International regarding this hearing. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Without objection. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. As I noted earlier, the omnibus appro- priation bill that we just did allocated $14 billion for Customs and 

Border Protection. That included a lot for security operations, and 

I believe hiring, I think, 351 additional Border Patrol agents. 

However, that bill did not anticipate moving 4,000 National 

Guard to the border. That’s a separate budget that’s got to come 

off DOD’s account. And last week, Secretary of Defense Mattis directed the Pentagon comptroller to, quote, ‘‘identify available funding to pay for the 4,000 National Guard troops to be moved to the 

border.’’ We still don’t have an estimate of how much the operation 

will cost, but we do know it will divert resources from other military priorities. 

And Chairman Mac Thornberry, also a Texas native, had this to 

say: He said, If you take away money, you can’t do some of the 

things that—you take away things from the—money from the defense budget, you can’t do some of those things that you were trying to do, like add pilots or repair ships or those other sort of 

things. 

So, Mr. Breen, first of all, thank you for your service to our country. We appreciate it. What do you think about, you know, pulling 

money from, I think, core defense and combat training activities 

and diverting, you know, 2,000 to 4,000 of our National Guard men 

and women to the border, what do you think about the efficacy of 

that move? 

Mr. BREEN. Congressman, that’s a dangerous game to start playing. And I think history indicates that, all the way back to Task 

Force Smith in the first Korean War. Readiness degrades in a military force very quickly, and the cost of that can be very high when 

you get yourself into a fight. 

I agree with a great deal of what Colonel McCraw had to say, 

in the sense that we do need to invest in these capabilities, but I 

think there’s a—patrol and other things, but I think there’s a great 

danger when policymakers reach for the military as a Band-Aid to 

solve problems in other areas of government. 

And the military can only do so many things. It’s been overstretched. The Secretary of Defense, who knows a few things about 

being in a fight, again, is down the hall saying the number one priority is lethality. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says 

readiness is his number one priority. He has no number two priority. And he’s identified critical readiness needs, in terms of the 

force’s ability to go toe to toe with foes like Russia and other modernizing militaries. We have become I think a little too accustomed 

to think of ourselves as an overwhelming superior force, but we 

have been tied down doing counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, which are serious tasks. Meanwhile, the world’s other highend militaries have been modernizing and have been looking at everything we do and training and manning and equipping specifically to fight us. So we’ve got to really catch up to that. 

And, again, going back into history, Task Force Smith was about 

5 years after the end of World War II. It doesn’t take long. You 

take the most capable land force the world had ever seen, the one 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

that beat the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II, 5 years 

later, puts an infantry force into the field against the second-rate 

North Korean Army, and is routed, because the investments 

weren’t continuously made in that combat capability. So I think it’s 

dangerous. 

The other thing I would say is it impacts the entire Guard. It 

sounds like, you know, it’s only 4,000 guardsmen, but the Guard 

needs to deploy and fight as a brigade combat team. A brigade combat team is 5,000 soldiers. When you start removing elements of 

that team for other tasks, it degrades the entire team’s ability to 

train. And the National Guard has a modernization and training 

plan called National Guard 4.0 that explicitly calls for those brigade combat teams to be kept together and trained together so they 

can deploy to fight together. So this directly undermines those priorities. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. And by the way, thank you all for your 

service to our country. Thank you all. 

We’ve had a chance, members of this committee, to go down, we 

went down to Tegucigalpa down in Honduras, went down to Guatemala City down in El Salvador, to look at the human trafficking 

operations going on there that are actually inducing people to come 

up to the border. We also have had an active role in what’s going 

on in the tri-border area where we have got Hezbollah on the 

ground, and so there are major concerns there. 

My question is really about the efficiency and efficacy of our 

funding. Is it better to try to divert money to the National Guard 

or—look, I voted for this $14 billion for Border Patrol, you know, 

enhanced border security. Is that a better way to address the challenge that we have, or should we sort of try to make it up as we 

go along using our National Guard folks to do a job that they necessarily aren’t really—they didn’t sign up for, I guess? 

Mr. JUDD. Well, the investment in the Border Patrol has to be 

there, but right now you have an attrition rate that exceeds the 

hiring rate. And so we’re not retaining our Border Patrol agents, 

so we do have to have a stopgap. But as far as our National Guard, 

they’re being put in situations that is like combat situations. 

They’re in LP and OP situations. They’re sitting in observation 

posts, which they would be required to do in the military in the 

event that a war was to take place. As a uniformed officer, I’ve 

worked right next to my uniformed National Guard counterparts, 

and I can tell you that they feel that the operations that they’re 

doing is—— 

Mr. LYNCH. I know my time is running short. All I’m saying is 

that Secretary Mattis had other stuff for those folks to be doing 

rather, than being sitting on the border, and I’m just worried about 

those other priorities that are being ignored. But thank you, I appreciate it. 

I yield back. 

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

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I was growing up, my grandparents in Scott County, Tennessee, one of the poorest counties in the U.S., they had 10 kids 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

and an outhouse and not much more. My dad hitchhiked into 

Knoxville with $5 in his pocket to go to the university. And all 10 

of those children end up doing real well, but they all grew up in 

what would be considered bitter poverty today, and started with 

nothing. 

So I have spoken many times at the naturalization ceremonies 

in Knoxville to express my respect and admiration for people who 

come to this country with nothing except a desire to work and who 

have made good livings for themselves. But the American people 

are the kindest, most generous people in the world, and we have 

allowed far more immigration than any other country over the last 

50 years or so, than any other country. No other country has come 

close. 

But when I google the question of percentage of world population that lives on $10 a day or less, the first thing that pops up is from 

globalissues.org, says at least 80 percent of humanity live on less 

than $10 a day. Almost half the world, over 3 billion people live 

on less than $2.50 a day. And they have similar articles like that. 

We all have tremendous sympathy for all these people who are 

living in such bitter poverty around the world, but when you talk 

about 3 billion people living with almost nothing, you can understand that we have no telling how many people who would come 

here tomorrow if they possibly could. 

So it seems to me that we have to have some sort of legal orderly 

system of immigration that has to be enforced, because if we didn’t, 

our whole infrastructure, our hospitals, our jails, our sewers, our 

schools, our roads, our whole economy, we couldn’t handle such a 

rapid influx as we might have over the next 3 or 4 years if we just 

simply opened our borders, or didn’t enforce our immigration laws. 

And so when I—and I’ve heard for—I’m now in my 30th year in 

the Congress. Every year since I’ve been here, I’ve heard this figure, 11 million immigrants. I believe it has to be at least 2 or 3 

times that many that are here, living here illegally, because I’m not 

near a border, but every place in the country is overrun, it seems 

to me, with illegal immigrants. 

I just wonder, it’s not being mean or cruel or harsh to say that 

we have to have some of these immigration laws and they have to 

be enforced. We have to do it, it seems to me, unless we want to 

almost destroy this country economically. 

Mr. Judd, what do you think would happen if we simply—if we 

did away with the Border Patrol and basically just had no borders, 

open borders? 

Mr. JUDD. Well, just from my experience of people that cross the 

border illegally now, I think that we would have mass influxes of 

people coming across the border, but that’s just from my experience. 

I would like to say that I wish that my colleagues from management were here to testify as well, because they could specifically 

tell you, you know, why we’re allocating resources where we’re allocating them. And if we were allocating them properly, maybe we 

wouldn’t even need the National Guard. But we’ll never know that 

because we didn’t do it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, it seems to me that we’ve got to have stronger enforcement of our immigration laws for many, many reasons. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

And I think almost all of us, probably everybody at this table, believes in legal immigration and continuing to allow many, many 

people to immigrate here legally. But we just have a problem that 

we are forced to do something about. 

Colonel McCraw, do you want to say anything, or Mr. Arthur? 

Colonel MCCRAW. I’ll gladly pitch in just a couple comments. 

First, we have a very good relationship with U.S. Border Patrol. I 

think that’s important that we state that. And the leadership has 

worked very well with us along the border. It is a seamless operation. We know what unified command is about. We understand in 

terms of why it is important of integrating in terms of air, marine, 

and land operations, special operations groups. All of those things 

are happening. And some things that we can do is use some of our 

special agents to target the smuggling infrastructure in some of 

those areas. 

So I want to give, you know, a clear indication to you and members that we do work very well with our Federal partners and 

we’re very proud to work with them, the U.S. Border Patrol, the 

brave men and women, all that risk their lives daily to protect 

Texas and the rest of this Nation. So I just want to get that on the 

record. 

In terms of our concern is this: Simply put, is that if the border 

is not secured, then you’re opening it up to increased drugs, criminal aliens, transnational gangs, some of the things you’re already 

seeing, because the border is not secure. And there is no question 

that it has an impact on public safety in Texas. Anybody will tell 

you that. The Texas sheriffs will tell you that. The border sheriffs 

will tell you that. This is a nonpartisan issue. This is a national 

security and public safety threat. This is nothing about politics, 

just simply is. 

And in terms of where the funding comes from, way above my 

pay grade. How it happens, how Border Patrol gets the resources 

they need to secure between the ports of entry, that’s certainly 

above my pay grade. I’m sure you can figure it out if you wanted 

to. And believe me, I can assure you, from my discussions with 

members and I’ve got an appropriations hearing next week in 

Texas, is they want to find out in terms of where we are staffing 

at a Federal level so we can back off from the State standpoint. But 

right now, the Governor has made it very clear we’re not going to 

back off an inch. We’re not going to give one inch to the cartels and 

the transnational gangs to support them. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I certainly agree with you, but my time is up. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

witnesses who showed up, for showing up. I really appreciate that. 

I believe it is quite evident that the recent deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border is hardly the result of 

carefully considered fact-based decisions. 

On April 1st, President Trump manufactured a crisis on Twitter 

and justified the deployment of national troops after watching Fox 

News describe a caravan of Central American migrants who enVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Sep 04, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31107.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

tered the U.S. through the so-called catch and release. And, as with 

a lot of his tweets, there is plenty of misinformation to unpack. 

First, he appears to be claiming it is getting more dangerous due 

to a caravan of largely Honduran asylum-seekers fleeing violence, 

mostly who are women and children, or even babies. 

Mr. Breen, is this also your understanding? 

Mr. BREEN. Yes. My understanding is that the caravan is essentially asylum-seekers fleeing an extremely violent northern triangle 

of Central America, yes. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Do you believe this caravan of asylum-seekers poses 

a national security or military threat? 

Mr. BREEN. I have absolutely no reason to believe that, no. 

Mr. GOMEZ. And I know I’m asking to restate some of your 

points, but it’s for a purpose. 

President Trump also seemed to imply that the caravans were 

coming, in part, because of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. 

Among other conditions, only individuals who have lived here in 

the U.S. since 2007 would be eligible. Mr. Breen, with that in 

mind, would it be possible for any new arrival from a caravan to 

be eligible for DACA? 

Mr. BREEN. By definition, no, it would not. 

Mr. GOMEZ. President Trump’s decision to send National Guard 

troops to the border until a 2,000-mile wall is built is also baffling 

from a policy perspective. 

Mr. Breen, is constructing a 2000-mile concrete border wall the 

most efficient or effective way to improve border security? 

Mr. BREEN. I do not believe so, no. The wall would—I mean, basically every expert who looked at this, you can construct a physical fortification at great cost that will take a great period of time. 

You’re going to have to use eminent domain a lot to do that, run 

through a lot of private property. Major challenges there. 

And then in the absence of the kind of patrol and interdiction resources Colonel McCraw is talking about, all you’re going to have 

is an expensive wall people get over, to say nothing of the fact that 

as border apprehensions have been decreasing the Coast Guard’s 

interdictions in counter-drug at sea have been increasing this entire time. 

So I think there are a lot of other places you can put the $20 

billion or whatever it’s going to cost from, you know, added capacity for immigration courts to better resources for Border Patrol to 

resourcing the Coast Guard adequately, and on and on we go. But 

no, I don’t think the wall is an effective solution. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Also, Mattis signed a memo that stated that the National Guard will not perform law enforcement activities or interact 

with migrants. 

Mr. Breen, is that right? And what would the National Guard’s 

role consist of and how effective would they be? 

Mr. BREEN. I think that is correct. That is definitely the right 

thing to do. It’s worth noting that this is a Title 32 situation, not 

a Title 10 situation. So Secretary Mattis is not in a position, as 

strange as it may sound, to directly issue guidance to the Guard. 

That falls to the Governors. But I definitely think that is the wisest 

course of action. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

What ends up happening, of course, is that, in theory, the National Guard will do things like man towers and do other tasks so 

that Border Patrol agents are free to go out. But, as Mr. Judd has 

already stated, Border Patrol has already got, in some situations, 

75 percent of its man strength not patrolling already. So it’s a little 

hard to see in a management situation like that how you’re not just 

going to have a lot of guys, frankly, just standing around. 

Mr. GOMEZ. I don’t have much time, so one of the things I want 

to kind of point out and ask, because it was justified that the deployment of National Guard troops based on catch and release and 

DACA. Does sending National Guard troops to the border change 

any policy that you know of, catch and release or DACA? 

Mr. BREEN. No, not at all. 

Mr. GOMEZ. So my point is is that it seems that this policy was 

decided at a whim to send National Guard down to the border. I’m 

not saying that it won’t be necessary, but I’d like to have something that’s actually fact-based, something that is thought out, 

that’s done with coordination and understands that there is a real 

crisis going on on the border. 

And if your justification is the drug cartels, state it. Don’t make 

up another fact that just kind of gives red meat to your base, right? 

That’s what this President did is using something that’s not correlated with what he’s calling a crisis, because there’s no crisis because of these asylum-seekers, right? And it doesn’t change policy 

at all. All you’re doing is sending more troops to the border that 

are going to probably not produce the result of keeping away people 

who will be catch and release or DACA recipients. So I just appreciate the time. 

In closing, I’d like to enter a letter from civil rights groups in 

California asking Governor Brown to reject the xenophobia driving 

the deployment of the National Guard to our border. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Without objection. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes 

Mr. HICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCraw, I 

understand that your department is responsible in Texas for maintaining the statewide sex offender registry. Is that correct? 

Colonel MCGRAW. That is correct. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. This is a little off topic, I understand, but it is 

of great concern to me the threat that’s been posed by convicted sex 

offenders who have entered this country illegally, and under the 

previous administration, many of those individuals were released 

from ICE custody without even local law enforcement being notified, and without ensuring that they were placed on the National 

Sex Offender Registry. 

Now, I realize a lot has been done within ICE over the last couple of years and the law enforcement notification system. Progress 

is being made. I understand that. I deeply appreciate that, but I’m, 

likewise, very much concerned that we have still got a long ways 

to go with this. 

So it is my understanding, for example, that when ICE enforcement and removal operations is scheduled to release an illegal 

alien who is required supposedly to register on the sex offender list, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

that ICE sends notification through the Department of Justice 

SORNA, the exchange portal. Is that correct? 

Colonel MCGRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So when you receive this information, what kind 

of information is provided? What do you get from ICE? For example, are you getting criminal histories, country of origin, fingerprints, aliases? What do you get? 

Colonel MCGRAW. We’re getting all the information that we need 

to be able to follow State law and follow up on also the Federal requirements, so we can get them registered at that point in time. 

In fact, with ICE ERO we have actually done some operations with 

them to capture sex offenders that were criminal aliens here in 

Texas that have been registered and have—— 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So, but are you getting like fingerprints, and do 

you get—— 

Colonel MCGRAW. Yes, sir. And I have no reason to know otherwise. If there’s anything contrary to that I’ll get back to you, but 

as I understand it right now we’re getting all that we need from 

ICE ERO on the situation like that. 

Mr. HICE. All right. I’m glad to hear that that, but if you would 

get back with me on what you do receive. 

Colonel MCGRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. I would like that. All right. So at this point in the 

process, is it then your department or ICE that has the responsibility to ensure that local law enforcement knows about these individuals? 

Colonel MCGRAW. Well, we certainly do. We go through the process. Once they get registered in the Texas registry because they 

live in Texas at that point, we notify local agencies at that point 

in time, and they have the responsibility to register. 

Mr. HICE. So ICE hands the baton to you, and at that point, it 

is your responsibility? 

Colonel MCGRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. And Texas is doing a good job with notifying 

law enforcement locally and so forth. It is my understanding a lot 

of States are dropping the ball on that. Are you aware of that? 

Colonel MCGRAW. Well, I’m not aware of what they’re doing in 

other States, I just know the Governor and the legislature won’t 

stand for anything less than getting it done directly. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. It is my understanding that local law enforcement is unable and certainly citizens likewise, but local law enforcement is unable to access the DOJ SORNA exchange portal. Is 

that—— 

Colonel MCGRAW. I’m not aware of that. I know they can access 

the Texas Sex Offender Registry. I have they have access. I can’t 

tell you about SORNA from a Federal standpoint. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So that’s where it becomes your responsibility 

to make sure they get it? 

Colonel MCGRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. Because they’re not able to, as I understand it, I just 

want to make sure. So how can we better fix this whole process, 

improve the notification, the information-sharing process, and this 

type of thing when it comes to sex offenders? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

Colonel MCGRAW. Well, again, you’re looking at different States, 

you know, different things, and some of those things are laws, and 

some things have taken a more proactive approach to that concern. 

In Texas, the legislature and Governor have been very proactive 

and concerned about sex trafficking, whether it is international sex 

trafficking, or we are seeing domestic sex trafficking by gangs, and 

they have been very proactive in that area. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Well, listen, I want to thank you for your work 

with this, and I wanted to—like I said, I know this is a little off 

topic, but it still is very much related to the overall topic because 

we’re dealing with this stuff on a regular basis, and I appreciate 

your expertise and what you do. I just want to make it known I’m 

willing to work and look forward to working with you, your department any of you who are interested in helping find ways to close 

the gaps and ensure the safety of the American public in this regard, and I appreciate your work in that regard. I’ll yield back. 

Colonel MCGRAW. Sex trafficking is a problem, and it clearly is. 

We’ll get back to you if we have anything. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank the 

witnesses, again, for appearing before us today. The hearing record 

will remain open for 2 weeks for any member to submit a written 

opening statement or questions for the record. If there’s no further 

business, without objection, the Subcommittee on National Security 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(69) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 31107.045

WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

For A Hearing Entitled "A 'Caravan' of Illegal Immigrants: A Test of U.S. Borders" 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Govemment Reform, Subcommittee on National Security 

Aprill2, 2018, Washington, DC 

Introduction 

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and distinguished Members ofthe Subcommittee, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement 

for the record detailing CBP's efforts to achieve our strategic and operational border security 

objectives and to enhance our deterrence, detection, and interdiction of illegal cross-border 

activity. 

CBP is responsible for securing approximately 7,000 miles of land border, 95,000 miles of 

shoreline, 328 ports of entry (POE), and the associated air and maritime space from the illegal 

entry of people and contraband into the United States. The border environment in which CBP 

works is dynamic and requires continual adaptation to respond to emerging threats and changing 

conditions. 

Legislative Priorities 

When President Trump took office last year, he issued a series of Executive Orders to enhance 

border security, promote public safety, minimize the threat of terrorist attacks by foreign nationals, 

and protect American workers from unfair foreign competition. In January 2017, the President 

signed the Executive Order entitled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements 

(EO 13767), which directs executive departments and agencies to deploy all lawful means to 

secure the Nation's southem border, prevent further illegal immigration to the United States, and 

repatriate aliens with final orders of removal swiftly, consistently, and humanely. EO 13767 sets a 

new standard of operational control of the southern border and establishes the foundation for 

securing the southern border by directing the provision of necessary tools, resources, and policy 

goals for the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) dedicated men and women to fulfill their 

critical mission. 

But CBP is part of a system which neither begins nor ends at our borders, and innovative 

technologies and enhanced interdiction capabilities alone cannot prevent illegal crossings. The 

Administration seeks support from Congress to amend current law to facilitate the expeditious 

retum of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) and family units who are ineligible for relief. 

The Administration supports correcting the systemic deficiencies that created the asylum backlog, 

and supports providing additional resources to reduce the immigration court backlog and ensure 

the swift return of illegal border crossers. CBP looks forward to working with Congress on the 

legislation needed to enhance the security of our Nation, ensure effective immigration and 

enforcement, and protect American workers and taxpayers. These legislative needs have a direct 

impact on CBP's ability to perform its mission. 

Page 1 of 4 
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 31107.046

CBP remains committed to working with Congress to address these issues in support of the 

priorities of this Administration and CBP's mission set. 

In the interim, and to enhance CBP's capability in southwest border sectors, the Department of 

Defense (DOD), in conjunction with border state governors, has begun deploying the National 

Guard to assist in stopping the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and 

other criminals, and illegal aliens into this country. Initial forces are already on the ground 

assisting CBP by executing missions such as logistical and administrative support, operating 

detection systems, providing mobile communications, and augmenting border-related intelligence 

analysis efforts. National Guard members will provide added surveillance, engineering, 

administrative and mechanical support to our agents on the frontline to allow CBP's agents to 

focus on their primary responsibility of securing our border. National Guard personnel will not 

conduct law enforcement activities, will not be assigned responsibilities that require direct contact 

with migrants, and will not be assigned missions that require them to be armed. CBP is working 

with DHS Headquarters and DOD to ensure a seamless coordination of efforts. 

Personnel 

Frontline personnel are a critical resource for improving border security. Mission readiness -the 

ability to properly train and equip personnel- is critical to CBP's ability to secure the border and 

protect the American people. CBP remains committed to growing our workforce of dedicated 

personnel to protect our Nation and the American people. 

CBP has faced challenges in the past to meet its hiring goals. However, CBP has taken decisive 

action, while recognizing that much work remains to be done to ensure CBP has enough officers 

and agents to meet the Agency's needs well into the future. In the last two years, more than 40 

individual improvements to CBP's hiring process have resulted in significant recruitment and 

hiring gains- despite record low unemployment around the United States and intense competition 

for highly-qualified, mission-inspired people. With support from Congress, CBP is making 

investments in our capability and capacity to hire across all frontline positions. CBP is focusing on 

efforts to attract qualified candidates and expedite their progress through the CBP hiring process. 

In the last two years, CBP has undertaken a comprehensive effort to look across aU of our 

recruitment and hiring process areas. CBP implemented process changes that have resulted in 

significant recruitment and hiring gains. CBP embraced the use of social media, and is working to 

more effectively identify the best return on investment in digital media. CBP has also introduced a 

mobile app for applicants in our hiring pipeline to keep them engaged during the process. CBP is 

going to introduce an "applicant care" component whereby a dedicated employee is assigned to an 

applicant to help them navigate the process. CBP is also leveraging private sector expertise and 

experience in recruiting and human resources to provide additional capacity 

CBP's streamlined frontline hiring process has led to significant reductions in the average time-tohire. In the last 12 months, close to 70 percent of new U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents and 60 

percent of new CBP officers on-boarded in 313 days or fewer, with 17 percent ofUSBP agents 

and 19 percent of CBP officers on-boarding within 192 days. This is a significant improvement 

from the 469-day overall baseline established in January 2016. This streamlined process is 

reducing the number of otherwise qualified candidates who drop out due to process fati!,>ue or 

Page 2 of4 
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 31107.047

accepting more timely job offers elsewhere, helping CBP grow its workforce. CBP's background 

investigation time is approximately 90 days for a Tier 5 level investigation, which is required for 

all of CBP's law enforcement officer applicants and 90 percent of CBP applicants overall. This is 

considerably less than the government average for the same level investigation. CBP is also 

recognized as having a best practice quality assurance program, which other agencies regularly 

visit CBP to learn about. 

As a result of these improvements, CBP's FY 2017 hiring totals surpassed FY 2016 totals by 21 

percent for CBP officers, four percent for USBP agents, and 91 percent for Air and Marine 

Operations (AMO) air interdiction agents. In FY 2017 CBP reached the highest number ofUSBP 

agent hires since FY 2013 and the highest number of air interdiction agents and marine 

interdiction agent hires since FY 2014. The total number of frontline applicants increased by 73 

percent between FY 2015 and FY 2017, including a 41 percent increase from FY 2016 to FY 

2017. 

CBP is also actively working to minimize attrition and fill positions in "hard-to-fill" locations that 

are often remote and offer very limited amenities compared with metropolitan locations. A stable 

relocation program will help meet USBP operational requirements and alleviate the workforce's 

concerns about lack of mobility, which is significantly contributing to increased attrition. CBP is 

working to develop programs that address attrition through relocation and retention incentives that 

meet employee aspirations, and at the same time enable CBP to staff these locations. Recruitment 

incentives are also helpful in attracting new personnel to join CBP, especially for positions in 

geographic locations that are difficult to fill. CBP is thankful for the continued dedication of 

Congress to working collaboratively with us to develop solutions to this complicated challenge. 

The assignment ofUSBP agents is determined by leveraging USBP's annual, full spectrum 

requirements analysis process, which creates a consistent and repeatable, field-driven approach to 

conducting mission analysis and planning aimed at identifying capabilities gaps across the 

complex environments the USBP agents work in every day. Capability gaps are captured directly 

from the field using this process, and are explored through qualitative and quantitative analysis 

and other evidence to provide information to decision makers about the border security mission 

space across the northern, southern, and costal borders of the United States. This methodology 

leads to informed investments that achieve the greatest possible operational impact. As the threats 

along the borders change, USBP will update this analysis as needed to maximize the impact of 

future investments. 

This process is used by USBP to identify needs related to 12 master capabilities: communications, 

doctrine and policy, domain awareness, human capital management, impedance and denial, 

information management, intelligence and counter intelligence, plalllling and analysis, security 

and partnerships, access and mobility, command and control, and mission readiness. While the 

process identifies needs across all 12 master capabilities, four capabilities- impedance and denial, 

domain awareness, access and mobility, and mission readiness- are consistently prioritized by 

field commanders as the most important. All of these capabilities and needs are taken into 

consideration when assigning USBP agents to duty stations. 

Pagc3of4 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 31107.048

Infrastructure and Technology 

President Trump has directed CBP toward a new standard of border security between the POEs, 

and defined operational control as the ability to prevent or interdict all illegal border crossings. To 

make progress toward this standard, CBP will need substantial investments in impedance and 

denial capabilies, surveillance technology, access and mobility, and mission readiness and 

personnel. For impedance and denial, a modern border wall system will significantly enhance 

CBP's efforts to attain operational control of the border between the POEs. Border barrier systems 

are comprehensive solutions. A wall system that integrates sensors, cameras, lighting, and access 

and patrol roads, has the support of our USBP agents working our borders and is the direct result 

of an in-depth analysis of existing capability gaps. Between the POEs, tactical infrastructure, 

including physical barriers, has long been a critical component ofCBP's multi-layered and riskbased approach to securing our southwest border. It is undeniable that border barriers have 

enhanced- and will continue to enhance- CBP's operational capabilities by creating persistent 

impedance and facilitating the deterrence and prevention of illegal entries of people and 

contraband. 

The land along the border between the United States and Mexico is extremely diverse, consisting 

of desert landscape, mountainous terrain, and urban areas. Thanks to the support of Congress 

across numerous Presidential Administrations today there are several types of barriers, to include 

steel bollard and levee wall, along nearly one-third, or 654 miles, of the southwest border. 

Congress provided $1.4 billion for new and replacement fencing in the FY 2018 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act- the largest investment in border wall in more than a decade. CBP encourages 

Congress to continue to support the construction of border wall system. 

The deployment of proven, effective technology strengthens border security operations between 

the POEs in the land, air, and maritime environments. Technology complements the operational 

capabilities provided by tactical infrastructure and enhances CBP's operational capabilities by 

increasing the ability of the men and women ofCBP to detect and identify individuals illegally 

crossing the border, detect dangerous goods and materials concealed in cargo and vehicles, and 

detect and interdict illegal activity in the air and maritime domains. For CBP, the use of 

technology in the border environment is an invaluable force multiplier that increases situational 

awareness by enhancing the ability of CBP's agents and officers to detect and respond to illegal 

activity quickly, with less risk to the safety of CBP's front-line personnel. CBP remains 

committed to adopting innovative technology to keep America and CBP's workforce safe. 

Conclusion 

The border environment is dynamic and requires constant adaptation to respond to emerging 

threats and changing conditions. CBP continues to work in close coordination with our partners 

and the White House to respond to these threats and ensure the safety and prosperity of the 

American people. With the support of Congress and the White House, CBP will continue to secure 

our Nation's borders through the risk -based deployment of infrastructure, personnel, and 

technology. 

Page 4 of4 
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 31107.049

April 12, 2018 

Representative Ron DeSantis, Chair 

Representative Stephen Lynch, Ranking Member 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on National Security 

2154 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: April12 bearing on "A 'Caravan' oflllegal Immigrants: A Test of 

U.S. Borders" 

Dear Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members ofthe 

Subcommittee Committee: 

On behalf of Amnesty International ("AI'') 1 and our more than seven million 

members and supporters worldwide, we hereby submit this statement for the 

record. AI is an international human rights organization with major offices 

around the world, including the U.S. and Mexico. AI's top global priority is 

refugee protection, and has conducted research on the root causes behind the 

refugee exodus from the northern triangle region of Central America, as well as 

research on the experience of asylum seekers requesting humanitarian protection 

at the U.S. border. 

The topic of this hearing, along with a slew of recent Trump administration 

measures, are aimed at addressing a purported U.S. border security crisis. The 

facts and data, however, do not bear this out and instead point to a very different 

conclusion. U.S. border apprehensions are at near historic lows, and a large 

segment of people arriving at the southern border are children and families 

seeking refugee and humanitarian protection in the U.S. 

AI's statement will not focus on the specific "caravan" in question that is the 

named subject of this hearing, but will address more broadly the plight of Central 

Americans, disproportionately children and families, who are seeking 

humanitarian protection in the U.S. Among those participating in the 2018 

"caravan" are reportedly children and families fleeing persecution and violence in 

Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. 

1 
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 31107.050

the northern triangle region. In years past, some participants of these caravans 

have come to the U.S. seeking refugee and humanitarian protection. 

According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, many of the children fleeing the 

northern triangle region (Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala) have strong protection 

claims. Those arriving to the U.S. are requesting relief through the long-established 

legal procedures to review asylum claims, in line with U.S. obligations under 

international refugee law and human rights law. Many asylum seekers are 

affirmatively presenting themselves to border agents in order to request asylum, 

and are not seeking to evade authorities. All arriving asylum seekers are subject to 

an elaborate legal regime and institutional process established by the Department 

of Homeland Security ("DHS") and the Justice Department to assess individual 

asylum claims. DHS asylum officers are well-versed in interviewing individuals 

who have suffered trauma, and have specific knowledge of country conditions and 

training on evaluating witness credibility. A secondary level of review involves an 

immigration judge who examines witness testimony, documentary evidence, and 

State Department country conditions in evaluating the individual asylum claim. 

The asylum process is extensive and rigorous, and is designed to ensure that those 

with strong refugee claims are not deported to conditions of persecution or torture, 

in accordance with U.S. legal obligations under the Refugee Convention and 

Convention Against Torture. However, due to a longstanding shortage of 

immigration judges, the asylum process takes years to conclude. 

In recent years AI has conducted on-the-ground research in Central America, 

Mexico, and the U.S. to assess the push factors driving asylum seekers from their 

homes, as well as the dangers they face on their perilous routes in search of safety. 

The grave abuses faced by asylum seekers along those routes continue to persist, as 

do DHS tum-backs of asylum seekers along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

In January 2018 AI met with the DHS Customs Border Protection ("CBP") 

Field Operations Director ("POD") for the San Diego Sector, who oversees the San 

Ysidro port of entry ("POE"), the busiest POE on the southern border. The POD 

indicated there had only been "a very small surge [of asylum seekers], during a very 

short period of time" in 2017, which actually surpassed the capacity of DHS 

officials to process asylum claims. However, the main challenge indicated by the 

POD was a lack of bed space and asylum officers, which he blamed for the turning 

away of asylum seekers at the San Ysidro POE on multiple occasions in 2017. 

Irrespective of the actual reason, such turn-backs are violations of U.S. and 

international law, and are the subject of a 2017 class action lawsuit brought against 

CBP. 

2 
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 31107.051

The administration's recently announced policy of indefinite detention of asylum 

seekers, without bond or humanitarian parole, will only exacerbate the capacity 

problems stated by CBP. DHS has stated that the objective ofindefmitely detaining 

asylum seekers is to deter them from entering the U.S. in search of refuge. 

Moreover, the President's recent announcement to deploy the National Guard to the 

southern border is part of the administration's plan to deter, detain, and punish 

people seeking refugee and humanitarian protection, in violation ofU .S. obligations 

under international law and standards. 

The situation along the southern border is hardly a crisis requiring the President's 

deployment of the National Guard or an additional 750 more border patrol agents 

as requested by CBP. What is desperately needed is more funding to hire 

immigration judge teams so that the immigration courts can chip away at the multiyear backlog of asylum cases. 

In sum, there is indeed a crisis, but it's not a border security crisis embodied by a 

caravan of children and families traveling through Mexico. The crisis lies with the 

U.S. immigration courts, which have been underresourced for years and are thus 

unable to adjudicate asylum claims in a timely manner. That funding crisis, 

fortunately, can be readily addressed by Congress which controls the power of the 

purse. 

I. Amnesty International's recommendations 

To tbe Trump administration 

• Discontinue plans outlined in the Border Security Executive Order to return 

arriving asylum seekers to Mexico to await their asylum proceedings, in 

violation of international law. 

• End detention of all children, whether unaccompanied or in family units. 

Locking up children is never in their best interest. 

• hnplement policies to limit the detention of asylum seekers to a last resort, 

only when it is determined to be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate 

purpose, based on an assessment of the individual's particular 

circumstances. 

• Halt plans to deploy the National Guard to the southern border. The world's 

mightiest military is not needed to respond to children and families fleeing 

trauma and violence in search of humanitarian protection. 

To Congress 

• Dramatically increase funding for immigration judge teams and DHS 

asylum officers, to reduce the multi-year backlogs. 
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 31107.052

• Decline to fund the President's border wall, expansion of border patrol, and 

continuation of CBP operations absent rigorous external oversight of CBP 

and border patrol. 

• Decline to fund DHS' s unprecedented expansion of immigration detention, 

which sweeps in children and asylum seekers. 

For more information, please contact Joanne Lin at 202/509-8151 or 

jlin@aiusa.org. 

Sincerely, 

Joanne Lin 

National Director 

Advocacy and Government Affairs 

Amnesty International USA 

Brian Griffey 

Regional Researcher/ Advisor 

Amnesty International 

4 
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 31107.053

Aprill2, 2018 

Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. 

State Capitol 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dear Governor Brown, 

We the undersigned civil rights, advocacy, and community organizations write to ask you to join 

us in rejecting the xenophobia and fear that are driving calls to deploy National Guard troops to 

the border. 

In response to news of a migrant caravan, in which women, children, and men travel together to 

safely reach Mexico or the United States, far-right media began raising fears and sensationalizing 

the story. In fact, border crossings remain at historic lows. The caravan is a reflection of 

individuals who want only to live in safety, and U.S. law recognizes the right of such individuals 

to request protection. 

The border is already heavily militarized. Border Patrol is one of the largest law enforcement 

agencies in the country and as recently as March 23rd, when Congress denied the 

Administration's request to appropriate additional funds to hire more border patrol agents, the 

Department of Homeland Security was unable to adequately justify the need for more agents. In 

fact, throughout the current fiscal year, the average border patrol agent assigned to the southwest 

border apprehends just one person every 17 days. If we don't need more Border Patrol agents, 

we definitely don't need the National Guard. 

Yet anti-immigrant and white nationalist provocateurs have latched onto this false narrative. Jeff 

Scbwilk, a longtime anti-immigrant extremist and former Minutemen leader called the caravan a 

"coordinated, organized effort by foreign criminals and open border operatives to try to infiltrate 

our sovereign nation." The white nationalist group Identity Evropa, whose members participated 

in the deadly Charlottesville protests, have started a campaign calling for the Trump 

administration to "stop the invasion." 

Unfortunately, far-right agitation has led President Trump to order the National Guard to the 

border. This decision is not based on policy considerations. Instead, it's a response to political 

concerns from the President's base. We respectfully urge you to decline to send California troops 

to the border. 

While migrants seeking safety do not pose a security risk, far-right elements may. In 2014, 

women and children fleeing violence in Central America were subjected to intimidating protests 

from anti-immigrant activists in California and Arizona. In Murrieta, CA, buses carrying these 

women and children were confronted and forced to tum around and relocate to a different city. 

The 2018 camvan, however, has received attention from hardcore elements of the far-right that 

are much more prone to violence than those who protested four years ago. Public statements 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 31107.054

from governors and attorneys general denouncing vigilante violence could help dissuade these 

elements and avoid tragedy. 

Fueling anti-immigrant and white nationalist activity with action based on this story only 

increases the risk of violent confrontation. We respectfully ask you to decline to send California 

troops to the border. We also ask that you make a public statement condemning any vigilante 

violence at or near the border and upholding shared values of inclusion. 

Sincerely, 

America's Voice Education Fund 

America's Voice Ohio 

Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus 

Alliance San Diego 

Arkansas United Community Coalition 

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA 

Bend the Arc Jewish Action 

CASA 

Christian Community Development Association 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights {CHIRLA) 

CREDO 

Defending Rights & Dissent 

Disciples Refugee & Immigration Ministries 

El CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos 

Faith in Public Life 

Florida Immigrant Coalition 

Franciscan Action Network 

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 

Indivisible 

Legal Voice 

Laredo Immigrant Alliance 

Las Imaginistas 

Latin America Working Group 

Migrant Rights Collective 

Milwaukee Muslim Women's Coalition 

MomsRising 

MPower Change 

Muslim Justice League 

NetaRGV 

Northern Jaguar Project 

OneAmerica 

People for the American Way 

Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) 

Sierra Club 

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) 

Southern Border Communities Coalition 
80 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 31107.055

Southern Poverty Law Center 

Southwest Environmental Center 

Surge Reproductive Justice 

Texas Organizing Project 

Unitarian Universalist Association 

United We Dream 

Voces de !a Frontera 

VotoLatino 

Western States Center