Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Immigrants Serving In U.S. Military 20240713

Judge and an Immigration Law attorney. The subcommittee will come to order. With the indulgence of our witnesses before we proceed to the hearing, i think many of us would like to say a comment or two about the late john conyers, who was a member of this committee for many decades. Who gave his life to public service, and who loved this committee very greatly. He passed away just a few days ago having served his country in both the armed forces and in congress. So we do mourn his passing and it would not be in keeping with our traditions to proceed without at least giving our condolences to his family and to those who sent him to congress for so many decades to represent them. At this point, i would like to recognize mr. Nadler, the chairman of the full committee for remarks on mr. Conyers. Thank you, madame chairperson. Americans across the country are mourning the loss of john conyers today, but nowhere is his loss felt more deeply than here in the Judiciary Committee, which he served for more than 50 years as a member of this committee. Including more than 20 years as either its chairman or Ranking Member. John conyers was a true champion for civil rights and justice for the oppressed and disenfranchised. Prior to his service in congress, he was on the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement and was in selma, alabama, for the freedom day voter drive in 1963. He also holds the distinction of being the only member of congress to be endorsed by dr. Martin luther king jr. He hired rosa parks to work on his staff when other civil rights activism caused hers to shun her. Even when doing so, was a lonely pursuit. He authored universal Health Care Legislation long before it became a mainstream idea. He first introduced hr40, legislation to study reparations for jim crow back in 1989. At the same time he had a long track record of working across the aisle to enact important Bipartisan Legislation such as the violence against women act and the fair sentencing act and the usa freedom act and the Voting Rights act. As a leader in the Judiciary Committee, congressman conyers spearheaded and passed such important legislation as the Martin Luther king jr. Holiday act, hate crimes legislation and the innocence protection act. But his impact on the house cannot just be measured in terms of how many bills he sponsored or considered in committee. He was a Founding Member of the Congressional Black Caucus and he was a mentor to many members, including me, who benefitted from his wisdom and grace. John was my colleague, my friend and my chairman. I am honored and humbled to serve in his footsteps leading this committee and i am comforted by the portrait that hangs above me knowing hes watching us and hopfully approving as we attempt to carry on his legacy. My thoughts are with his family and all those whose hearts are heavy today because of his loss. My heart is with the country, who has lost the benefit of his leadership. May his memory be a blessing. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, mr. Collins, for his statement. Thank you, madam chair. I echo the chairmans statements about the accomplishments and the long list of accomplishments of that have been listed out and mr. Conyers was amazing in the length and breadth and statements of what he made. But i choose to emphasize also the what he accomplished from his, you know, time as chair and also his Ranking Member when i worked with him on many occasions before his leaving the house. But the thing that i remember the most is just his kindness, his sense of humor, his dress, his sharpest dresser always in the room, and especially on codels and one of my highlights in congress was a few years ago working on the Police Working group. We went to detroit and he was host for that. And it was just a really neat time to let him show his city and where he came from, and i was pleased with that. The last memory i will hold dearest for me was is when you get to watch and youre amazed and still am by everything, but i can remember one day leaving this committee and we were going to the floor for a vote. We went down to the trains that take us to the capitol for this vote. And we were coming back to the hearing room and it just happened to be me and him. I had only been here a month or two. I was introducing myself and i introduced and he said, youre from georgia, right . I said, yes, sir. We talked back and forth. I said, just curious, youve been here a long time. What brought you i said, im going to ask this a question lot, but what brought you to congress . He starts chuckling a little bit and he looks at me and says, well, i really wanted to come be a part of the Judiciary Committee to work on the Voting Rights act of 1964. And i stopped for a second and i look aed at him and i said, tha was 2 1 2 years before i was born. He laughed and he said, yep, ive been here a while. He said, if you stick around, youll see a lot of things. That was the gentleman i got to know and its the nation mourns that and this committee mourns that. And it would be, as the chairwoman said, it would be remiss if we dont recognize that today. With that i yield back. Gentleman yields back and all other members will be invited to submit whatever comments they might wish on mr. Conyers at this time. Its now my pleasure to welcome everyone to this mornings hearing or this afternoons hearing, on the impact of current immigration policies on Service Members and veterans and their families. Over the last 2 1 2 years the administration has implemented numerous policy changes that have made life more difficult for noncitizen members of the United States armed forces, veterans and their families. In addition, the administrations heavy emphasis on Immigration Enforcement as well as the elimination of prosecutorial discretion when it comes to Immigration Enforcement has resulted in the removal or attempted removal of far too many lawful, permanent resident veterans who honorably served our country, but struggled with the transition back into civilian life, some who were disabled by ptsd. This hearing will allow the subcommittee to explore how these policy changes and the unforgiving nature of our Immigration Laws have impacted active duty Service Members, veterans and their families. At this point, i would like to, without objection, recognize my colleague, representative correa as a champion of this very important issue who will preside over this hearing and to whom i yield the remainder of my time for his opening statement. Good afternoon. Welcome. Without objection, first id like request of permission to submit these letters on part of the record. These are letters on the impact of current immigration policies on Service Members, veterans and their families. First of all, let me thank my colleague, representative lofgren, chairwoman of the citizenship subcommittee for her leadership. And i appreciate the opportunity to preside over this most important hearing today. And as we approach veterans day, we have to recognize and honor all our veterans, including immigrant veterans who have served our country honorably in the armed forces from the revolutionary war to the recent conflicts in afghanistan and iraq. And today there are over half a million foreignborn veterans in the United States. As recently as 2012 there were 24,000 immigrants as part of the active duty force. The fill philippines, mexico, jamaica and south korea account for the greatest number of these foreignborn veterans. And regardless of where they were born, immigrant Service Members are americans in every sense of the word. More than once, ive shared the story of marine Corporal Jose Angel Garibay who was born in mexico. Corporate garibay was killed in action in 2003 after iraqi forces pretending to surrender ambushed him and his fellow marines. He was one of Orange Countys first combat casualties in the iraq war and corporal garibay was posthumously was given american citizenship. He made the ultimate sacrifice and he was a dreamer. When foreignborn Service Members and veterans are willing to defend the United States, a country they love, we have an obligation to uphold our promise to provide for these patriots american citizenship. Sadly, since 1996, thousands of noncitizen veterans who took the oath of allegiance and were honorably discharged have been deported. No one puts the uniform on and is honorably and who was honorably discharged should be subject to deportation. As every soldier knows, you never lead a soldier behind. Sadly, the u. S. Immigration and custom enforcement, or i. C. E. , does not follow policies for solving cases of potentially removal veterans and does not always identify and track such veterans. As a result, i. C. E. Does not know how many veterans it has deported. And conveniently, the administration has adopted policies that affect the naturalization process for military Service Members and veterans. As a result, military naturalizations have decreased by 44 , from 7,300 in fiscal year 2017 to about 4,000 in fiscal year 2018. In august of 2019, u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service announced a change to the definition of the term residents, and in effect, children born to certain u. S. Service members stationed abroad will now be required to naturalize under a lengthier and more complicated application process. Together with my colleague representative Veronica Escobar of texas, we led a letter to the u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, acting director ken cuccinelli, asking for reconsideration of this policy. And without objection, id like to submit that letter as part of this record. In total, these policy changes negatively affect military recruitment and effectiveness and turn our back on immigrant Service Member, veterans and their families. This is unacceptable and we need to correct this situation, and i look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today. And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentle member of colorado, mr. Buck, for an opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Immigrants have served in our Armed Forces Throughout the countrys history, recognizing their sacrifice, congress has provided in law for the expedited Foreign Nationals who served honorably in the u. S. Armed forces. In periods of hostility that includes september 11, 2001, to present, a noncitizen member of the military forces can apply if the individual has served honorably in an active status. Naturalization is voluntary and not automatic, and not all in the military must apply for it, receive a favorable adjudication and take the oath of allegiance to become a naturalized u. S. Citizen. As part of the process the department of defense must certify Honorable Service which they often do after background checks have been made and alien has met the time and Service Requirement, in most cases, 180 days. This policy is a reasonable requirement to ensure and deter the termination by statue. Since october 1, 2001 United States Immigration Agency has naturalized approximately 130,000 members of the military, many of those members naturalizing while deployed abroad. Today we will discuss the difficult issue of noncitizen veterans of the u. S. Military who have been removed from the United States. Its important to note that no one is above the legal consequences, criminal or otherwise, of their behavior. The cases of veterans and removal proceedings should be handled according to guidance that has been in place through several administrations and with sensitivity to those who may have suffered from Mental Health problems due to their service. I am also originaled to be an original cosponsor with Ranking Member collins, chairman nadler and chairman lofgren of hr3803, citizenship for children and military members and Civil Servants act. This bipartisan bill makes a technical change to the residents and requirements of sections 320 of the immigration and nationality act. This will ensure that children of the u. S. Armed forces, members stationed abroad can automatically acquire citizenship where all other requirements are met. It will make sure they are not disadvantaged simply because their u. S. Citizen parent is stationed abroad. We introduced hr4803 earlier this month. Im proud of our work on this bill since it shows when a change in the law is necessary, it is possible for us to Work Together to get it done. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, mr. Buck. I will now recognize the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and gentle member from new york, mr. Nadler, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Immigrants have served in the u. S. Armed forces in every major conflict since the revolutionary war. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center in 2016, there were approximately 511,000 foreignborn veterans of the armed forces residing in the United States. The children of immigrants also make up a substantial portion of todays veteran population. Every day these brave men and women risk their lives in service to our country. We rely on them to keep our nation safe, to provide stability in politically fragile regions and protect u. S. Global interests. In return we must honor their sacrifices, ensure they and their families are supported and give them every opportunity to become u. S. Citizens. Unfortunately, as a result of the unforgiving nature of our Immigration Laws and numerous policy changes implemented by the Trump Administration, it appears that the opposite is happening. Under the Trump Administration, the department of defense and u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, uscis, have implemented numerous policy changes that have undermine add congresss clear intent to provide an expedited naturalization process for military Service Members and veterans. For example, in october 2017 the pentagon made it more difficult for military Service Members to receive a certification of Honorable Service. The document which is essential to expedite the naturalization process. Previously, certifications could be issued as soon as individual began active duty. Now, however, one must at least complete 180 days of Consecutive Service or one year in the selected reserve. In addition, where certifications could previously be issued by any supervising officer, it now must be a Military Branch or commissioned officer serving in the specific pay grade. These changes are unnecessary and cruel. They serve no purpose, but to make it harder for individuals serving our country to become citizens and theyve had a measurable impact. The total military authorization has declined 44 from 7,360 in fiscal year 2017 to just 4,135 in fiscal year 2018. In addition because uscis has cut the number of naturalization services, those stalgsed overseas has become much more limited. Uscis used to provide such services in 23 International Offices in 20 countries. A change that took effect last month, this was cut from 23 International Offices to just four offices. With uscis personnel on site to conduct naturalization interviews, only one week per calendar quarter. Why would we make it more difficult for the men and women who are risking their lives in service of this country to become permanent members of our society . This is both shortsighted and coldhearted. During the hearing we will discuss the plight of u. S. Veterans who struggled with the transition back to civilian life and eventually deported from the country they so nobly served. Many of the veterans have been removed from the United States as a result of convictions and transgressions tied to posttraumatic stress disorder, ptsd, and trauma suffered during active duty and making civilian life more difficult. In other words, they served this country, they had a medical condition sarlgt of it which impaired their judgment, they committed a crime as a result of that medical condition and therefore theyre deported. We can all agree that individuals rightfully convicted of a crime should serve any reasonable sentence imposed. Once that sentence has been served we should not simply turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much in service to our country. Especially if that may have been servicerelated. There must be a better way to address these cases. Our veterans deserve better and we owe it to them to find a way to bring compassion and discretion back into our Immigration Laws. I want to end on a positive note. Last week i introduced the citizenship for children of military members and Civil Servants act along with Ranking Member collins, who has served honorably in the armed forces himself, as well as esteemed colleagues including lofgren and buck. This bill will fix a problem announced in august which makes it more difficult for citizens of u. S. Citizens abroad to be recognized at u. S. Citizens. Our bill would change this misguided policy. I am glad to reach across the aisle for this important legislation and i look forward to advancing our efforts in the coming weeks. I want to thank chair lofgren and representative correa for holding this important hearing. I thank all of the witnesses for testifying. I look forward to their testimony and i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, chairman nadler, and i would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentle member from georgia, mr. Collins, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss military issues today because of the Lieutenant Colonel and the u. S. Air force reserve command. I understand the issues surrounding military service. It is congresss place to determine if changes should be made to u. S. Law governing men and women who served us. He and i along with chairperson lofgren and Ranking Member buck and colleagues from across the political spectrum introduced the citizenship for children and military Civil Servants act. The Immigration Services recently aligned a technical interpretation of the law that exposed a loophole. Some children would not automatically arequire citizenship because of their parents deployment abroad prevents them from meeting the residency required in the statute. Hr40036 would fix that loophole. Its important to remember that immigrants also wear the uniform and have since the founding of on you are nation. In fact, historically the average number of Foreign National enlistees have been around 5,000 a year. That number jumped to 7,000 in 2019. Many of these patriots will go on to be naturalized for their service and from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2018 they naturalized 129,587 members of the military, including more than 11,000 who at the time were deployed abroad protecting our country. Our Immigration Laws recognize the sacrifice of our military and lay out the expedited Foreign Nationals including the time period after september 11th attacks is eligible to apply to naturalize upon Honorable Service. The department of defense issued a policy memo in 2017 to require Service Members to have served at least 180 days for the department to certify Honorable Service, which is required to apply for which is required to apply to naturalize. This aligns with Longstanding Department of defense policy that citizen or noncitizen alike who has not served for 180 days. Not all Foreign Nationals would choose to naturalize and those who do not remain subject to Immigration Laws. Although we should not shield Service Members or veterans from the necessary and lawful consequences of their actions, agencies handling rule cases should be particularly sensitive to the veterans Honorable Service. To that end, they would have special handling procedures for veterans and take into account the nature of the veterans and take into account that Veterans Services in the armed forces. We must be vigilant about any enlistee, foreign and citizen alike to ensure they dont intend harm. The Obama Administration became conveyor of risks and halted enlistment. Military extension is vital would provide those with language and Health Care Skills vital to the national to enlist on the armed forces each here while on temporary visas. The screening processes were simply not up to the challenge of the population who had spent very little time in the u. S. In addition to lacking verifiable records, investigators discovered Security Issues with many applicants including questionable allegiance to the u. S. , a preference for a foreign countr country. There is one publicly known case in which a chinese spy enlisted through the military ascension vital to the National Interest program. I know the department of defense is improving its security screening procedures, but remain concerned about vulnerabilities that could be by enlisting individuals on temporary status and i have suspected the Obama Administrations decision to halt the National Interest program. I believe it will be extremely helpful to hear the department of defense testimony here today vital to the National Interest program and this time in Service Requirement and the other policies well discuss today. I look forward to the witness testimony and i thank them very much for being here with that i yield back my time. Thank you, Ranking Member collins. Its my pleasure to introduce todays witnesses, mr. Hector barajasvarela, and director and founder of the deported veteran in tijuana, baja, california. He grew up in mexico and grew up in california and enlisted in the army in 1995. He served for six years during which time he received multiple awards such as the Army Commendation medal, humanitarian Service Medal and despite a service to his country hes been deported twice since Honorable Discharge from the army in 2001. Last year he became a u. S. Citizen and remains committed to his organization and providing support to other deported veterans. We thank him for his service and for being here today to share your story, sir. Second witness, second witness, janeane pasquarella is a director of immigrant rights of the aclu of california and serves as a senior staff attorney at the aclu of southern california. Where she has worked since 2008. She specializes in immigrant rights and litigation and policy advocacy related to Immigration Enforcement and policy. She received her b. A. From bernard college, and her j. D. From Georgetown University law center. Margaret stock is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the military police, u. S. Army reserve and principal immigration attorney with the crossborder law group in anchorage, alaska. In 2013, she received the distinguished Macarthur Foundation fellowship for her outstanding work in immigration and National Security. She has testified before both chambers of congress including this very subcommittee to discuss the issues ranging from dream act to the effects of Immigration Law on the military. She holds three degrees from harvard including her j. D. , mpa and holds a masters in strategic studies from the u. S. Army war college. We welcome her as well. Welcome back, maam, to this committee. The honorable mark metcalf is an immigration judge on the Immigration Court in miami, florida, and a former federal and state prosecutor in his home state of kentucky. Mr. Metcalf also held various positions with the u. S. Department of justice and the department of defense from 2002 to 2008. Hes worked as a private practitioner. He is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National guard and serves as command judge advocate for the 149th maneuver enhancement brigade in kentucky. Like miss stock, mr. Metcalf has previously testified before congress and is an expert on Immigration Law. Including his testimony before this subcommittee and the 111th congress he received his b. A. And j. D. From the university of kentucky. We welcome him back to the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony, sir. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank you for your participation. Now if you can please rise, im going to swear you in. Please raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god . Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and thank you and please be seated. Please note that each of your written statements will be entered into the record and i will ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes and to help to stay within the time limit please look at those clocks in fronts of you. And we will begin with mr. Barajas. Welcome. Hello . Okay. Chairman lofgren, congressman correa, Ranking Member buck and other distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to testify about these important issues. My name is hector barajas, and i was deported in 2004 and i am honored to speak on behalf of my fellow deported veterans about my personal experience. I would like to acknowledge that some formerly deported veterans and supporters have joined us in the room today, including miguel perez, jorge salcedo, ajc, and the green card veterans that are supporters. I am not proud of what led to my deportation but i am proud of my military service and the positive accomplishments in my life. I grew up in compton, california. My family and i moved to the u. S. When i was 7 years old. As a child, i remember pledging allegiance to our American Flag every school morning. I enlisted in the u. S. Army in 1995 when i was 17 years old. I was a lawful permanent resident at the time. I wanted to serve my adopted country and i saw the service as a way to leave the environment in compton and possibly to afford to go to college. I arrived in ft. Bragg and soon volunteered for airborne school, serving in the 82nd airborne from 1996 to 1999. I reenlisted for another three years and left the service with an Honorable Discharge in october of 2001. After i left the service i had some trouble adjusting and made mistakes. I eventually found myself in front for an incident where a firearm was discharged at a vehicle. I was sentenced to 3 1 2 years in the state of california and served my prison sentence. I was deported in 2004 due to my criminal record and because i was not a u. S. Citizen. I came back to the u. S. Illegally that same year, started a family and worked as a roofer. Eventually was deported in 2010 for a traffic incident that i had and they reinstated my deportation. I made the toughest decision of my life in 2010. I decided to stay in tijuana and fight to return to the u. S. Legally. I wanted to reunite with my daughter and live in america without the fear of deportation. In 2013 through a combination of hard work and determination, i opened up the deported veteran support house. I wanted a place that could help deport the veterans in situations like mine navigate the hardship of deportation. The separation from our families and the country we love and served. The support house is a lifeline for many deported veterans living in tijuana and around the world. We provide housing, help them find jobs, file for their va benefits and connect with pro bono attorneys. We help with burial details so that our veterans that die can return to their families in america. Under todays laws most deported veterans only come home to america with an American Flag draped around their casket like Enrique Salas and jose lopez. Theres no honor in bringing deported Veterans Home to be recognized or thanked for their service only when they die. I proudly became an american citizen on april 13th of 2018. I qualified for citizenship due to my military service and a pardon from governor jerry brown of california. I am blessed to be back home in america and to be a father to my daughter once again. I want to emphasize that i am a Firm Believer in people being held accountable. Being a veteran does not mean that you get a free pass and never have to pay the consequences for your actions. At the same time, it does not make sense to me to deport our veterans after they have completed their sentence and paid for their actions. For veterans, deportation is a double punishment. For example, my friend, Roberto Salazar is a former u. S. Marine who is deported. Today he runs a mens rehab center in tijuana. His son joined the marine corps. His daughter was an an aspiring young woman but she passed away in an accident in 2017. We held a Funeral Service and burial in tijuana because row p roberto was unable to go to san diego to bury his daughter. I have recommendations on how to protect our veterans from deportation and encourage all Service Members to naturalize. I am blessed to be a u. S. Citizen today and i believe it only acknowledges what deported veterans believe in their hearts. We believe ourselves to be americans. I know current law requires us to deport our veterans. Do not think it makes it morally right. We must find a solution to protect our veterans. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify you and may god bless you and may god bless america. Thank you, mr. Barajas, and i would like to call on miss pasquarella for her statement. Congressman correa, chairwoman lofgren, Ranking Member buck and distinguished members of the subcommittee. For more than 200 Years Congress has promised immigrant recruits expedited citizenship in exchange for their military. But since 1996 the United States has betrayed that promise. Weve instead deported thousands of our veterans. And every day we deport more. Just last week i. C. E. Deported jose segovia benitez, a twotime iraq and Afghanistan War veteran, combat veteran, who suffered a traumatic brain injury, and who like many struggles with severe ptsd and substance abuse. Jose came to the u. S. As a 3yearold child. He knows no other home than United States. Now he fears for his life in el salvador. These deportations are unconscionable and immoral and theyre the result of three forces working together. First, the punishing and unforgiving 1996 laws that created lifetime bars to naturalization and mandatory deportation. Second, the failure of the u. S. Government to naturalize noncitizen Service Members while they are serving. And, third, hyperaggressive Immigration Enforcement, particularly over the past decade. Deported veterans are nearly all former lawful permanent residents. Of those we interviewed for our 2016 policy report, half of them served during periods of war and most came to the u. S. Under the age of 10, meaning the United States is the only country they know as home. The changes made to our Immigration Laws in 1996 were so excessively punitive that certain criminal convictions, such as writing a bad check or possession of the sale of marijuana, even convictions for which a person may serve no time in jail at all, require deportation and bar naturalization for life. The 96 laws dramatically expanded the definition of category of deportable offenses known as aggravated felonies. Today that term encompasses a whole host of nonviolent misdemeanors that are neither aggravated nor are they felonies. The law made deportation mandatory for any lpr with an aggravated felony by eliminating all forms of judicial discretion meaning a single criminal conviction, one mistake, can equal a lifetime of banishment with no exceptions. It means when mario martinez, who wrote a statement for the record of this hearing, when he goes before an immigration judge in march, the judge will not be permitted to consider whether deportation for his Domestic Violence conviction that occurred more than ten years ago is a fair outcome. The judge will not be able to consider whether its a fair outcome for a man who served honorably in the u. S. Army, earning the rank of sergeant. For six years he served. Who has lived in the United States for 52 years, since he was 4 years old. Who has a successful engineering career, two grown sons, a granddaughter and an extended family who all u. S. Citizens. The judge will not be able to consider that deportation means forcing him to live the remainder of his life estranged from everything he knows and loves because the law says one mistake and youre out. Citizen and noncitizen veterans equally struggle with reentry into civilian life following discharge. Substance abuse, Mental Health issues and anger can lead to contact with the criminal Justice System. And as a society we look to Rehabilitative Solutions to address the scars of war, the trauma that helps veterans. But the immigration policy looks the other way. Jorge salcedo who is here today and sitting behind me with his daughter. Was deported for spitting on a Police Officer and he paid for that crime. He served one in a connecticut prison. At the conclusion of his sentence, i. C. E. Was at his prison door. 3 1 2 years without the right to be released on bail, while he fought his deportation case, and then they deported him. It didnt matter that he served eight honorable years in the army. It didnt matter that deportation denied his two young daughters their father. One mistake. Jorge sits here today because a change in law allowed him to get his green card back. Hes one of the lucky few. Most deported veterans have no such option for return. The u. S. Would not be deporting its veterans had the government kept its promise to them the first place and made them citizens while they were in the military, but over the years, numerous obstacles have stood in the way of Service Members naturalizing. None of those obstacles, none are greater than the obstacles Service Members are facing today due to department of defense and u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service policies. The repatriated and naturalized veterans in this chamber today, hector, jorge, miguel perez, who sits behind me, the agc who sits behind me, embody the hope of veterans around the world that they, too, will one day get a chance to come home. Their hopes lay at the fee of congress. They did not turn their backs on our country in its time of need. We must not turn our backs on them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Miss stock, welcome. [ inaudible ] can you hit your microphone. Sorry about that. Thank you. Congressman correa, chairwoman lofgren, Ranking Member buck and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Margaret Stock and i am honored to testify today. The last three years have witnessed the Administration Using internal memos to undermine longstanding laws in an effort to stop immigrants from joining the military, and stalling their naturalization when they do join, and preventing them frommen continuing to serve. The new policies do not make our country safer. They harm military recruiting. They hurt military readiness and they prevent the United States armed forces from utilizing talented immigrants. The new policies hide behind rationales to conceal xenophobiic motives and broken promises to those who would put their life on the line to the United States. The previous efforts of congress to help noncitizen military members become citizens and the improvements to the process for expediting military naturalization cases have been practically eradicated. In 2018 the media reported there have been a 65 drop in the numbers of Service Members applying for naturalization after dod issued a new policy memo preventing them from applying. A followon story explained that immigrants serving in the military were more likely to be denied citizenship than civilians. Military members cant file for citizenship unless they receive a certified form n2546 stating they are serving honorably. To get it signed it was making a trip to military Personnel Office and spending a few minutes with any official who can verify a service. Recently, the department of defense has changed the rules whereby it can be certified. Dod has changed it to have an officer grade 06 to certify the form. And the enlisted soldiers report they have grave difficulty finding an officer of this grade who is willing to find their forms. Under the 2008 military personnel citizenship processing act. Scis was required for applications within six months. However the law contained a sunset date. When the law was in effect, the naturalization applications very quickly. Today, however, uscs takes a position there is no deadline for processing these cases and theyre now often taking years to process. In mid2009, uscis had started a highly Successful Program whereby noncitizen military recruits filed for naturalization when they reported to training, and in accordance with previous longstanding wartime practice, these applications were processed so the soldiers graduated from training and became u. S. Citizens at the same time. The Current Administration terminated this program in early 2018. Last thursday i was at the uscis office at 26 Federal Plaza in new york city, only a few short blocks from the World Trade Center in one direction and in the other, chadham square with its eyecatching monument to Chinese Americans who fought in the u. S. Military. While i was waiting a tv monitor on the wall played a continuous loop of uscis film promising expedited citizenship to those who enlist. The promises made in that film are false. There is no more expedited military naturalization. Today it takes much longer for a military member to naturalize. A military members application is much more likely to be denied. Military members have had to resort increasingly to the courts just to get the agencies to follow the law. Last week elena callyugna an active duty soldier with no criminal record had to sue dhs because the agency refused to make a decision on her naturalization. The law mandates the decisions must be made within 120 days of an interview. She was interviewed more than three years ago. Uscis officials told her they had decided not to natural naturalize her until she was discharged, citing new dod policies. She was discharged honorably last month without her citizenship. As i said earlier, it is now much easier for a civilian green card holder to naturalize than for similarly situated green card holder to naturalize through their military service. As a result, Immigration Lawyers are now advising green card holders not to join the military because it will make their naturalization process more difficult. Dod has also made it much more difficult for noncitizens to join the military in the first place. While immigrants make up 13. 5 of the u. S. Population, they are now less than 4 of the military. Military recruiters report to me that they are meeting recruiting quotas by enlisting less qualified nativeborn americans in some cases the armed forces simply capital find enough qualified candidates among the native born population so they go unfilled. Uscis has recently changed certain policies or has plans to change certain policies in ways that harm the family members of military personnel and veterans. Policy changes are being made without transparency or accountability and without asking Key Stakeholders first. I would be remiss if i didnt mention the broken promises made to certain foreign naturals who worked with the u. S. Government in iraq and afghanistan. Many of these workers have tried to get the special immigrant visas promised to them by congress but they await danger while they wait for background checks that drag on for years. When the United States government break the promises, and pass background checks, American Foreign policy and the lives of military members are put at risk. Our National Security depends on keeping the promises that america makes to the immigrants who come here and keeping the promises we make when someone stands before an American Flag and raises her right hand and takes an oath of allegiance to the United States. Our security depends on keeping the promise that america is a nation of immigrants. Given that dod and dhs together show no interest in reversing their misguide policy changes, Congress Must act. In my written testimony i make ten suggestions for Things Congress can do to force the bureaucrats to keep the promises that the u. S. Government has made to Americas Fighting men and women. I thank you for the opportunity to testify and im ready to take your questions. Thank you very much, miss stock, for your comments. Mr. Metcalf, welcome. Mr. Correa, thank you. Its an honor to be here. Members of the committee, its an honor to be here. n i thank all of you and i thank the panelists for their statements. Im a Lieutenant Colonel, soldier in my 28th year of service and combat veteran of iraq. I served at Victory Base Complex as judge advocate. My unit, the 149th maneuver enhancement brigade, better known as the meb, closed american operations in iraq and did the handover of all military installations to the government of iraq. With us were soldiers born in jamaica, cameroon and ukraine. At least one case, a naturalized citizen served as a combat arms company commander. All had earned their citizenship. Thorough background checks were the rule. And this brings me to the points i believe critical to good policy. First of all, we may have differences of opinions today, but all of us are americans. The policies conceived to advance the experience of immigrants is wide, large and it is generous. I favor a 180day active duty Service Requirement for noncitizens. This allows basic, yet thorough background checks to be completed that can better identify individuals whose histories require further investigation before they continue to more rigorous and sensitive training. This requirement is not onerous in light of the great responsibilities and Opportunities Service in the American Military offers. Time and Service Requirements permit suitability assessments as financial, criminal and loyalty issues are raised. I agree with policies that make it possible that military service by the foreign born and the consequence of american citizenship receive are conferred upon those for whom no credible doubts about their suitability exist. I turn now, if i may, please, mr. Chairman, to the mavny program. It was created to enhance force readiness. Medical and Language Skills were augmented through its application and through it some 10,400 Foreign Nationals were enlisted. Still it was halted by the Obama Administration in fall 2016. Generally, u. S. Born recruits have verifiable public and private records, recruits from outside the u. S. Dont, making the need to scrutinize their hiflz all the more important so that no worthy candidate is denied membership in our Armed Services and moves on to citizenship. I favor approaches to scrutiny already put in place by dod. Recent arm experiences with the mavney program justifies this rigor and this flexibility. And i want to point out, in my more illustrated statement to you, the incidence involving fraudulent applications, in one case a Chinese National posing as a recruit only to be found as a chinese espionage asset. I want to move on to the removal of veterans. First of all, if i had been an immigration judge sitting on mr. Barajas case, i would have canceled his removal from the United States. As a judge in miami, i awarded 75 granted 75 to 80 of all cancellation applications. His was a perfect case, in my opinion, for the grant of cancellation. And by the way, my grant of 75 to 80 cancellations was not unusual. The numbers from the Immigration Courts, if you start parsing them, mr. Chairman, will show that our Immigration Judges are very generous with the grant of cancellation, both the lprs as well as nprs. Thats something we can talk about at further hearings. But i want to point out that mr. Briearajas is a perfect exae of what cancellation was intended to relieve. I also want to point out that the cancellation process takes into consideration the kind of deep dive into the facts that the elements now being used by i. C. E. Should have been using all along. And i note veterans overall criminal history, his rehabilitation or her rehabilitation, financial, family ties to the u. S. , employment history and health and Community Service in addition to the duty status, whether active or reserve years in duty and in service. All proper considerations to remove one veteran who should not be removed is one too many. To consider each case on a case by case basis, looking at all the facts applicable is the right approach and will always be the right approach. I thank you for your time today, mr. Chairman. Im happy to answer any questions you and members of the panel will have. Thank you, mr. Metcalf. Now id like to proceed under the fiveminute rule for questions and ill begin by recognizing myself. First of all, mr. Metcalf, youre absolutely right, this is not a democratic or republican issue. This is an issue for all veterans who served our country, who have put essentially their life on the line for our country. If i may respectfully act, the deported veterans, if you can just raise your hand, please. I want to thank you very much for your service to our country. My question is the basic one, senior barajas, which is why when these soldiers are in service, why do you not become citizens . Are those resources not given to you . Is that not an issue or you were promised automatic citizenship when you enlisted . Thank you, congressman, for that important questions. There are two things that happen. I think the government needs to be held accountable when they promise citizenship and there needs to be some kind of program when you say the government promised citizenship, what does that mean . The recruiters. The recruiters they promise you citizenship. Basically, one of the things that doesnt happen is nobody sits down with you and actually makes sure you know what kind of forms needs to be filled out and also its an individual responsibility, but definitely the u. S. Government needs to make sure there is some kind of program in place that they set aside, either time or have somebody that can show you what path needs to be done. Thank you, hector. Miss stock, you mentioned the program, terminated, and when you graduate from training, in terms of putting you on fast track to become a citizen, you said that program has been canceled or suspended. Yes. Its a program the program has been canceled. Its a program that existsed during world war i, world war ii, korean war, the vietnam war. It makes sense legally for the United States not to deploy people overseas when theyre not american citizens and fighting in our armed forces. The background checks, by the way, that are done on military members are done before they enter the service, or they should be done before let me ask you, is there a difference right now, quantifiable difference if youre a marine, air force, army, in terms of level of citizenships that may folks that may become citizens after they are discharged . Well, the all of the services had basic training naturalization until january 2018 when it was canceled. So, now we have chaos. And we have can you be more specific. Yes. Every day i get a call from a green card holder in the military who says, nobody will help he had file for citizenship. I dont know how to file. I cant get anyone to file my n426. They tell me im want eligible for citizenship. No one is willing to assist me. You mentioned its harder for a green card holder in the military than a green card holder outside the military to become a citizen, how is that . Qul, civilians dont need to go through convoluted multiyear background checks by the department of defense before they become citizens. They dont need to get an n426 certified. They dont need to find an officer in the rank i ask you that because i bet in my district, i probably have the most latino district in the country. These kids i know from my high schools, there are residents, dont ask how hard is it going to be for me to become a citizen. They just enlist. Thats true. Marine recruiters are in high school and these kids with honors say, im going to sign up. I dont think the thought of becoming a citizen is there. Theyre there to serve the country. And this concerns me because we need to move ahead and go revert back to that program that was just canceled to make sure that these soldiers that are serving with honor have the right to become a citizen and that right is a meaningful one. The program was highly successful. Where do we go here . Do we present some legislation . Something that maybe my colleagues can also support us to move in that direction . Well, the law allows programs like this to exist and they were common, as i said, world war i, world war ii, vietnam war, korean war. This was the Standard Practice of the United States government. It was only reversed by the department of defenses through internal memos that undermine the express intent of congress in a statute passed by congress more than 100 years ago. We have lawlessness by the department of defense. Theyre simply undermining a statute with internal executive memos. Judicial discretion, you mentioned that, or was that you, miss pasquarella. Did the 1986 act take away some judicial discretion . I know mr. Metcalf had a different perspective on that. Tell me. Yes. That is one of the most troubling aspects of 1996 changeses made to the Immigration Law. It removed all forms of judicial discretion for any person who has an aggravated felony. Again, expanded the definition of aggravated felony. So, you have more people who are subject to deportation, even for misdemeanors, for things we dont classify as actual as aggravated im out of time. I want to say in Orange County we were one of the first pioneers on grading veterans courts. Now these issues are very complex. So, look forward to working with you on this issue. Now id like to recognize mr. Biggs for five minutes of questions. Thanks, mr. Chairman. I think we all understand that many of our veterans have struggled with reintegration due to pti or ptsd issues. Thats why i introduced a bill and piece of legislation to advocate for i advocate today for my colleagues across the aisle to make access to hbot therapy more available. That is and more easily. It is coldhearted to withhold support for this important therapy for our veterans. So, when i see mr mr. Barajasvarela indicate he was struggling to reintegrate, i dont think thats unusual for many of our service men and women who come back. Hbot therapy is going to be helpful for that. You also said that theres no free pass and that deportation is a is a double punishment. Let me explain why thats not so. Theres no free pass because you did serve the time for shooting at a vehicle. I mean, that was the charge you were convicted, you served your time. It became a specific as well as a general deterrent. You were later deported because you were not a citizen. Theres nobody else that would get an exception to that who is here because because of any other rationale. They would still be deportable, as you were. And you left, were deported and then you reentered illegally, deported again. Im happy for you that received a pardon and now you received your citizenship. To say its a double punishment is illogical. The first punishment for violating the crime committing the crime is the actual criminal sentence itself. The deportation is applicable to any person whos in the country that is not a citizen, who is engaged in criminal conduct. That is not a second penalty. That is just thats the penalty that comes for failing to obtain citizenship. I read your statement and listened to you testimony. You might have had a misunderstanding of what you needed to do to obtain citizenship. Thats fair. Thats a fair comment. I also want to point out some data that i think is absolutely mindboggling. This wasnt brought up. Miss pasquarella pointed out a person in jose benitiz, this person was convicted, among other things, corporal injury to a spouse for which he received an eightyear sentence, assault with a Deadly Weapon and false imprisonment. Well, you know what, he didnt naturalize when he was in the military, thus, he is subject to deportability. Thats the way the law works. That type of criminal conduct do stew aggravated felonies. Theyre not the misdemeanors you said as a result of this expansion of the term, aggravated felonies. Weve also heard about the higher denial rate for u. S. Military application for u. S. Citizenship. That rate is 17 . Overall its 11 . But for military, its 17 . But you need to understand youre talking apples and oranges here because from april 1, to june 30th there were only 2,353 pending u. S. Naturalization applications compared to 683,000 civilian applications. Uscis received 1700 military applications compared to 900,000 civilian applications. There are some interesting things when you map statistics in the way that i heard here today. They reviewed the cases involving 87 of the 92 veterans who were deported from 2013 through 2018. 18 of those veterans, 21 of the total, were convicted for sexually abusing a minor. Two others were convicted of sexual abuse. 21 were convicted of a violent felony. Thats 24 of the total. Nine were deported for having been convicted of firearms or explosivesrelated crimes. And those cases that im talking about, over half of them were removals during the Obama Administration and not under the Trump Administration as so many of you want to focus on. I ask consent to enter into the record the following documents, department of Justice Press release from 2018. Also, the october 2017 department of defense specifies that the specification should not take place until its been completed and three, publicly available web pages outlining the process for naturalization through military service and the help number. Without objection, receive that letter. I would now like to call on our chairman, mr. Nadler, for five minutes of questions. Thank you. Thank you for coming here and sharing your story. It appears stories like yours are all too common. A june 2019 report identified 250 veterans placed in removal settings and at least 92 veterans were deported. As i mentioned in my opening statements, many of these veterans have been removed from the United States as a result of transgressions tied to ptsd and other traumas suffered while on active duty. How can the department of defense inform military services about their eligibility for naturalization. Can you say the question again . How can the government, especially dod, department of defense, better inform military Service Members about their naturalization. They need to have a program in place, again, that will where they can explain the forms that need to be done or thats my suggestion for that. Okay. Now ms. Stock, in your testimony today, you laid out how the Trump Administration has made life for difficult for green card holders who join the military and then apply for naturalization. Were military Service Members and or Immigration Attorneys informed about these changes ahead of time or able to provide any input before the changes were implemented . No they were not. Was there any outreach . No. No croost benefit analysis . No. They say theyre unreasonable and making it hard to recruit people. Theyve pushed back the requirements that dod has against the dod. Theyre saying they dont agree with these new requirements. It came from dod, upper level it came from dod. Theres no congressional hearing, no cost benefit analysis on the impact it was going to have on the force or on military recruiting. Was there a process in place for lprs serving in the military to have their form, the certification, which is essential to the naturalization process, signed by the proper authorities as required by the 2017 dod policy changes. They put out the memo but they didnt do anything to educate people generally about what should be done. There was haphazard memos put out that didnt reach to the lowest levels. If you talk to recruiters today, theyll tell you, soldiers can be naturalized at basic training. They dont realize things have changed. People have told that its easy to get certified, but you have to wait until you get to your first unit, but when you get there, you cant find anybody to certify it. Whats the average time it takes for a Service Member to receive a response to a request once they complete the form. Its taking months. The exception being if they email it to me, i have a special email and i can send it to somebody who can get it signed in couple of weeks if youre in the army. And if you dont, it takes months . It can take months. The forms are getting lost. People never hear back after they submit them. What signal do you think that these policy changes send to lprs who are thinking about joining the military and who are currently serving . They send a signal that their service is not valued. That theyre not welcome in the military and they send a signal that they should not join the military until after they get their citizenship because theyre going to face a very long haul to get their citizenship if they try to do it after joining the military. What dod support services are available to Service Members seeking citizenship while in the military. There used to be very Strong Services because the basic training naturalization sites had teams that were dedicated to handling it throughout the country. Those have been dismantled. Its rather ad hoc. Theres a military help line that you call, but you get wrong information when you call the help line. The bureaucratic requirements are increase asked the resources were decreased at the same time . Thats correct. Whats the average length of time it takes to process a military naturalization application. It used to only take a few months when they had basic training in place. Now in many cases, its taking upwards of a year or two or sometimes three or four years. And uscis plans on closing most of its offices, consolidating them into four hubs. I think there are 26 field offices and theyre going down to four hubs. How will these changes impact Service Members and their families who are seeking citizenship while stationed aboard. It will make it much harder for individuals to get United States citizenship. One more question, how can we stop the deportations of military veterans . Restore basic training naturalization. We will not have any deported vets if everyone gets naturalized before they leave the military and i should point out that congress put an important safeguard in the law allows expedited naturalization. If you dont serve honorably for a periods aggregating five years, you can lose your citizenship that you gained through military service. Theres no reason for these misguided policies because the legal means already is in the law to take care of anybody whos a bad actor and misbehaves after they get their citizenship. Thank you, i yield back. I will recognize mr. Buck for five minutes of questions. Do you have a security clearance currently . No. Do you have any access to classified information that was involved in making the decisions about who would which veterans would receive citizenship . I only reviewed unclassified summaries. And would you be surprised to know that there were thousands of folks who for classified reasons were not allowed to receive citizenship because they had ties to Foreign Countries . Thats not correct. You dont believe that. No. The citizenship applications are actually not classified. So no, its classified information as to why they did not receive citizenship. Its not classified. They give you a written decision telling you why youre being denied. You believe if someone has ties to china, to chinese intelligence services, that there will be a Public Statement identifying that person as having ties to chinese intelligence services. When you go through the process, you have to complete a form, you have an interview, if youre denied naturalization, youre given a written statement. And that written statement may not include the reasons for the classified reasons for you not to be given that privilege of becoming a u. S. Citizen. Lethey will tell you why theyre being denied. Youre saying that a t topsecret information that has been developed during the Obama Administration, by the way, that identifies an individual as having a relationship with a chinese intelligence service, that that is going to be identified in a Public Document . Thats what youre saying. No, thats not what im saying. What im saying is when you apply for citizenship, theres a form that asks you questions, including things like whether youve done this that or the other thing and you have to answer those questions under oath and if you lie under oath they will deny you naturalization and they will say, were denying you naturalization because you lied to us and said x and x wasnt true. Its given to the individual. They dont need to rely on classified information. And they dont. Well they certainly have access to classified information when they make a decision. They dont normally, no. The doepartment of defense doesnt have access to classified information. Its not department of defense. One agency of the government will work with another agency of the government to determine whether someone has a relationship that will be threat to ing to this government. This came out in a Court Proceeding recently that if they have that information, they dont give it to them anyway. The naturalization proceeding is not classified. Its your understanding that no one has been denied a no veteran has been denied citizenship based on a relationship with a Foreign Intelligence Service. I think the case that was raised earlier, he was never naturalized. But thats not my question. My question is, your understanding is that theres never been an individual denied citizenship, a veteran denied citizenship as a result of a relationship with a Foreign Intelligence Service . I cant answer that because the country has been fighting wars since 1775 and i dont know every single case but the concerns about National Security that have been raised regarding the program are overblown and that was proven in a court case in seattle where the department of defense came into court and presented the facts to the judge and the judge dismissed these concerns and said they were not valid. Lets get to a simple question, would you be in favor of naturalizing a an individual or for an individual to become a naturalized citizen if that individual had a relationship with a Foreign Intelligence Service . Im not sure what you mean by relationship with how about they worked for and received money from a Foreign Intelligence Service to provide information about the United States of america. If the individual was a spy, and they failed to reveal that information in their naturalization application and they got naturalized by accident, they could be denaturalized as soon as the government found out that information, they could be prosecuted and deported. And im certainly in favor of that. My question is, would you be in favor of naturalizing that person . Im not in favor of naturalizing anybody who doesnt meet the requirements and a spy doesnt meet the requirements to become a naturalized citizen. I yield back. Thank you. And i thank the witnesses for being here. The u. S. Military has long relied on immigrants to protect our country within the United States we have 2. 4 million veterans with immigrant ties. But we also rely on assistance from Foreign Nationals aboard, including in afghanistan and iraq. In january of 2006, congress created a special immigrant visa or an siv to provide a path to safety in the United States for iraqi and afghani translators. When people put their lives on the lines to defend our country, the only right thing to do is make sure they and their families are protected. For over a year now, ive worked with a number of republican offices to advocate for a gentleman that i will call mohammed, a translator who worked with the u. S. Military and several agencies for nearly a decade in afghanistan. In your experience as a Lieutenant Colonel in the military police corps and u. S. Army reserve, would you agree that translators have been critical to u. S. Military operations in those countries . Yes. Theyre absolutely critical. What is it that makes them so critical. We cant operate in those countries effectively if we dont have people by our side who speak the local language and understand the local culture. What level of danger are those translators putting themselves in when they agree to do that job . Theyre putting themselves in extreme dangers. Many of them have been killed because theyve decided with the United States over a conflict overseas. People face persecution and retaliation due to their service. This man and his family have faced persecution including assassination threats. Just one week ago, he was arrested by military police and theres a possibility that he will be disappeared and yet state has denied the application on a, quote, discretionary basis. His case is part of a larger trend. Data shows a 60 drop in sivs issued to afghanis. In your opinion, what is causing these delays and drops in admission . A lot of it is fear on the part of the bureaucrats who are conducting background checks on these individuals. Theyre afraid to approve anyone and its a lack of resources and a lack of attention by the leadership who doesnt seem to want to focus on the essential process of saving folks who put their lives on the line for america. How do we improve those programs to ensure access to safety for our allies under the siv program . Congress did pass a statute that set a deadline, but the bureaucracy is ignoring the deadline. They need to provide strong oversight to ensure the statutes are followed. What does the vetting process currently look like . Isnt that quite a bit of heavy vetting that has already been done for these individuals. Theyre heavily vetted and they have huge files filled with testimonials about their Loyal Service to the United States, sometimes over a period of many, many years. Its unclear what exactly is going on in the subsequent vetting that seems to take years and years. Most of it is a file being put on a shelf and nothing happening. Beyond the concerns to protect those who have risked their lives for us, another thing that concerns me is a message that were sending to potential future allies. How does this failure to protect these people impact our National Security interests and the ability of our troops to safely do their jobs in iraq and afghanistan today . Its quite bad. The people who are potentially out there that might be willing to help us in the future are going to turn and look at how mohammed was treated and say, i dont want to take a chance. The treatment of people who have put their lives on the line defending our country is unacceptable, whether its immigrants living here who have signed up to protect our country or people aboard who have done so despite significant threats, it is our duty to stand along side these communities and demand justice. Thank you for holding this hearing and i yield back. Thank you. I fully agree with you and i would like to call on ms. Garcia from the good state of texas. Thank you for convening this hearing on this important topic. I know this is something that many of us in texas are concerned about. Over 20 of people who have been awarded the medal of honor were not born in the United States. My state of texas is home to the second highest number of noncitizens and the second highest number of veterans in the nation. Texas is home to a high number of noncitizen veterans making this topic important to many of us, particularly many of my constituents. According to a 2017 report from the National Immigration forum, about 40,000 immigrants currently serve in the armed forces and about 5,000 noncitizens enlist each year. We must not forget the people behind these numbers, like a man who came to the United States as a young boy with his family and settled in texas. He graduated from high school and joined the navy. As he says, out of pride for his country. Following an Honorable Discharge, he served in the Army National guard and worked at the local department of Veterans Affairs department. While serving in the navy, he and his ship crew would do what many do when they would dock, they would go out drinking, perhaps using it as a way to cope about their anxiety with the war. Later in life he was convicted of a dwi. He was unable to afford an attorney. He was deported back to mexico. He responds with, this isnt my life. It is true that immigrants are the most patriotic americans have they have experienced different places and are able to appreciate the contrast of how wonderful it is to live in the United States. It has been noted, not citizens have in fact joined the Armed Services since the revolutionary war and since then have likewise joined ranks and fought along side their citizen counterparts during every major conflict from world war not world war, war of 1812 to the current conflicts in the middle east. So i thank our witness here today and all those who join him today. Thank you. And i begin my question with you, sir, you said that you dont really get the details about the process. Do you get any Legal Assistance . Unfortunately, when i was in the military, there was actually, there was. There was jag that you could go through. But, again, there was nobody that really directed me towards the path and then a failure on my part. But i think we need to make sure our squad leaders or somebody at some point, make sure that that happens. Do you know if they get Legal Assistance now . Im not sure what the what it is right now, if theres jag or some kind of a department that the military has. My colleague, also a texan, introduced a repatriate our patriots act. A bill that would allow a path to citizenship. It includes those individuals who were honorably discharged from the ooarmed forces, have n been convicted of a crime. Do you support passage of this bill . Yes. Do you . I have not reviewed the bill, so i cant give you an affirmative yes or no, but it sounds like something that we would support. Someone said this really wasnt double punishment. The land of the free, its a report from the texas civil rights project which i would like to be entered into the record. And it says noncitizens have joined armed forces and it says that it really is a double punishment because you do go through the criminal Justice System and youre convicted, then that conviction is used to deport you and then youre deported. Its double punishment and he said, i forget what my colleague said, but he said there was no logic to that. Do you agree or disagree that that is double punishment . You, maam . Thank you. Absolutely agree. It is 100 double punishment. People serve their time in criminal custody, they pay the price for that crime, and they should go home the same way that citizen veterans go home. Instead they face lifetime banishment. Its as if theyre serving a life sentence because they cant be with their families, with everything they know in life which is here in the United States. Thank you, i yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chair and thank you for hosting this important hearing. Also, i want to start by thanking our veterans in the room for your bravery and service to our country. Its thanks to you and others fighting for our countrys security that we can be here today. As has been said by many of my colleagues. Under this administration, immigrants will be under constant attack. Immigrants have served in the u. S. Military since the revolutionary war and continue to serve today. Most are residents, about 511,000 foreignborn veterans are residing in the u. S. And represent 3 of the total veteran population of 18. 8 million. They fill vital roles in the military. For example, certain nationals of iraq and afghanistan has been mentioned, serve as translators. They would be allowed to apply, but their applications are being delayed which can make them at risk for being targeted for assisting the u. S. They have made it harder for Service Members to naturalize and to receive protection for deportation. Instead, in my view, we should be focusing on ensuring that veterans receive the medical care they earned as well as help them with their cases. They have policies that require them to take additional steps when taking cases of the removal of veterans. They found that agencies were unaware of the policies in place for veterans in removal proceedings. Its beyond disheartening to hear that our veterans are not being given the appropriate level of view and let us be clear, it is unamerican to deport immigrants fighting for our safety and our freedom. We appreciate not leave them to feel abandoned and to feel hopeless. I want to first thank you for your service to our country. Thank you. You chose to enlist in the army at age 17. You served for five years and you earned an Honorable Discharge. You lacked the protection of citizenship and you were deported after serving time for criminal charge after discharge. Can you walk us through how this may have been different if you would have received guidance from the u. S. Military on how to apply for citizenship, either during or after your service to this country . I firmly believe that my squad leader would have sat me down. People say that we shouldnt hold your hands to that were not there to hold your hands. But were there to show you how to march. We make sure your power of attorney is done so. Sit down with our soldiers and make sure thats taken care of before they go off to afghanistan or vietnam that theyre already a u. S. Citizen. Its very important to take care of our soldiers. Thank you. Lieutenant colonel stock, thank you for your service as well. Thank you for being here today. In your testimony, i believe, certainly in your written testimony which i reviewed, you mentioned that the department of defense issued two significant policy changes in 2017 that made it harder for military services Service Members to naturalize. From your experience, what is the average time in a it takes for a Service Member to receive a response to a request for certification of Honorable Service once they complete their uscis form . Assiit varies dramaically, sometimes they dont get a response at all. Its taking many, many months since the policy change. It used to happen in a matter of minutes. A clerk would look up your record on the system and would you would get an officer signing your form almost immediately. But now its taking months and months. A matter of minutes previously. To now a matter of months to potentially never receiving an answer. A lot of people tell me they never get an answer. What message does that send to lprs who are thinking about joining the military . It sends a terrible message and its the reason theyre contacting me and telling me theyre not going to join the military until they receive their citizenship. They can file electronically if theyre citizens. They have to send a paper pact into chicago which gets lost. Military people are told their pact has been lost. I was in sacramento a few weeks ago with a green card holder who had finished all of his training, was eligible for citizenship, he walked into the building for his naturalization interview and he said, your lawyer flew here to be with you today, but we cant find your pact in the building. It was bar coded into the building and weve lost it. Well let you know when we find it. We have not heard from them ever since. Thank you, Lieutenant Colonel. The stories you share today are stories we need to hear and i hope the administration is listening. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to call on our gentle lady from florida. Florida is home to one of the largest veteran populations in the country. We actually have the Third Largest population of veterans in florida in the country, around 1. 5 million who live there. My district is also home to some veterans that have been waiting for the naturalization process and one of the things that i want to make very clear, for those members who have served our country, several of you here today, we owe you our deepest respect and our gratitude but i also hear from Service Members and veterans about the stress that serving our country puts on their families and their children. Service members sacrifice a great deal and so do their loved ones. We should not be making the lives of Service Members, veterans and their families any harder. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line and have earned the privilege to live and work in our country and i am a naturalized citizen myself and i know how hard the process is to become a legal u. S. Citizen. If were asking our Service Members to put their lives on the line to fight for our freedom, we need to make sure that the naturalization process is much easier for them. But understand this administration, weve seen that the number of military naturalizations has declined by 44 , almost half, and its just unacceptable. We should not be making it more difficult for honorable members of your military service to naturalize. And my first quick question, can you explain to us why those numbers have dropped significantly in these past two years . Theyve dropped for a couple of reasons, one is dod has made it harder for green card holders to join the military. Second, if you dont join, you cant apply for naturalization. They made it harder for them to get the forms signed that they need in order to apply. And you cant apply without this form. If you cant get it signed, youre not eligible to apply. Theyre applying different standards to military people that are inappropriate. An example is a woman who is sitting in the audience today, she was wrongly denied naturalization by u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. They denied her application while she was serving on active duty in the military. She reapplied for naturalization. She was discharged from the military and approved for naturalization after the aclu took her case and filed a lawsuit. We have a case of somebody serving honorably who gets wrongly denied citizenship, she leaves active duty and is approved for citizenship, this makes no sense. I assume shes not a chinese spy. I would assume shes from south korea. Was there a reason . Yes, they said she lacked good moral character. She was told that she lacked good moral character. This is a catchall term they use when they come up with some excuse so were going to excuse you of lacking good moral character. It seems like a lot of these changes in these procedures are cruel without an explanation to that. What are whats the purpose of changing this policy, do you think . As i said earlier, its driven by xenophobia. Can you prove that to us right now . I can prove it. I dont think my colleagues sometimes understand that that exists in this country. It does exist. And i can prove it by directing the distinguished members of this subcommittee to start taking a look at some of the socalled background checks that the dod is doing. They are laughable and bizarre and they say things like, you have a relative who served in the south korean military, therefore, this is derogatory information and requires your discharge from the military, making you ineligible for american citizenship. They say things like, your parents are from a foreign country. Dod when the individuals got recruited, new they were immigrants. All of their parents are foreign. If their parents were citizens, they wouldnt be immigrants. And yet theyre being told that this is derogatory information requiring their discharge from the military. One last question. Speak a little bit about what just happened with the uscis decision to no longer consider children of Service Members and other Government Employees as residing in the u. S. For purposes of acquiring u. S. Citizenship. Kids that are born outside of the United States, but their parents are u. S. Citizens are being denied u. S. Citizenship. Can you talk about that . Yes, this was not something that the agency warned anybody about ahead of time. Within dod they floated it but they didnt float it with anybody who understood Immigration Law. They would have learned that lots and lots of children were going to be affected by this. Because the agency doesnt understand Immigration Law, they didnt realize they claim their own 25 children affected when thats not true. What happened was they said, basically, theyre going to punish people who chose to be stationed overseas or who are sent overseas. If they lived in the u. S. , their kids would get citizenship. But because theyre not living in the u. S. , the parents are going to have to file expensive applications to get them recognized as citizens. This for kids of Service Members who were american citizens. Thats correct. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this very important hearing today. Many thanks to our witnesses. Really appreciate the time that youve spent helping educate this subcommittee on these issues. I want to thank the veterans and their families who are in the audience who flew all the way to washington, d. C. , to make sure that it wasnt just your voices that were heard, but the voices that you bring with you, of all veterans who have had to endure really the trauma that you all have endured after having served our country and protected our nation. Thank you for your service and please share my gratitude and the gratitude that so many others have who have had to endure the same kind of trouble. Please tell them that were grateful for their service. I represent el paso, texas, which is also a home to fort bliss, one of the most important military installations in the country. And so many of these issues for me, el paso is an intersection of those issues. Immigration and really the attacks on migrants that weve seen under this administration, but also trying to uplift and support veterans and military personnel. And it is really its been very difficult to watch how our country has turned our backs not just on allies, but turned our backs on Service Members who have fought honorably for our country and, yes, this is a double punishment. There is absolutely no doubt. I want to remind some of my colleagues that we seem to have come a long way in recognizing how veterans, after they have served honorably, face their really incredible challenges, reentering into communities after especially after being in theater, and serving in war, and so we go the extra step. Weve created Veterans Services programs, weve created specialty courts for veterans convicted or being tried for dwi or for drugrelated offenses so we can be there for veterans who have been there for us. But its a different story when the veteran is an immigrant. It appears. Ms. Stock, you mentioned something that i want to touch a little bit on. You mentioned the dod background checks. And you said some really interesting things about the challenges with those dod background checks. Is there an appeals process for personnel who want to appeal some of the things that you outlined when you were being questioned . There wasnt until some of the immigrants filed a lawsuit and now theres a lawsuit pending in the District Court for the district of columbia. The army in response to the lawsuit has decided to institute some sort of due process because the immigrants were being kicked out of the military without being told why they were being kicked out and now the army has agreed it will provide some due process. And if you look at these background checks, they dont have anything to do with citizenship eligibility. The military is applying the top secret guidelines to immigrants and the top secret guidelines say that anything foreign is derogatory. So its a mismatch and a mistake to apply those guidelines to determine whether an immigrant is eligible to serve in the military. It causes massive failure rates of the background checks because all the immigrants have foreign parents, they have Foreign Bank Accounts a accounts. They have foreign relatives who served in the south korean military, one of our allies, for example, and thats something that causes a failure. So dod internally has acknowledged they have a problem but they cant get out of because theres a struggle going on between the folks at the facility who cling to their guidelines even though they dont apply to immigrants and theres now supposed to be some due process but its spotty. And there are still immigrants being discharged who are not being told why theyre being discharged. Theyre not given a chance to refute wrong information in the record. Its a travesty. I think its ripe for gao investigation into these background checks and i would add that theyre costing the government thousands upon thousands of dollars. Theyre spending thousands of dollars to figure out that immigrants have foreign parents. Thank you, i yield back. I like to call on ms. Jackson lee from texas. If i might have those who have served in the United States military raise their hands. Thanks so much for your service. My applause to you. Other men and women here that have served in combat . Thank you so very much. I recall being here for 9 11 and im not trying to give ancient stories, but i remember as the call came for individuals or the passion and commitment to ones country, mr. Chairman, there were numbers and numbers of legal permanent residents who heeded the cry, both for the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq. Interestingly enough, i have no recollection of any i. C. E. Involvement on anything. I do remember a series of legislative initiatives to provide for opportunities for soldiers in theater to be naturalized. Naturalization ceremonies were going on. Isnt it interesting, the country was in need, men and women who were either immigrant themselves or immigrant parents took the oath, put on the uniform, unselfishly and offered their lives. There are legal permanent residents who are in the nations military cemeteries today from the iraq and afghan war. So i am baffled about where we are today and i think this is a very important hearing, but i also believe that this should be brought to the attention of the Armed Services committee because if theres joint legislation, it would have to be in combination with the Armed Services committee so that the department of defense can wake up. Let me just forgive me if these questions have been asked and answered. Theres a standard that i. C. E. Is supposed to utilize when theyre addressing veterans. They need to consider the criminal history evidence, United States employment history, health and service. Its come to my attention with our report that some of the folk in i. C. E. Dont even know theyre supposed to do that or have the list of criteria to even address. So if i could ask both of you, first, if you can tell me, what that what kind of complexity that puts your members or who you interact with when theyre not given any Fair Assessment by the local ice officer because theyre not seeing washington. Theyre seeing i. C. E. Where they are. Could you answer that, please . The way it could be fixed is when i went to the l. A. County jail, they asked me if i was a veteran or not, and they go through certain procedures. And in immigration, they dont ask you if youre a veteran or not. They dont know what procedures to take. They need to make sure that we hold the government accountable to that. So, we need to put in a separate construct for veterans, we should require both our Immigration Services, our ice component, you have to ask the question and you have to prioritize veteran immigrants in your assessment of naturalization or processing rather than ive lost your packet. Can you help us with the work that you do and the frustration that you face . Thank you, yes. We have to address it on two fronts, first on the front end when a person is encountering i. C. E. There should be a requirement that at a minimum, i. C. E. Asks every person they encounter whether or not they are serving in the military or a veteran. Thats the first thing we know theyre not doing. Second, they should actually implement the policies that they have and improve the policies to do that assessment to determine by weighing all the equities, their service, Everything Else about their life, whether removal is a sensible policy decision. But then on the back end, we also have to ensure that even if ice is putting somebody into proceedings, that our law accounts for the fact that somebody may have served our country and deserves to remain in the United States and i want to correct something that was said earlier because its very important. The law in 1996 removed removal because the law in 96 eliminated any ability for a judge to consider military service as well as any other equities in a persons life. We have to address it with i. C. E. Through sensible policy but we also have to reform the law. Mr. Metcalf, do you want to respond to that. I do. I was a judge in miami. I cant tell you every case that would have come before me would have survived a challenge on canc cancellation from the government. I know i granted 75 of the applications that came before me. And i was typical of judges across the country. When you add the veterans overall criminal history, his or her rehabilitation, financial ties to the understanding, employment history, Community Service, in addition to duty status, war zone duty, years in service and decorations awarded, that is calling on the judge to do a much deeper dive. It calls also on the Agency Looking at that person to do a deeper dive. I suggest to you that when judges have that kind of blush in front of them on an administrative take, theyre going to consider that and be informed by that in their judgment. It informed mine on people who were not in front of me as veterans. But as people who had had a host of problems which prompted the u. S. To seek the removal. I want to i want to balance the opinion with that information. Thank you. I would like to yelled. The statute bars judges from granting any relief to green card holders who are convicted of an aggravated felony. I know of an individual serving currently on active duty in the navy who long ago got convicted of something called obstruction of justice in virginia. He was told that it would not have any impact on his military career. And he went onto serve a full career in the United States navy. When he applied for citizenship, he was told that this was an aggravated felony and hes not eligible for citizenship. They told him he would not be deported until he leaves the navy. Hes trying to put off his retirement. He would not be eligible for capablelation of approval because his conviction is considered to be an aggravated felony. The process requires us to look to the options of the individual whos being victimized. I yield back. Thank you. If i can call on ms. Scalon. Thank you. I think its really important that we look at the impact of the and the cost to our National Security and our National Honor of the Current Administrations policy and is the impact theyre having on our armed forces and those who work with us. The fact that we are breaking our word to men and women who have put their lives on the line for this country is disturbing to me. I want to note the irony of the two opposites that hang, so certainly we have a very long history in this country of relying upon persons of good will who may not be american citizens. With respect to the impact on our National Security, i have some familiarity with the issue of the iraqi and afghani nationals who have worked with our armed forces. Before i came here almost a year ago, i worked a group which was a coalition of law students who would representative translators and drivers who worked with worked with our armed forces and in particular i recall one gentleman who worked with our armed forces as a translator for five years and when he recognized a taliban member on one of our bases and reported him, thereby saving the lives of many of our forces, he had to go into hiding and he remained in hiding with his family for four years while his application was processed. He did finally get here but it was a long process and ive heard of additional folks who have had more difficulty and have been unable to get their applications processed. Just the impact on National Security is huge and i cant recall if you had figures on what the processing rates are at this point, if you could respond to that . Its in my written testimony. Okay. I would refer to that. And those processing rates have gone down. They have dropped significantly and the travel ban has askffected the ability of special visa applicants. Were seeing an uptick in people who have been approved and unknown to anyone the approvals have been revoked and theres an appeals process that doesnt work. They send in their request for information to rebut the allegations and they never hear anything again. I got an email today from somebody who had sent in a response to completely erroneous allegations made against him after he was granted a visa, but then they revoked it and he sent in his rebuttal that these allegations were incorrect. Our case was very similar. I was also concerned about the testimony concerning folks who join our military with the expectation that they would become citizen and is the fact that our military is now having trouble recruiting citizens to fill those slots, can anyone on the panel speak to that . Special Operations Command has conveyed that theyre having trouble finding people who speak the las vegas the languages in which the country theyre operating. The other group of people who were helpful were the ones who know about cyber war. We have a lot of legal immigrants in the United States who have great cyber skills but cant put them to work for the United States unless theyre american citizens. If they cant get into the military and cant get their citizenship, then they cant fill the ranks of cyber command. In a country that is always relied upon the skills and talents of immigrants, were turning folks away. Thats correct. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you very much. Let me, first of all, conclude todays hearing, but, first, i wanted to make a couple of comments which is a lot of the policies were talking about here, its not a democrat or republican issue. A lot of the policies were fighting today precede the Current Administration and go back to democratic administrations and im hoping my colleagues will join us in coming up with some good common sense legislation. Your witnesses here today, you identified some very solid Public Policy decisions proposals and we need to move forward and i hope we can. This is about america. Its about keeping our commitment to our veterans and making sure that no soldier is left behind. So im hoping we can move forward and let me thank all of the witnesses here today, our veterans that are here today. We can never thank you enough for your service to our country. Once again, i thank the panelists or witnesses and without objections, all members will have five days to submit additional questions and for the witnesses, additional materials for the record. And look forward to continuing to work with you. Without objection, this committee is now concluded. Thank you, sir. The House Intelligence Committee continues open hearings in the impeachment inquiry against president trump. Tuesday, jennifer williams, an adviser to Vice President pence and Lieutenant Colonel alexander vindman, a ukraine expert, are scheduled to testify. Followed in the afternoon by curt volker, a former special envoy to ukraine and tim morson, a National Security advisor for russia and europe. Watch live coverage beginning at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. You can also watch online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. Follow the house impeachment inquiry and the administrations response on cspan. Unfiltered coverage live on tv, our radio app and on line. Watch prime time reairs on cspan or stream anytime on demand at cspan. Org impeachment. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. , and around the country so you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable and satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Next a hearing of a House Energy Subcommittee on the Health Effects of ecigarettes. The