Our shelters to house these children and families to address this crisis, our government has taken action on several fronts. We set up emergency shelters great we searched agents and immigration areas spread we work to find a safe homes for the children until the cases could be adjudicated. We also worked with the governments of guatemala and salvador to launch what i call the truth campaign, letting the people know about the dangers of the trip to the north, to the u. S. We collaborated with the government of mexico so that nation might better strengthen the integrity of its southern border, and it has. One year later, we no longer have a crisis, at least not of the proportion we had a year ago. It is true that many families and children are still fleeing those countries, but those numbers are clearly down by a little more than half. Is that enough improvement . No. But even though the crisis appears to be over, we still have humanitarian responsibilities to protect the children in our custody and we have a moral obligation to treat them fairly under our laws, and till we change our laws trade i look forward to hearing from our Witnesses Today about how they work to care for process and process care for and process so many children. There is still a lot of progress and needs to be made. I like to focus on our Immigration Court system. Tens of thousands of new cases wait times have gotten much worse. Some were informed they might not get a hearing before november 2019. That is why a row to our colleagues on the Senate AppropriationCommittee Earlier this year urging them to fund the president s request for 55 new immigration judge teams. The request appears to have gotten support from both changes. Chambers. We know the cases often advance more efficiently when accompanied meiers have a lawyer. Not surprisingly, most of these minors cannot afford one. That is why in delaware and communities across the country, many lawyers have stepped up to the plate to offer Pro Bono Legal services. I could not be prouder of the Legal Community in my own state. Many miners all over the country still lacked attorneys, so there is work clearly to be done. I believe we should not lose sight of the reason why they said earlier so many failed folks feel the need to flee their country. If we do not realize border integrity with mexico, we need to work with these three Central American countries, honduras guatemala, and el salvador, Mexico Colombia to help root out the causes of violence and poverty in the northern triangle. Not that many years ago we encountered a similar challenge in columbia. Most people would agree that our support along with that of others helped turn that country around with the implementation of plan colombia. We also know that mexican immigration has leveled off in large part because of the economic advances in a country. Central american migration has spiked because of the intense poverty and violence in that region. Young people are particularly vulnerable to gang violence. The governments must take the lead on this, and they are. These three countries have joined together in the alliance for prosperity to improve the lives of their citizens. I hope the appropriates will heed the president s call for new focus in investment there and help sow new seeds of hope and prosperity to benefit generations of children to come. Leaders needles and haystacks , there is a big haystack down at the border. We are trying to pick out the needles. The needles are families trying to get through, human traffickers trying to get through, and the haystack is huge. We need to make the haystack smaller. One of the things we need to do that is support the administrations proposal with a new version of plan colombia. If plan colombia worked, this will work as well. Thank you all. If you take a look at what is causing our unsecured border, i would say the root cause is our insatiable demand for drugs. In testimony before this committee if you really want a metric that shows you how unsecure our border is, it is how much of the drugs are we actually interdicting. It is about 5 to 10 even though we are spending 25 billion on the war on drugs. That is a root cause, but within that overall root cause with the overall problem, their individual situations and these are unaccompanied children coming in from Central America. There is root cause there. It is called deferred action on childhood arrivals. Would you raise your right hand . Do you swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Thank you. Our first witness will be juan ozuna. In my pronouncing that correctly . He is a director of the he served as executive deputy general at the doj. He worked on immigration policy and other issues. From may 2009 to june 2010, mr. Os was an assistant attorneyuna osuna was an assistant attorney. Mr. Osuna . Mr. Osuna good morning, mr. Chairman if i could ask a favor, im not real good at acronyms. Dhs, ive got that. Ice, ive got that. Reading your testimony, you use a lot of acronyms. If you persist in doing that you are going to lose me. Show some temperance there pl ease. Thank you. Mr. Osuna thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the mission of the Departments Executive Office for immigration review. We carry out this mission through our core Immigration Judges in 58 Immigration Courts around the country. All our cases start when the department of Homeland Security files a charging document with one of our courts. Among the many challenges facing our court, the largest is our growing pending caseload, which you referred to earlier. There are more than 450,000 cases pending in Immigration Courts around the country. This grew during recent budget cuts. While Immigration Judges were shrinking, we continue to receive new cases resulting in a rising backlog. From last summers search, the course received more than 80,000 cases. We are taking steps to increase our capacity to adjudicate cases there is vigorous hiring effort, and hiring judges is our first priority. With 18 judges we added two weeks ago, there are now 247 Immigration Judges around the country and others are in the various stages of the hiring process. We took steps to respond to last years border search to adding new priorities to our existing priority. Specifically we added unaccompanied children and adults who arrived with children. We depend on our partners at dhs. We are processing these cases as quickly as possible consistent with due process. The focus of our limited resources on these priority cases has had a Significant Impact on the nondetained nonpriority cases awaiting adjudication. Thousands of these cases have to be rescheduled into the future to make room for highpriority cases. 45 of case completion so far has been an priority categories, individuals detained by ice and those who cross the border since last year. The numbers provide insight into the work the Immigration Courts are doing. From july 18 2014 to june 30 of this year, immigration course received approximately 35,000 cases of unidentified children. Many of these cases may not be currently pending before the court because the children are pursuing relief from removal which requires work by the u. S. Immigration services, which has initial jurisdiction over these cases. The pending caseload is a proximally 23,000. The goal of holding an initial hearing for unaccompanied children within 20 days after receiving a case 23,000 children have had a date scheduled, and the date has passed. Another lie ordered the removal in absentia are resulted from a girl you to appear by an individual to a properly noticed hearing. Children who appear in Immigration Court proceedings without an unaccompanied adult may require special care and modification modifications of core procedures. We have faced guidance for adjudicating cases of unaccompanied children. Circumstances in particular, the Immigration Court may require specialized dockets for childrens cases. Following last summers search all courts are equipped to handle a juvenile docket. Immigration judges also receive specialized training, most recently in april this year regarding criminal cases. We recognize that the presence of a representative can increase Immigration Court efficiencies especially with children. We have taken steps to encourage pro bono counsel to provide representation. To assist in these endeavors, we operate an Illegal Program under which custodians are provided with Important Information on pro bono resources and the roles and responsibilities. A few months ago we launched programs that operate in 24 cores and provide direct representation to unaccompanied children. Last years border search post significant problems for all federal agencies, including ours. We responded by taking steps to respond to these cases as quickly as due process allows. Making docket adjustments, reprioritizing certain cases. Here in continuous and frequent contact with our federal partners at dhhs and hhs dhs and hhs. Thank you. Im happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you mr. Osuna. Mr. Greenberg is the acting assistant secretary at the department of health and Human Services. Before joining hhs Esther Greenberg directed the Georgetown Center university on poverty, inequality, and Public Policy. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg thank you for identifying me to testify today. I will be describing the sense of responsibilities of the department of health and Human Services in relation to unaccompanied children and talk about a set of Key Developments relating to those responsibilities. When unaccompanied children are referred to us by the department of Homeland Security, we initially place them in one of the network of shelters, while staff work to determine if they have an appropriate sponsor with whom they can live while they are waiting immigration proceedings. When they arrive at a shelter, a child is provided with a complete medical examination within 48 hours. Trained staff at the shelters conduct screening to determine if the child may be a victim of abuse or crime or human trafficking. Children and care receive medical, dental, Mental Health services, Education Services recreational opportunities, a legal rights presentation and access to legal services, access to religious Services Case management, and clinical counseling. While the children are in care we have a responsibility to place them in the least restrictive setting in the best interest of the child, taking into consideration the risk of harm to themselves or to the community or risk of flight. Initially we seek to place children with a parent or close relative. If that is not possible, a more distant relative or a family friend. If we cannot identify an appropriate sponsor and the child does not get repatriated or obtain immigration relief the children will remain in hhs care until he or she turns 18, at which point we will remand the 18yearold to the custody of the department of Homeland Security. We seek to show that partnerships are safe and appropriate. We require verification of the sponsors identity and relationship to the child. Good potential sponsor must undergo background checks and complete an assessment to identify risk factors and other serious concerns. In a set of cases, caseworkers perform home studies as an additional safety measure. As part of the placement process, potential sponsors must agree that they will ensure that the child appears at Court Proceedings and must agree to inform the department of justice and department of Homeland Security of any change of address. In addition, when we release a child to the sponsor, we provide the address information to the department of justice and department of Homeland Security. I now want to highlight some Key Developments since last years hearings. Last year it was the highest number of children in the history of the unaccompanied children program. This year the numbers are down significantly, though still high in historic terms. Last year we received over 57,000 referrals from the department of Homeland Security in the first eight months security. In the first eight months of this year, we received fewer than 18,000. The ucg continues to operate. It has an ongoing role to facilitate requests from the department of Homeland Security or hhs if needed and this can include requests for additional capability, operational coordination planning support, situational assessment, critical transportation capabilities. For us, operating the Company Children program presents multiple challenges because of uncertainties about how many children will arrive and when. Incorporating lessons from last summer, we developed what we refer to as a bed capacity framework to ensure that we have enough yearround standard beds with the ability to quickly add temporary beds when there are seasonal fluctuations. This is the model that reduces funding during periods of low capacity while preserving the ability to respond to future increases great since 2011 we have reduced the amount of time children stay in shelters from an average 72 days to a little more than 30 days. We have maintained the average this year at 34 days. While we seek to ensure that all releases are safe and appropriate, we know that sometimes a child may develop concerns about his or her placement. In april, we expanded our helpline in order to receive calls from children who are in distressed circumstances. In addition, starting this month, hhs is beginning to offer post Relief Services to a child and sponsor in the First Six Months after release is a placement has been disrupted or is at risk of disruption. In december of last year we publish our interim final rule that outlines safeguards at all of our facilities have to implement to protect children in custody from sexual abuse. Last september we provided funds to two grantees to expand legal representation and on june 15, we issued a proposal proposals for contractors to further expand the provision of legal services. We welcome working with the committee in congress in efforts to improve the program. I will be happy to answer any questions. Senator johnson our next witness is mr. Philip miller, assistant director of the Field Operations enforcement and removal operations for the u. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the u. S. Department of Homeland Security. That is ice, and it is easier to say than the long title. Mr. Miller has served any variety of positions. Mr. Miller began as an immigration spectrum in 1996 and becoming a deportation officer in 1998. Ice special agent in 2001 and Field Office Director of the new Orleans Field Office in 2009. Mr. Miller . Mr. Miller thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the role of ice in addressing the ongoing challenges surrounding unaccompanied children arriving in the United States. I currently serve as assistant director for Field Operations for ice enforcement and removal operations, where i oversee, direct, and cordon eight activities throughout the nations 24 field offices and their sub offices. This includes the transportation removal of unaccompanied children to further agency goals and ensure compliance with agency policy. In 2014 there was an unprecedented influx of unaccompanied children from Central America to the United States. Through the whole of government we continue to address this humanitarian Border Security issue in a manner that is comprehensive, coordinated, and humane. As part of the unified effort, ice is responsible for quickly and safely transporting unaccompanied children from the custody of u. S. Customs and Border Protection to the custody of hhs. And if ordered the removal of these children following the conclusion of immigration proceedings. Was of these functions are Critical Links in the overall process. Not all children are housed in ices detention facilities. During the time that ice maintains physical custody of unaccompanied children, and pending their placement with hhs, such minors are separated from adult detainees. Unaccompanied children are provided with regular access to snacks drinks, counselor officials, telephones, and other resources. Ice transports children via ground, commercial air, and ice charter flights. All 24 ice field offices have backup and primary field juvenile coordinators, each of whom receive annual specialized training. These field office juvenile coordinators, a duty i personally performed in 1999 serve as a local subject Matter Experts on proper processing transportation, and placement of unaccompanied children. Additionally they monitor practices for compliance with regulations, standard, and policy, and they are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Currently due to Immigration Court backlogs, immigration processes take months and even years. Once removal proceedings have concluded and a final order of removal is issued, ice takes appropriate enforcement action based on the state of priorities. Hhs can transfer custody of a child to ero and ero will remove the unaccompanied child in cooperation with hhs and the receiving government. We have taken a number of steps to prevent further surge this year. The president and secretary have reiterated the recent arrivals and those attempting to cross the border are priorities for apprehension and removal. Ice implemented procedures for efficiently obtaining travel documents and transferring unaccompanied children through our streamlined process that allows our ero officers to continue to perform their other responsibilities. Third, secretary johnson and he director have met with highlevel officials in el salvador, mexico, honduras, and guatemala to secure the cooperation in stemming the flow of their citizens into the United States. While the humanitarian influx is a seasonal challenge, early indications are that our efforts are paying off. I am confident we will not see a repeat of last ors unprecedented numbers. We are better prepared than ever before to deal with the arrival of unaccompanied children on the southern border. We continue to work closely with our sister agencies to address the care and processing of unaccompanied children arriving in the United States in a unified manner. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i welcome your questions. Senator johnson our final witness is mr. Joseph langlis. Langlois. He is the associate director of the u. S. Citizenship and immigration services. Mr. Langlois is a career civil servant, serving for more than 35 years in various positions from asylum officer to the chief of asylum division. Mr. Langlois. Mr. Langlois thank you for the opportunity to testify at todays hearing on unaccompanied children. My days of my name is joseph langlois. I oversee the Asylum Program at uscis, which plays a Critical Role in upholding our nations long tradition of providing protection for those who have been persecuted or have a wellfounded fear of persecution. My testimony today will focus on usciss role in adjudicating asylum applications filed a bionic Company Children. The trafficking victims protection reauthorization act of 2008, tvpra changed the track for unaccompanied children seeking asylum and removal proceedings and introduced a new role for u. S. Uscis. Prior to the tvpra only Immigration Judges had jurisdiction to adjudicate asylum applications filed by on a coveted children in removal proceedings. Under the tvpra unaccompanied children and removal proceedings now have the ability to file their asylum applications with uscis. This arrangement allows unaccompanied children to initially present their claims in a nonadversarial interview with a uscis asylum officer rather than in an adversarial proceedings before an immigration judge. While the form in which the claim is initially heard is changed, the eligibility standard for asylum remains the same. If the asylum officer does not grant asylum, uscis coordinates with ice to transfer the case back to Immigration Court, where unaccompanied children may renew their asylum claims in adversarial proceedings before an immigration judge. Since implementation of tvpra in 2009 approximately 13,000 and a cup a children have filed asylum applications after having been placed in removal proceedings. Since tvpra became law six years ago, uscis is granted asylum to approximately 4000 unaccompanied children. While the number of unaccompanied children being granted has been low compared to the number of arrivals in a number of applications, uscis serves a vital role in protecting unaccompanied children who have been persecuted or have a wellfounded fear of persecution by providing a nonadversarial forum to elicit their claims. The asylum application process generally begins when a minor who was determined to be an unaccompanied minor by cvp or ice, indicates an intention to apply for asylum following removal proceedings ice instructs the unaccompanied child to file the asylum application with uscis. In the meantime, the immigration judge grants a continuance of the removal proceedings or administratively closes proceedings in order for the unaccompanied child to file the application with uscis and for uscis to adjudicate the asylum application. During the pendency of the asylum case, asylum officers communicate with ice attorneys to provide progress reports on the case, verify the status of the removal proceedings, confirm Court Hearing dates, and arrange for the transfer of files between ice and uscis. After uscis receives the case, and asylum officer conducts an in person, indepth, nonadversarial interview of the unaccompanied child to fully explore the asylum plan. In addition, the asylum officer completes a wide range of required biometric and biographic security checks. The asylum officer then determines whether the applicant is eligible for asylum and drafts a decision before any decision is finalized decision. Before any decision is finalized, a supervisor reviews the case to ensure it comports with the law. Uscis plays an Important Role in adjudicating asylum applications for the small portion of unaccompanied children who choose to apply. Uscis continues to monitor trends of new application filings and stands ready to meet any future challenges with a Firm Commitment to quality and integrity. They give her the opportunity to testify. I will be more than happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Senator johnson let me start with the chart. There are multiple causes for children coming into this country, but does anybody want to take a look at that chart a dispute my overall conclusion of what the primary cause of the spike of unaccompanied children coming to this children was deferred action childhood arrivals, the message that sent into Central America that if you get into america youre home free. Anybody want to offer a challenge to that conclusion . Ok, well mr. Greenberg [inaudible] you twitched. [inaudible] mr. Greenberg i do want to make clear that hhs is not responsible for immigration policy and as indicated, how responsibilities here are principally about providing the shelter for the children and getting them to appropriate sponsors. The war on reasons for why children are coming as principally the work that has been done by the state department and Homeland Security and i would refer to the recent gao report looking at this. The gao report highlights the importance of crime and violence and Economic Conditions in the home country. Senator johnson as the bin ager medic increase in crime or dramatic reduction in Economic Conditions in Central America starting in the year 2012 that would be a trigger for that type of enormous spike . Ive got the murder, homicide rates per 100,000. It of these countries they had dropped and most of these countries they had dropped. 2013 40. I really Central America is not america, and you have a huge wage differential. There are whole factors. Im looking at what cost that spike. Caused that spike. That is certainly a real possible cause right there. Let me give you some numbers here. Since 2009, from el salvador, guatemala and honduras, there have been 109,000 unaccompanied children come to this country. Of the children coming in 2009 we returned about 30 . 2010 we returned about 22 . 2011 we returned about 24 . 2012 12 . 2013, 6. 2 . 2014 2. 7 . 2015 3. 8 . We cannot relay those return versus when they came in. That is the return versus the children coming to this country. In all we have returned about 5. 7 about 6248 unaccompanied children we have had 109,000 come to this country illegally. Is that sending a signal to people in Central America that as an on a, you come to america you have a 94. 3 chance of being able to stay. Is that a disincentive or incentive for making that trip . Anybody want to answer that . I would say it is an incentive. Mr. Miller . Mr. Mithere are 6800 final orders of removal that have been issued. Those are adjudicated cases people have been ordered to be removed, children have been ordered to be removed from this country. In fiscal year 2015 we have removed 569. Why arent we removing the 6800 . Mr. Miller as of mid, we had removed about 1500 unaccompanied children. Senator johnson 1500 versus 6800. Mr. Miller as a Police Manager have to look at all the cases we have to work. If im going out after criminals at large in our community or going out after juveniles who are noncriminals in our community, is good policing to go after the criminals. We face very we face a very dynamic environment. Rather than my officers being able to go and pick up convicted criminals in a jail, we have to go out with teams and find his people in the community. That is very resource intensive and if we have to prioritize those two populations, we are making appropriate prioritization. Senator johnson we learned that 32yearold captain was killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had seven prior felony convictions. According to an ice data from fiscal year 2010, 2014 121 criminal aliens were released and had been charged with homicide related offense. What do you have to say about that lack of enforcement . The larger data that we have been talking about, that represented a number of Different Reasons why those persons could no longer be detained. Many of those are a function of law. They are Circuit Court decisions. Senator johnson what is preventing us when we have people in this country illegally and they have had seven prior felony convictions why arent we able to deport those individuals . Mr. Miller in that case, our detainer was not honored. Senator johnson who did not honor it . Mr. Miller San Francisco sheriffs department. Senator johnson you have no Legal Authority to detain a person yourself or apprehend him and deport them . Mr. Miller in that case, the felony the gentleman had an outstanding felony narcotics warrant. Senator johnson what is dop . Tell me what happened. You seem to know a fair amount that case. What happened in that case where that individual had seven prior felony convictions and he had been released repeatedly and now a woman is dead. Why did that happen . Mr. Miller he completed serving a federal sentence for illegal reentry after deportation by a felon. When he completed that sentence senator johnson why didnt ice pick him up . Why isnt ice at the prison doors escorting this person back to his country of origin . Mr. Miller bureau prisons, as we would have done the same thing, we seek to resolve all criminal warrants before we go forward with removal. That has been our past practice for a number of years. We operate that within the criminal alien program. The officers are to resolve all outstanding federal criminal warrants. Senator johnson he was released in general society to commit a murder. Does that make any sense to you . It is not make any sense to the american public. That is what we are trying to grapple with. That is the problem we need to solve. Senator carper. How do we solve that problem . We have a guy who is up, he has been incarcerated repeatedly. He is a repeated offender. He is in jail in San Francisco. There was a drug charge against him. There was a state felony warrant for narcotics. The secretary is taking very proactive steps to the Priority Enforcement Program to try to bring the number of locations that are not honoring immigration detainers. We have established requests for notification that look to overcome a lot of the concerns that our state and local partners have been working through secure communities and by establishment in working through the Priority Enforcement Program, we hope to have communities like San Francisco come back and begin working with us proactively. Is there something we need to do on the legislative side to make sure Something Like this does not happen again . Im not an attorney, so i cant really speak to the nuances of law or policy. I am told by our attorneys that there is limited ability to force communities to accept immigration detainers. Also that has not been a historical Police Practice per usually we work collaboratively to resolve outstanding criminal warrants and then to transfer custody when requests are made. Some of the recent Court Decisions called into question ices ability to request the communitys hold sheriffs hold. They are inmates beyond their sentence. A new paradigm is created where we will be communicating with jurisdictions before the person is released from custody, and being able to safely and effectively assure their transfer of custody. Maybe this is one we can work on to do a better job on. Senator johnson i asked my staff to see if it is all in the United States to which folks from honduras, guatemala salvador are fleeing to ask for asylum. How about mexico, how about belize panama, nicaragua. They gave me these numbers. They said, the United States is the only country experiencing significant increases in Asylum Seekers from these three countries i alluded to. Together mexico, panama, nicaragua, costa rica, and belize have reported an increase of almost 1200 . That is from 2008 to 2014. It is not just the u. S. They just want to get out of honduras, guatemala, and salvador. The numbers speak volumes. The numbers are down by about half. I do think that the administration feels that a lot of the measures we took a put in place last year not only here domestically but with our partners in mexico and Central America have had an effect. I would defer to my colleagues at the enforcement agency. The administration does feel that that is not part of the reason why the numbers are down. Senator johnson anybody want to share a thought with us, please . Dont be shy. I would talk to mr. Osuna both director johnson and secretaries held on you have met with a number of Central American officials coupled with the departments on outreach and coordination at the state department who are trying to overcome the message, the marketing by smuggling organizations last year that there were these unreal opportunities that were outside of the law. And it seems to be taking hold, i think on mr. Mr. Greenberg said, our colleagues know a little bit more about this, but it seems all indications are that our message is being well received and our International Partners are working in a high degree of collaboration to ensure that we dont have the same kind of humanitarian crisis that we did last year. Senator johnson give us one example, Something Congress needs to do that will continue to drive those numbers down. Each of you give us one good idea. Mr. Langlois . Mr. Langlois i think that cooperating with the nationstates that are on the parameters of these three countries to build their asylum adjudication process would assist us in this endeavor to have sanctuary provided by countries that are in the surrounding area. We have been working with mexico for quite some time on their asylum system. Senator carper thanks. Support the president s request for contingency funding. There was an opportunity to work collaboratively. Were doing that very effectively. Mr. Greenberg and i have been traveling to the southern border to make sure our teams are aware of the need to work together. It was very difficult last year, the department had to reprogram hundreds of millions of dollars and take away from other functions to accomplish our mission with contingency funding and are 2016 edge it, we would have the flexibility to not only deal with unaccompanied children, but any other unforeseen crises on the border. Senator carper mr. Greenberg . Mr. Greenberg what i would highlight is that ensuring the efficiency of the Legal Process for arriving unaccompanied children, that the continued efforts of legal representation are essential. Support the president s request for fy 2016 for more Immigration Court resources. Senator carper 55 judge teams . I think the appropriators have picked that up. Mr. Osuna that will be critical for us to move these cases as quickly as we can. Senator carper you did a great job on those acronyms too. The message were sending to children in Central America is 2. 7 of them are returned from 2014. That is about 10 . If you get to america, 90 or more of you will be able to stay. My understanding is mexico is doing a far better job of policing its southern border increasing their apprehensions by 79 . That is probably the number one reason why our numbers are down here. Senator peters . Senator peters . As i have said on repeated occasions, i believe ultimately we need to pass comprehensive Immigration Reform to deal with these issues in a comprehensive way, which is why we need comprehensive Immigration Reform. A hearing earlier this year discussing the deferred action for childhood arrivals and deferred action for parents of americans, i spoke about two michigan students as an example of the daca program. One of these individuals came here very young, knows no other life other than being an american, and came here not her decision, but came with a parent, did well in school became valedictorian of her high school, is now at the university of michigan with dreams of becoming a physician, and without daca protections, she would be deported, which makes no sense whatsoever and is not good Public Policy for us as well. I would like to enter a report from the American Immigration counsel. It speaks to the concerned you raised as to whether or not this daca program is responsible for the surge we saw last year. It says in his 2012 report, the officer stated in a fivemonth period between march and july 2012, the on a complete Minor Program received almost 7200 referrals quote, showing from the report that the rise in unaccompanied minors predated implementation of the daca program. Individuals who arrived in the country after january 1 2007 were not even be eligible for daca. I dont have the report. The Cato Institute did a report on july 20 9 2014 and said first, the surge in uacb came before the june 15 announcement of daca. From october 2011 through march 2012, there were 92 increase in uac apprehensions over the same period in fiscal year 2011. Texas governor rick. Warned rick perry warned president obama. Children coming now are not legally able to apply for daca. There are reports from independent groups as wideranging as the Cato Institute which dispel that notion. It goes back to what i said at the beginning of my comments, Congress Needs to roll up our sleeves and work to pass comprehensive Immigration Reform. If we do that reform, we will provide clarity and certainty and prove improve Border Security and ensure our immigration system is fair for all and makes our country stronger. It is important to remember that when we are talking about the on a Company Children here today, we are referring to kids who came to the United States to seek a better life and often fleeing violence and exportation. Social services in michigan have cared for some of these children, including teenagers who have fled from sexual trafficking and gang violence, which leads to oftentimes severe depression and attempts at suicide as well. He United States has legal obligations to consider these childrens welfare and allow their asylum claims to have their day in court. That leads to mr. Langlois, if you could speak to some specific examples of a trial that comes forward who would be granted asylum, what are they facing . Give us two or three examples. Mr. Langlois in order to be eligible for asylum, and individual needs to establish they have experienced past persecution or has a wellfounded fear of persecution on one of the five protected grounds race, religion, nationality, social group, and political in opinion opinion. The best majority that appear in front of us are represented. They appear in front of us. We have small numbers. Our approval rate is approximately 42 . The majority are fleeing severe violence that is connected to at least one of the protected grounds. Senator peters these children that come before you, they say you say that they go into a nonadversarial situation. Is it a child, a 10yearold has to say, i want to file an asylum claim where do they even know that is the avenue they need to go . Mr. Langlois individuals who are deemed to be unaccompanied children by or are placed in front of removal proceedings in front of an immigration judge when they are in front of the judge, they must request to apply for asylum when they are in front of the immigration judge in the adversarial hearing. Senator peters how is a 10yearold going to know that . Mr. Langlois the individuals in proceedings sometimes have counsel and sometimes they do not. Im not familiar with how it occurs in front of an immigration judge. I can take that on. They can be challenging for judges when they have children in front of them. You pointed out the scenario perfectly, a 10yearold in front of a judge. Sometimes it is a challenge for the judge to find out exactly what the case is all about. Judges take the necessary time to get to know what the child is about, what the childs case is about. Sometimes judges will have children come back a couple of times to get them comfortable in order to hear what happened to them, and whether they wish to apply for asylum. The point of taking the time the judge taking the time is not just to hear what the childs case is about, but to give a child a chance to find a lawyer. There are a lot of organizations out there that are stepping up and providing lawyers for these kids. For the most part, the process in Immigration Court is designed to get the child comfortable, to have the judge hear what the case is about, and give the child a chance to find a lawyer or representative that can than a system with the application for asylum or some other form of immigration relief. Senator peters the image is striking, to have a 10yearold standing in front of a judge and next to him would be a government attorney seeking to have been deported. Them deported. Is there any other place we have in our Justice System in america where we just allow a young child to stand before a judge or without any kind of legal representation and plead their case . Not to my knowledge. I think we are in Immigration Court because there is no right to appointed counsel in Immigration Court. When he comes to children, it is all the more striking, which is why we are trying to do what we can with our federal partners to increase representation programs. To try to provide as much capacity not just for lawyers but also for responsible adults to step forward and assist children coming before a judges. Senator peters that has got to be a frightening experience for a 10yearold who may be a victim of violence for where they are coming from, may be a victim of sexual trafficking they are scared, and we expect them to understand they need to start pleading that they have an asylum claim. Mr. Osuna it can be intimidating for obvious reasons. We do what i can to give what we can to give specialized training to our judges. They are not like any adult case. They have to have specialized training and procedures, childrens dockets. The surge from last year provided a bigger challenge because of the numbers. Senator peters thank you. Center baldwin i want to thank you and Ranking Member copper carper for holding this hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for your insight and time. When we held a hearing about a year ago, i was very interested in the discussions that the committee and Witness Panel had about root causes of the 2014 surge. It was clear to me that violence and instability in a number of Central American countries were key factors that push children to make a very perilous journey to our borders. It is critical that we continue to understand the causes so we can ensure that we dont see another surge as we did last year. I wanted to start on that topic. I recognize we do not have a state Department Witness on our panel today. Mr. Miller, at the beginning of your written testimony, you talk about the push and pull factors that led to the influx. You also mentioned in your testimony and in response to a question that secretary johnson and the director have met with officials in honduras, guatemala, and el salvador to request their cooperation in stemming the flow of their citizens to our borders. Im wondering if you can outline or share for us some of the specific efforts that came out of those meetings and consultations. I was not present for those meetings. We were meeting with those officials to try to figure out an Effective Communication strategy to try to overcome a lot of the marketing that smuggling organizations were doing to try to encourage children, thinking that they would be receiving some kind of immigration benefit that was not actually waiting for them on the other side. It appears those collaborative efforts are yielding results. That and i would say from my understanding at the gao, and the state department has a very robust plan to continue that communication, and they have pointed to a number of indicators of economic difficulties, some of them stemming from agricultural problems some of them tied to the lack of opportunities for those children, and i think as we continue to work with our Central American partners and work collaboratively with the department of state, we hopefully will continue to address those in a unified u. S. Government manner. Senator baldwin thank you. Right now, as was noted by our Ranking Members the Appropriations Committee in the senate is looking at the president s request for assistance to implement a new strategy for engagement in Central America. The president s request is at odds with the amount allocated by the house and their appropriations process. Mr. Miller, in your opinion what would the impact be on those root causes if congress did not engage in a funding level that met the president s mr. Miller i would have feared that we would begin to backslide and loses some of the gains that we have experienced in the past year. We are trying to the best of our ability to mitigate a dangerous journey for these children and i think the more effective and more we can do through the state department to meet their needs and their home country and work collaboratively with our foreign partners, we are going to mitigate or diminish the humanitarian crisis on our border. Which is a Law Enforcement officer is a Good Government function. You did a great job of outlining the two tracks of a silent proceedings a silent proceedings asylum proceedings. You talked quite a bit about some of the training required to conduct child appropriate in abus interviews, to make sure that asylum officers get that type of knowledge in dealing with children. I wonder if you can talk more in detail about the training. Was that initiated back in 2009 or was that in response to last years surge, or both . The training to conduct interviews with children has been a longstanding training with the asylum court. The first childrens guidelines came out in 1995 or 1996. We have had a history of interviewing children for asylum in the United States. We have utilized a lesson plan to teach individuals the appropriate techniques. We have had a number of outside professors consultants assist us with a lesson plan. It had to be a long tradition. The number starting to increase most recently, which emphasized the importance of the training. We have been conducting this training since 1995. In terms of the Resources Available to minors who go through your nonadversarial process, tell me about the Translation Services that are available to minors. Do minors get Legal Assistance in negotiating that process . Unaccompanied children just like all asylum applicants have to provide their own interpretation without government expense. We have an interpreter on the telephone that listens in to make sure it is correct and fraud is not occurring. The unaccompanied child needs to provide his or her interpretation and an attorney is at no government expense. Over 90 of the individual unaccompanied alien children are represented by the time they get to us. That is coming from the courts is where they start before coming to us and 90 is the number we are looking at. But its no expense to the government, i believe. I want to thank all of you for being here today. One of the things i wanted to followup on, when secretary johnson testified in 2014 about the crisis we were facing from unaccompanied children from Central America, one of the things he recommended at the time when he testified before the Senate Appropriations committee, i recall hearing him say he talked about the differences in the law between countries that are contiguous to the unite states of that are not contiguous. In terms of changing the law we are asking for the ability to treat unaccompanied kids from a Central American country the same way as from contiguous countries. It would help if the senate amended the law to treat the children the same as those from a contiguous country. If a child for mexico comes to the border, its different in terms of what rights and legal explanations can be given. That cannot happen with the Central American country. Is that true . When you talk about steps we can take to help the situation isnt that one of the steps we could take consistent with what secretary johnson told us at the time of this crisis . Whoever is the best person to answer that. That is my understanding of the db pra as well tb pra. They can work collaboratively through their local refrigeration agreements this repatriation agreements they work collaboratively with those respective governments to enjoy the safe return of us children. If we had that flexibility with other countries, for those children who at the time of encounter by cbp, if they wish to withdraw their application and return to their country, we have outstanding repatriation agreements with those countries. We have many opportunities. Given the opportunity, we would be able to exercise a broader spectrum of ability for those children who are not seeking any of additional protection. This law was put in place when president bush was in office. We were treating the contiguous countries differently than the noncontiguous. It seems to me that its outlived its purpose. You should be given the same tools as the secretary had previously asked us. Is this a tool you would still like to have . Yes, maam. We support the secretarys effort to have broadspectrum ability to do the best thing and interest of the children. Very good. Thanks. When you were asked about the relationship between the president s executive orders and the influx of unaccompanied children, at the time i recall this as well, we were dealing with the real influx secretary johnson made a point of being very clear with the Central American countries because clearly there was an impression at the time that somehow you could receive a pass if you made it to the United States. I know he clearly said he wanted them to understand that the children would not benefit from the president s dr. Oca order. There was a misimpression in Central America that children were being given a misimpression by the coyotes. Would you agree with me that that was a piece of i have concerns about it. Yes, maam. Our colleagues were well aware that that was a Marketing Strategy of the smuggling organizations. The secretary worked extensively to educate and to inform that that was not the case. Persons who were interdicted after january would retain that date of interdiction and thus remain a party. You think that is clearly understood now . To the best of my knowledge that message has been received. It seems to have interviewed it to the reduction in the influx this year. Thank you all. Mr. Miller, i am a little confused. You just said the children that are not by law, people coming here now, they do not have the benefits. They are a priority in answer to my questions, you said the priorities are frivolous. Which is it . Are these removals a priority or not . It is a priority. Most Law Enforcement agencies prioritize criminal actions or the apprehension and removal of criminals higher than the apprehension secretary johnson in front of a Committee Hearing on april 29 you have to show the population of Central America that you are sending people back. That was the secretary of Homeland Security. We have to show Central America that you worsening people back. Does it send signals mixed signals . Hundred 9000 have come into this country 109,000 have come to this country and we returned a little over 6000. Deferred action does not legally apply to these children. In reality isnt that what children are relying on . The reality of the situation, if you get into america coming have a very low percentage chance of being returned. Isnt that the reality . Do you believe are we showing the population of Central America that we are sending people back . In a meaningful way . Across the Broad Spectrum of all the persons interdicted on the border, yes, we are. We have worked effectively with the Adult Population and continue to make strides with the family units. We will work collaboratively with our partners here at the table the juvenile process takes longer to mature. I dont have the data with me that shows the persons that have been removed when they were interdicted and when they entered into the core process. We see across the spectrum that by the time the pieces mature, many of the people who have gone through the process they may have reached the age of majority before their case matures. That is not something that anyone member is at all four. Its the nature of the process. Any one member is at fault for. Going forward, we will continue to utilize our efforts appropriately. I stand by my previous statement that it makes good sense if i have limited resources and im faced with the task of going after criminals or going after noncriminal children, its the appropriate choice to go after the criminals first. We need to distant and vice best does hhs check the legal status of sponsors of unaccompanied children . We do make inquiry of a potential sponsor as to their immigration status. 100 of the time . All cases. For those cases that are subject to fingerprinting, we will get immigration in the context of the fingerprint match. If you find somebody in this country illegally, you turn those unaccompanied children over to an illegal immigrant parent . In the process of placing a child with a sponsor, we make inquiry about immigration do you turn unaccompanied children over to illegal immigrant parents . We will place a child with an undocumented parent. That you know is undocumented. That is correct. Have you notify dhs about that fact . We will provide information about the location of the address of the sponsor at the time that we released the child. Do you notify any agency that that individual is in this country illegally . Do you notify that you have just placed a child with somebody in this country illegally . We will respond to any inquiry we receive. Just answer the question. You tell dhs or ice that you just place a child with somebody you know in this country is illegally . Yes or no . We do not affirmatively do so. Will you say no . Thats a no. You dont and formalize or dhs. We will provide information upon request. One question i have in your testimony, you do say children have the privilege of representation, but itto the government. Best at no expense to the government. Can you square that for me . If current law is that there can be no expense for government yet we are issuing grants for people to provide legal representation, how do you get around the law . We are complying with the laws. We have a specific responsibility under the law to help children in receiving legal representation. Theres a conflict in the law is what you are saying. A loss says there can be no government expense utilized to provide legal representation but if there is another part of the law that gives you the authority to have legal representation is that whats happening . The law makes clear that we should be maximizing the use of pro bono resources. You also grant money for the legal asking for requests and paying for legal representation, are you not . That described. That is correct. Its your testimony that says its supposed to be granted yet you are paying for it. Just a conflict in the law . We do not believe there is a conflict in the law. We are following the requirements it sounds like a real conflict in the law that we ought to address. The law is clear that it says that we should be using pro bono to the maximum extent possible. If we are doing that, we should be doing additional things beyond that. The law is clear in a convicting disconcerting manner. No expense to the government and then its clear we should be spending money. What is the average time to adjudicate one of these claims . Are we talking months, years . For a copy children. Unaccompanied children. Our commitment is to have initial hearing in 21 days. We are adhering to that. Adjudication to the these cases do take a long time. Some cases have resulted in removal already. The child did not have a claim a very low percentage of those. They can take a significant amount of time. Legal representation does help. You have to make sure the person shows up. That does help in speeding up the Court Hearings at the beginning of the process. They can take a long time. I dont have a number to give you in terms of the latest surge of children, but its a matter of months, not weeks. Isnt it more a matter of years . It depends. If the child does apply for some sort of relief, that requires transfer. Hes talking about a low percentage of these ua cs obtaining any kind of asylum, yet we have a low percentage of people with orders to remove. I dont see this has to be very, very lengthy. When you go back to 2009 and see the low percentage of people who have been returned and the low percentage in total, this has to be a very lengthy process. It can be a lengthy process. Kids can also apply for special juvenile status, which is even more cap located because it involves the state court systems. That is the law we have in the law we work through. We have worked with these cases as quickly as we can consistent with the process and i know my colleagues to us well. I appreciate that. Thats what this committee is trying to lay bare, the conflict within the law, the incentives we create for people coming to this country illegally. We need to address those incentives. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to go back to root causes again with a little different focus. Among the things that we agree on are the idea that if folks who are citizens of honduras and guatemala and el salvador who want to come to this country to work for a limited amount of time and be able to go home maybe we ought to have change to our immigration laws of that can happen. Thats one element of come of Immigration Reform legislation. Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. If we do piecemeal Immigration Reform, what advice would each of you have to give us of an element or two to include in that legislative effort to help address the issues that we are addressing here today . Two comments. The administration doesnt support does support the comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. That rough framework is something that the administration and all the agencies here are behind specifically for my agency, that bill and the proposals have included significant resources and additional tools for the Immigration Court system and we would of course ask that any copperheads of Immigration Reform bill take into consideration the needs of the court system. Copperheads of Immigration Reform bill. Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. Mr. Miller in looking to fix the broken immigration system, we would favor the opportunity to balance the age of the conviction versus the statutory requirement we have today regardless of the age of the conviction. Many times our officers are compelled to take action and as a result frequently we exercise a great deal of resources on the initial encounter with the individual. Only for that to be mitigated thereafter. If we look for the temporal element and how individuals are charged under immigration act that would allow us to even better and more efficiently deploy our resources. Give us a simple example. Mr. Miller a very simple example would be a prior conviction from the 1980s. At times frequently when the person is seeking to have their green card renewed, it will be a referral to ice for enforcement action because the person has a narcotics conviction from the 1980s. As the statutory framework is today, we are asked to take the appropriate enforcement action to arrest and charge the person as a felon. Notwithstanding any kind of what the person has done since that initial conviction. As we discussed some individuals who are attempting to enter the United States unauthorized come for a variety of reasons. One reason is that they are fleeing persecution. They have a wellfounded fear of persecution or have been persecuted in the past and their claims should be heard. We should design the law to effectively and efficiently here those claims. You mentioned a needle in a haystack. To a great degree, that analogy rings true here where you are trying to get to that needle efficiently and effectively in order to grant asylum to individuals who deserve protection but effectively and efficiently deny those individuals were not eligible and return those individuals. To the extent that the law can grapple with that balance, thats what i would encourage. Someone mentioned that roughly 4000 unaccompanied minors been granted asylum is that correct . That was in my testimony. Since 2009. Would you give us some idea since 2009, roughly how many unaccompanied children have sought asylum . Just roughly. Since 2009, approximately i dont have that figure. Just really rough. I can take it from right here. From 2009, we are dealing with 13,000 individuals who have applied for asylum since 2009. Via the court. They were in front of an immigration judge and requested asylum and given a continuance and then they have filed. Is it safe to assume there are more than 13,000 that have not filed or been before a court . The process can take time. The process seems mindnumbing. I rate your testimony coming down on the train today. Maybe i did not have enough coffee. He said it wasnt the coffee. I listened to you speak your today, it is hard to wrap my head around. It is confusing. A long and tortured road. I dont know if there is something we can do to make it more straightforward or not. I would sure be interested in exploring that. I dont mean to be critical of your testimony. I thought you presented it very well come up but it is a long and tortured road. The attorneys for unaccompanied minors at no expense to the government im proud of what weve done in our state of delaware where the Supreme Court have reached out to law firms and ask them to help out they have answered the call. They provide a lot of Legal Counsel for young people. Frankly, not much cost to the government. We need to do more of that. Why is it in our financial interest to have to ensure they have Legal Counsel . Whether or not they have Legal Counsel so they show up for hearings . Does it extradite the process this expedite the process . There is no question that having counsel at the start of the process, especially for a child, makes the process more efficient. Immigration judges have a fear of granting continuances. The legal issues are clear. They spend a lot of time teasing out what the case is all about. Theres no doubt that counsel at the beginning of the process makes our Court Process much more efficient. One more quick question, if i may. I understand that we have begun to allow a limited group of children from quad of allah honduras and el salvador to apply in their home countries. The guatemala honduras and el salvador. Could you just describe this new effort and why it has begun . Certainly. It even has an acronym. The Central American minors refugee and parole program. The cam program was designed to be to give an alternative to individuals that are in these three countries. A safe and legal alternative to taking the dangerous road to the United States with smugglers. The Program Allows individuals who are lawfully present in the United States to file for their children that remain in these three countries. They file a dna testing done to make sure the relationship is valid. Then, we have the state department, the manager of the program, they arrange for the child to be preliminary interviewed in the country. When the case is right to be presented as a refugee or role parole, an officer will conduct extensive interview. We will do background checks fingerprints, checks on the individual who is petitioning to make sure they are in the status they claim. If there is any criminal record of that individual. We arrange through the Refugee Program to come to the United States. That sounds like common sense. Sounds like a pretty good idea. Thank you for your appearance and testimony. I will use his fine example by allowing each of you to have the opportunity to make one final comment. I do want to requote secretary johnson before that appropriations hearing on april 29. We have to show the population of Central America that we are sending people back. You have to find out what works and do more of that. We have an example of what work. 2000 five, we experienced a surge with brazilian immigrants. 31,063. In 2005, dhs employed operation Texas Hold Em where they prioritized the existence base and begin removing the illegal brazilians. By the following year, the number of people coming in illegally from brazil dropped from 31,063 to 1460. I want to thank you all for your testimony. This has been very enlightening. A very complex problem. Multiple root causes. I certainly have my opinion. What we found from your testimony and found from the answers broken immigration system. It is. That is a very valid acknowledgment. Its a broken system, convoluted. Within these three departments and five different agencies, its not fully courted native. Coordinated. Im pleased to hear that our Ranking Member used the word piecemeal reform. This administration does not want to talk about that. We dont do comprehensive very well because it is couple candid. These things are not easy to deal with. It is complicated. Work with this committee lets identify these problems, these conflicts. The reality situation, we are not going to do comprehensive reform in the next 18 months. We wont have Situational Awareness of the border in the next 18 months. Lets take a look at the problems and conflicts in the convoluted process and try to coordinate this and start making incremental improvements. Lets look at the root cause and these individual problems and with your expertise i truly appreciate your service. You are dealing with the loss weve got. Laws weve got. The only thing we can accomplish in the next 18 months piecemeal might have the wrong connotation. How about a stepbystep Continuous Improvement process. We had that attitude. Lets prioritize those individual problems we can address and start fixing this on a stepbystep basis. With that, lets start with mr. Assumeosuno. The border search from last year was unprecedented. Ive been doing this job for a long time and ive never seen the level of interagency coordination and discussion that this began from the start. I think it has been a challenge for all the agencies but weve done the best we can. It has had an effect and we look forward to continuing our discussion with you and our fellow partners. I think i speak for the Ranking Member we talked to customs Border Protection. They did an externally job grappling with a difficult problem. They circumvented some rules. We are very compassionate. This was a humanitarian crisis and the people in those agencies rose to the challenge. We want to give them kudos for doing that. Mr. Greenberg . I proved that message. Approved that message. [laughter] i just want to underscore how closely the agencies are in fact collaborating and cooperating in these efforts. Last year, we were both in texas and visited the facilities at the same time. He and his colleagues and i went together again this year to look at those facilities. Our staff talk every day. We have distinct responsibilities in the process but we are very much we appreciate the importance of coordination and we are working hard to establish that. I did just want to followup on the issue around legal representation. My understanding is that the statutory language that you were referring to that seeking to make clear that there is not a right to pay counsel at the expense of the government. We are cleared this is not about a right to pay counsel i dont believe there is an inconsistency in the language, but we would be happy to followup with you and your staff and look at this more closely. I just want to indicate that having been before the committee a year ago, there has been tremendous progress over the course of this last year. We look forward to continuing to build on it and look forward to working with you. Thank you, mr. Greenberg. Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller i agree with my colleagues. Never before has there been greater coordination. One of agencies and different departments have different requirements differences in constraints placed upon them we had an amazing level of collaboration and cooperation. Making joint decisions, sharing information in a way that is without precedents. We continue to work collaboratively, not just on issues related to unaccompanied children but continued to work with the Immigration Judges on how to better streamline these processes and look at what we can do more efficiently to reduce the nondetained docket. To give opportunities to people who did not want to continue their nondetained Court Settings making opportunities available where people can give us constructive feedback and we can share that information across the one government come all the agencies and departments dealing with these issues. While there is a lot of work to be done, we are all in agreement on that, what we learned last summer is that we dont have to sit there with our own agency and grapple with these troubles. By sharing information and coming to joint decisions, we can more effectively and efficiently work within the framework we are given today and work with the committee for a better framework tomorrow. Certainly, the border surge last year presented a wide range of challenges for the asylum core in its attempt to adjudicate cases. We experienced an increase in caseloads of credible fear, reasonable fear and unaccompanied childrens claims in the affirmative context. Individuals that have suffered persecution deserve a just but efficient adjudication of their claim. They deserve protection and we must effectively give them that and efficiently give them that. We have cooperated with cbp and ice and eoir to assist us in that endeavor. All systems can be improved and we work hard in order to do that. We have an incredibly committed asylum core that is applying themselves diligently to this task and cooperating fully with our partners in this task. Thank you. I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony for your thoughtful answers to our questions. I will have more questions for the record. We just got to get our arms around information, the data. You have to have that kind of data to highlight where are the problem areas and what you need to address. I want to work with all of your agencies to get that information. This hearing record will remain open for 15 days. For this omission of statements and those additional questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. The submission of statements and those additional questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] from tuesday, a Senate Hearing on unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the southwestern border of the u. S. Before that hearing, we showed you a special on sanctuary cities. That issue in the news recently thanks to an incident in San Francisco where an undocumented immigrant was allegedly involved in the murder of a San Francisco woman. We will take your calls in just a moment here. First, this from the huffington post. Undocumented immigrants rally in the world ends. New orleans. Hundreds of advocates, some of them undocumented waited hours outside of new orleans courthouse on friday as federal appeals offered arguments on president Barack Obamas deportation relief. Now, they must weigh the court of appeals to decide if the deportation relief programs can go into effect, even as a lawsuit from 26 dates seeks to block them. This from the Texas Tribune from rick perry. He says lets pull federal funds from sanctuary cities days after undocumented labor was charged with the murder of a San Francisco woman, governor perry called for federal funding to be pulled from sanctuary cities. In a statement, the gop president ial candidate criticized San Francisco and other American Cities run by leftwing governments for defining immigration laws and not working with federal authorities to prosecute undocumented immigrants. Lower in the story, it says supporters of sanctuary cities say their policies help local Police Officers connect with immigrants and strengthen public safety. Democratic president ial candidate Hillary Clinton reiterated her support for the policy in a statement on thursday. Democrats, call us at 2027488000920. Republicans, 2027488001921. You cant we us at cspan or go to facebook and post a comment there. Terry in south carolina. What do you think about u. S. Immigration policy . Caller i dont think we have a policy. Its not effective. Im feeling the sanctuary cities are not waiting. The expense for the testing, the background checks come all that we are in debt before the first challenge gets here. Somebody has to pay for that besides the taxpayer. The comment that was not even addressed is the Love Connection children, the dating site children. They are not even here yet until the girlfriend comes over and immediately has the child. She is not even in the process of immigration. All of a sudden, we have a new citizen. That was not a dress. Host donna from indiana. Line for democrats. Caller i would like to say that i believe for the first time in my 65 years i am considering going republican this year. I do not like the policy as far as illegal immigrants. They have no business in our country. I hate to sound uncaring, but i think our country is in a hard way now where our own citizens need help and we dont need outsiders coming in, taking our jobs we have to put them on the government bill so they can eat and have housing. Our prisons are over a full, we dont need more people in jail more people to feed. I dont want to sound cruel, but these people need to fix their own countries. Stay out of hours. Host and you joining us on the republican line in california. Caller im in california. Its not a place to live anymore. The illegals have totally taken over in the have ruined our state. These people should be deported immediately. I dont think they should be here. It takes forever to get a few of them out of here and we keep allowing them in. They have a home and they should stay in their home. As far a sending children on their own, that is totally cruel. They along with her mother and father and grandparents. Let their families take care of their children. So we can get our get the United States back to a decent level again. Host john from temple, texas. Republican caller. Caller just listening to the program here, i have the questions asked by senator johnsons staff, specifically senator carper, asked a very insightful question. Why werent they sending these people back . The gentleman on the panel mentioned that while they did not get the