>> i hear some of the witnesses talking about resources and i agree resources are an issue. mr. judd, isn't our policy catch and release at this point? in other words, you can have beefed up border control, but if people know they just have to get across the border and the will be given a citation and they will come back in a year or what ever. to me, that is still going to be a major incentive for people to come illegally. am i wrong? >> the resources are important. in part, you are correct. let's say for instance, the del rio sector. it does not necessarily release a lot of illegal aliens. they have customs enforcement and they have the better space to hold onto these people. ain determining factor is, do we have the space to hold onto these individuals? if we do, immigration's and customs enforcement hold onto them. if we do not have the space, the

release them. i is for the resources come into play. >> professor ting, cdp has confirmed the aliens from special-interest countries are being apprehended by border control. that aliensaimed are claiming incredible fear. do you think administration's moreies could encourage to various actors to enter the united states illegally along the southwest border? >> i think it is reasonable to assume that the nefarious actors you are referring to are constantly looking for ways to gain entry to the united states. as i said earlier, in the age of instantaneous communications, the flaws in our border security system are known instantaneously . they are carried in the media. i think it is a legit medical concern and i applaud the committee for taking an interest in the subject. >> once that word gets out, as

you say, basically, if you are somebody who wants to do the united states harm, you can come to the border, and claim credible fear. he will likely be released with a work permit and you will have a court day in what, a couple years? >> yes, in the olden days, if people came to the border and wanted to make an asylum claim, we told them, fine, we will schedule you for an appointment. come back to the border and we will not admit you. there is still a section, 235b2c in the immigration and nationality act which authorizes the return of aliens to territory from which they arrived. there is statutory authority for turning people around at the border if we wanted to exercise it as we used it once upon a time. >> do you think if we moved away from some of these loopholes, moved away from a more catch and release posture -- obviously, people who would come could be apprehended, but wouldn't that be a deterrent for other people

to realize that is probably not the best use of my time? try to go across the southern port if they think there is the real probability that the level be enforced. >> absolutely. it would help to have an administration that is really serious about defending the border and enforcing the laws enacted by congress. i also think there are things congress can do to tighten up the laws, taking credible fear out, requiring asylum officer training for more immigration officers, so asylum officers are available in larger numbers so we can do processing on the border. as i mentioned, turning around people at the border and saying, you want to make a claim? come back when we have time to interview you. statutory authority for that already. >> my time has expired. i recognize the ranking member mr. lynch. >> i don't want to spend a lot

of time on this, but i would like to talk about the credible fear standard. as i read the 1951 geneva convention for refugees, it fear," thatounded is the standard. when i see this standard, you are talking about credible fear. when you go to webster's or a dictionary, " well-founded" is credible and credible is "well-founded." i don't understand what all the bickering is about. isn't it the same standard as the geneva convention? >> know, the geneva convention establishe what has become the international convention standard for asylum. nationality,n,

shows a group, or political agenda. what is race religion nationality, and put the goal opinion? of law to whole body has developed around the standard in the united states and internationally. >> we're talking about credible fear. >> credible fear was something that was made upon it the fly convenience.ative >> it seems very close to the geneva conference. if you look it up, credible well-founded. it is not totally made up. i know in application it is different. and i am pushing that. all i can say, everyone on the ground who was dealing with that issue at the time, credible fear was clearly dictated. >> i hear you, you said that already. >> i am cautioned that the united states has to not only -- not only does it have obligations under the international refugee convention, but we have to think

about the example he set for other states. start turning away people at our border who apply for a, what message does that send to jordan and libya and nigeria? in terms of the credible fear process, it was set up instead of allowing people to actually go into immigration court removal proceedings, intel of lab people to get deported on the order of a -- it allowed people to get deported on order of a cdp officer. the idea is that the u.s. would not inadvertently deport someone who should have a shot at applying for asylum. we have found in our practices that many people who are legitimate refugees are not passing that process. the immigration judge review that was mentioned happens in a couple days. minutes left and i want to get to this other issue. factors and push factors. we went down to el salvador and we went down to guatemala

city. and so, we were at the airport when the people who work -- mostly kids with a few parents. when the kids arrived back home. so, we had a stop them from the border and send them back. 11:00.ne arrived by by 1:00 in the afternoon, every child had been picked up. and taken home by their families. the deal there in talking to the immigrants, these families that are trying to get into the united states illegally, they to atheir range was $7,000 thousand dollars per person. and they get three tries. they get three tries to get into the united states. they call them coyotes. i don't like using that term because it has a romantic appeal to it.

these are human traffickers and they are putting these kids at great risk in this exercise. so, what i am getting at is this is a push factor -- actually, there is a pull factor by having low standards in this country, for allowing immigrants to come in. factors also a push because there is an industry down there in central america that is -- it is much more profitable than smuggling drugs. most of these countries don't have human trafficking laws and placed on their. so, they can do this and there is no real dire consequences as there would be if they were trafficking in drugs or guns. and so, i mean, so i'm asking my border patrol folks, is this the nature of the problem? what is the greater factor? the pull factor of the united or the push relaxed factor of the industry down there pushing people up to the border. >> thank you, congressman.

we found in our report that there are a multiple of factors that drive people away from their home country. smugglers have taken advantage of the situation wherein people believe that if they came to the united states they would be able to stay. smugglers, we have reports that smugglers are actually using the concept to draw more people that might not otherwise consider the trip. mr. mccraw? the pull part is they want to encourage as many to come across . it or have to grow it. they make in a medium profit, even when they get to the river. the don't even have to cross the river to get a profit. and it is further compounded by when they move them across rivers often they will load them down in a stash houses and continue to explore.

it is an ongoing process. mr. judd, do you have anything to add? udd: absolutely, it comes down to risk reward. there is very little risk when you are smuggling in migrants. the laws of the united states, the accountability with which we hold these human traffickers is a very low standard. however, if we arrest a drug smuggler, then the consequences are much greater. >> i spent a lot of time in the middle east and so did many members on this committee. when angela merkel back last august said, you know, germany welcomes the syrian refugees and we will take them. she ended up with 1.3 million. she never expected it and now they are backing away from it. that was a pull factor.

when you are talking to syrians on the border, they all want to go to germany because they were beckoned to do so. i am just wondering if we have a similar situation here because we did not see the surge -- when there was civil war in el salvador, when there was civil war in nicaragua, we did not see the huge -- and those people could have legitimately said, i have a civil war back home and i need to come to the united states. at the see the requests border that we can see now. there is something else going on here and mabye we're a part of it, a p are creating this problem. i yield back. >> you have been very courteous, i appreciate it. >> of the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mentos. esther meadows: let -- me talk aboutet what mr. lynch was talking about. there is a big difference between refugees and

asylum-seekers. somehow, we put those two toget her, assuming they are one and the same. indeed, they are not one and the same. they have different processes. i serve on the global health human rights and foreign affairs committee. there is nothing more close to my heart in terms of trying to help those truly in need. what mr. lynch was talking about really comes to mind -- what are the places that are most troubled from a standpoint of people needing asylum or refugee totus, what countries come mind as being the most horrific right now? pick, ortry would you the twop two. >> i guess you could look at it in terms of numbers, and of course, you have syria. >> so syria would be number one. >> i am not going to rate them right now.

>> so it would be in the top five? quite yes. >> and the reason i mention that is because mr. lynch is talking place youthe worst can see is syria. he is talking about this mass infiltration of syria, but when we look at the numbers, it is not bearing that out as much. and so mr. ting, i need to understand the process. we talked about the fact that these asylum-seekers come and they sit in jail. now, we have been led to believe that since 2009 there was a different administration rule that would not actually put them in jail. mr. judd would apprehend them and they would go through and seek credible fear and they would be released and not sit in jail, waiting for that. is that correct, mr. ting? >> there are two distinct programs. he referred to refugees. we are see in overseas refugee

program. i think in most generous overseas refugee program in the world is taking well over 55,000. >> the state department is involved with that. >> is a pick and choose program. we get to pick which refugees are of special interest to the united states. the asylum program allows people who are already here to apply for asylum. limitere is no numerical on asylum. if you can claim that you are a refugee and you are already here under our lot and international law, we cannot return you to your home country. you qualify for discretionary asylum status in the united states, which can put you on the path to a green card and eventually, becoming a u.s. citizen. no numerical limit. so, it is very tempting, i think , given the fact that you made arrest. if you can get yourself into the united states, or at the border

, and make the claim, you will get processed sooner or later. and i think that is a great temptation, as mr. lynch says, the is a pull factor to extent that people have a realistic expectation. i think the administration frankly, is trying to balance expectations and is deliberately, i think, trying to deter people by imposing some consequences on their coming to the united states and making claims. >> so, i can tell by the nonverbal gestures to your right from my standpoint that she does not agree. so, go ahead. i will give you a very little bit of time. >> we are certainly protected from a large syrian influx by our geographical location, but the northern tribal companies are incredibly dangerous and as i mentioned before, asylum requests are up significantly in the region as well. taken in and day out we represent asylum-seekers who

passed through the process and are held in very jail-like facilities. >> mr. judd, you put them in jail if they have credible fear claims? your border patrol will put them in jail then? udd: it depends on what we are talking about. if it is in the tucson sector, we don't have the bed space. sectors in the del rio -- i will tell you, i drove by and it is anything but a jail. there are no fences. it has been described as more of a country club. goso, we either let them cory booker them, what you would classify, as a country club setting is what you are saying. >> from what i saw, yes. >> part of the testimony here is that we deny a whole lot. let me ask you this. it appears in 2013, that we approved 92% of the people

coming across our border in terms of -- and this is fy13. 92% of the people who came across and is said they had a credible fear got approved. in the first quarter of this year, it is actually 86%. of if we are looking at proving that many, everybody who comes across, and says, i have a credible fear, i want asylum. is that the reason those numbers continue to go higher, mr. judd? mr. judd. unfortunately, i don't go through the entire process. all i do is arrest people. >> so, did they get a long interview? >> no. >> so what is the interview like? >> it is very quick. all they have to do is claim they have a credible fear. i so if i am speaking farsi, can come across and say i have a credible fear and i don't get a

real interview. >> no, you don't. >> so, the very people who may be terrorists, and i don't want to categorize one particular group as speaking a particular language, but those are higher threat areas to us based on of their past history. they get a shorter interview. >> for special interest countries, we notify the fbi immediately. we won't even interview those individuals. for instance, when we arrested the afghani from pakistan, they were immediately turned over to the fbi. but from countries that are not considered special interest, like china and bangladesh, it is a very short interview. as long as they tell us they have a credible fear, the interview ends at that point for the border control. >> i yield back. >> ladies and gentlemen, the chair recognizes the gentleman

from illinois. >> in today's complex threat environment, effective counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts rely on sophisticated intelligence gathering and sharing capabilities. especially because of their financial effects. we should focus on efforts to strengthen the border with these intelligence capabilities. you have written testimony call of and i quote, a government approach into international partnership as a force multiplier has been and look into new to become of the most effective way to keep our borders secure. which other agencies share information with border control? entities, state, local, tribal that are at the immediate border. and then, we have important relationships in the contiguous countries of canada and mexico

with their federal police and immigration authorities. we have the benefit of having a worldwide footprint. in all of the places where we are active, either providing services for people coming into the country, or a liaison relationship and places like mexico and canada to exchange important law enforcement information. anybody that has a common interest of securing the border, aid inng intelligence to counterterrorism efforts, those are the people wait interact with. >> can you explain how these partnerships work as a force multiplier? similar examplempl . several requests through the liaison and then official government requests from mexico to do more other southern border. and the imn group authorities stepped up and effectively shut

down some of the more common routes of people coming to the united states. we are seeking him to prosecute smugglers who are responsible for some of the activity that led to an overall reduction in people who could use those routes. we are still challenged by that, but we were able to support their work with liaisons and mentors and mexico to understand the challenges they have and give them, where we could, tips and advice and mentor ship so they can do their work better. aboutt is a good example international partnerships and how they can strengthen the border. any other examples? >> we also have a very important relationship in canada as well. we share information about threats we perceive to be coming from the u.s. into canada and vice versa, a lot of information is exchanged. it is the responsibility of our leadership in the field to maintain good relationships with all of law enforcement so we can identify and understand which of

reats are most important by community and then we can work together. >> it seems as though when you hear about threats to the border it is always the southern border, not as much of the northern border. percentages, or is that how you would describe it? >> our resources are dedicated to the southern border. i is where the activity is represented by the large numbers, the large volumes of people because of the nature of the real estate and the differences and both economies, etc.. work wehave important do with canada. we do similar things as it relates to identifying where we need to be situationally. where on the border. technology will help us control and monitor. obviously, the raven ship -- the relationships are key. our federal,with state, tribal, and international

partners, particularly in the canada and mexico address. what types of helpful information does canada and mexico provided that the u.s. would not otherwise have access to? cdp, and obviously this is true with other federal law enforcement, we help identify the criminal networks that are responsible for human trafficking, gun smuggling, and illicit financing. what we do is try to understand amongst ourselves with them what the threats are and how to combat them. and then how to identify by network which of the most problematic criminal enterprises . >> do you feel these partnerships have improved over time? is there more of a comfort level with the other agencies? >> it has been slow as it relates to the international engagement. in canada, it has been stable and well used for quite some

time. in mexico, it ebbs and flows with the changes in the administration. but they have been a strong partner with us, especially at the federal police level and with immigration authorities. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this joint hearing. timedld not be better with the incidents we have seen most recently around the world relating to terrorism at our borders. i guess you probably would haveude that our borders tens of thousands of illegals coming across. would you call that appropriate, mr. judd? is correct.at

these are very motivated individuals. they want to invest the best they can. they want to do the best they can. -- you don't know whether there were drugs, weapons, explosives. great quantities of that have been carried across the border. i spoke with a dhs representative. i jsut -- i just heard that el that el- i just heard kingpin,e noted drug of his illegal immigration. had you heard that? >> know, i had not heard of that. >> not only where we informed that he was crossing routinely, now we have evidence that some of the weapons -- at least one

of the weapons that was found when he was captured was from "fast and serious" collection, which is provided at the was government, if you are not aware of that either. >> i did see that in a media report. mr. dead, you gave some excellent testimony. you describe one of the issues. control the border 00leased more than 38 illegal aliens that were subject to the portion proceedings. released because they claimed to have been in the united states since january of 2014 continuously. this amnesty through policy, this is the president's policy

of amnesty. is that what rules the proceedings? >> if you ask border patrol agents, absolutely. allowed tens of thousands -- i have an estimate of about 50,000 criminal illegals in of the united states , a guesstimate. deportation,ect to aren't they? >> yes, anybody here illegally is subject to deportation. >> again, we have allowed hands,s and tied your with which you have written testimony. only the borders, but the airports are now our borders were people are flying in, whether it is from europe or central south america around the world. there is the credentials

greening gateway system, which is outlined in an ig report to enforce 2015. it says worker can the -- it says worker credentials, and these are workers that would -- we don'tairport have thousands of passport numbers. with, forpeople example, no alien registration number for immigrants working at our stations. no passport number for immigrant number 75,000. twot names with characters or less, 1500. what is this, 87,000 working. 87,000 active. we don't have those records, are you aware of that? >> this is a dhs inspector general report. it is not particularly my area

but i am aware of the reporting on that subject. >> we have people working at our people we knowe nothing about. a confirmation for their alien registration number, or their passport numbers? is that correct? >> yes. ask mr. chairman, i would like this page to be made part of the ejection. we had a big drug epidemic in florida around the nation. we were talking about that and we were talking about illegal aliens. they arrest them, they detain them, and they called the border control and they advise them and they can't help are often, just escorted to the county line. are you aware that that is going on in our local jurisdiction?

>> i was not, congressman. and what area is this? >> central florida. >> we are not particularly will step in florida at all. >> they are dumping them back into the community and you all are refusing to do anything. maybe some of this is what mr. judd described. we have taken them through edicts.tial >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> i would like my statement to be on the record. i think the chair. -- i thank the chair. listening to this last line of questioning, i seem to think progress has been made, but maybe i am wrong. how many border control agents are there now on the southern border? >> on the southern border,

approximately 17,500 or so. how many would have there been eight years ago? >> eight years ago it would have been half that. >> right, so we doubled it. ate immigration reform bill th worked with the bipartisan basis, and the senate double that again. is that correct? >> yes, i believe so. >> we doubled the border patrol agents. deportations, they are falling to all record lows. >> i think our activity over the several years has seen a reduction in the buildup of resources. >> so it is not true that in this last eight year period, we had record deportations. >> i have seen various reports of the numbers and i think there was a time when those numbers were higher. >> because of they are more

effective as a deterrent. where they higher than in the previous eight years? >> i believe they hit around 400,000, which was an all-time high. >> all-time high. hiding by executive order sounds good. but actually, there is another record to be told. back to your point about .ecure borders so, you mean to say, it is harder to get into the united because the measures put in place are in fact more effective. >> we are more capable than we were as far as the number of agents and the levels of technology the infrastructure that has been in place, and the improvements that have been made. all of that combined has

allowed us to catch people if they tried to cross the border. >> we certainly have gotten much more capability. so, we are deterring many people at the border. >> it is hard to measure deterrence. if you look back over the historic highs and the number of arrest we were making, we have seen a reduction in that. the panel is already talking about insufficient measure of apprehension. we have seen reductions in committee alongside with the made, notnts we only in the physical structures, but with agents as well. mike made the point that he used el chapo as an example. people who are deported, including gang activists and thing leaders, especially from el salvador and and doris, who

multiple times, they are deported and multiple times, they reenter the united dates. them, it is an ultimate punishment or deterrence for that matter. can you comment on that? sureare we doing to make that repeat illegal entrants are backed permanently. >> so, we do track the number of both foreople have, the criminal violations, as well as their previous immigration history. and through things like the consequence system, we target people who we think are going to be repeat offenders, or people who cross multiple times. office willorneys prosecute those folks when we find them.

>> do you have a special division or a special targeting task force or system with respect to gang activity. certainly, and a lot of our communities, we are worried about people, bad actors, who , often from central america. we don't want them in our communities and we don't want them in this country. we want them back home. although, that problems as well. but are you targeting that particular subgroup? anybody who is a repeat offender needs to use the next month effect of federal prosecution when they are being countered by our officers we work with our state, local, and federal partners in the task force environment. some of those are dedicated to gang activity. >> mr. chair, if i could follow

up i am asking, can we target them and profile them as a likely repeat offender? that is what we would like to deter. >> what we do is we aggregate the data to understand that when that person is in front of us and the agent is doing the booking procedure, when they from the fingerprints, we will have a complete history of criminal activity. those that if the scale towards connectivity or known criminal offenses inside a vacuum and activity, then we will work with local u.s. attorneys office to get them prosecuted. >> my time is up. >> future now recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. chairman.ou, mr. mr. judd, let me go in a different direction for a moment. past, some of the challenges of securing the border on federal lands.

specifically, what sort of obstacles do agents face when access is limited, say endangered species or wilderness designations? >> i can tell you i started my career in central california. in central california, if an illegal alien cross the border, i can follow them in my vehicle until i caught them forever. it did not matter how long, i can go forever until i followed him. but if you go and look at arizona, if an illegal alien presses the border, i have to get out of my vehicle and call someone. there are very, very few access roads, which then put this behind the curve. it is very difficult to apprehend those individuals on protected lands. , you are aware

of the permit delays on federal lands? period an acceptable of time per meeting to take place for your agency before you have lost your tactical advantage? in the concept of when agents are in what we call "hot pursuit," when they are actively following the trail, even in the wilderness they have the ability to continue on. as a relates to infrastructure and other improvements that are made in certain protected lands, andave a three agency understanding with the department of agriculture to work for improvements we want to make, such as installing surveillance equipment, or fixing roads.

>> at some point, your intel becomes the relevant. but that of timeframe is reasonable? >> as soon as we can do it. as soon as possible is the best timeframe. >> are you receiving cooperation from other agencies? devised a mechanism for us to start the conversation and work through the expectations and milestones to keep things accomplished that we want done. >> of course, we all know that isis is attempting to exploit any and all of our loopholes on our nation's national security and in particular, our borders from infiltrating the refugee program and so forth, but when it comes to our borders, how high are the security risks and how can we mitigate those? judd: the best way we can risks arehese

resources and the field, giving us the resources necessary so we are not leaving areas of the board completely unmanned. >> ok, mr. ting? mr. ting: i think it is very much related to the volume of border crossers that have to be processed. we are all aware there was a tremendous border surge in f y2014 and preliminary thetistics show former year may exceed that number. when you have a historic border that stresses whatever resources are available at the border. it makes it more likely that security risks can take advantage of the situation and penetrate our border. simply riding the tide of the high volume of processing that must occur. 6, i think aat fy201

lot of us think we are confronting that situation this year. >> let me ask you this, mr. mccraw, how high are the security risks and how can we mitigate it? >> they are substantial and until you secure it, you can't mitigate. concerned about the other criminal aliens who have come across. how do you keep them from coming back? we have to secure it and the movie secure it is by providing more additional agents, technology, aviation access, unity of effort. that is the only way it is going to be able to actually mitigate the risk. >> mr. chairman, could i just weigh in? >> the gentleman's time has expired. we are going to have both here. i want to make sure the others have time to ask their questions. let me recognize the man from michigan.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. judd, a constituent of mine who is a dhs officer contacted me. he has been working on the border in california. he expressed concerns about a he puts it, with california and mexico, where individuals who cross the border illegally cannot be sent home but will be processed through. and then released into the u.s. with court dates as long as 7-10 years down the road. are you aware of that policy? >> yes, i am. we dub it the "catch and release" policy. if you ask agents, they believe it is one of those driving factors that invites individuals to try and break our -- >> is it unique to california? >> it is not. >> are all the aliens who cross

the border given notices to appear before the court? >> no, they are not. . let me take that back. i'm sorry. not all illegal aliens that we arrest are given notices to appear. there are different factors that go into that. i would generally say that if we see somebody crossed the border, bet that individual would given a notice to appear, but not all illegal aliens are given those. >> what is the typical time fore foor -- timeframe court hearings. >> i don't deal with the court hearings, but what i am hearing is, anywhere from 5-7 years. mr. vitiello, did i get that right? >> yes, you did. it varies by capacity.

sorry, but can i weigh in on the immigration reports? we just issued a report on the need to adequately fund the immigration courts to bring down those backlogs. >>, so your contention is funding? >> yes, that is a major need, funding for the immigration courts. likes me ask mr. judd. being madeny efforts to contact the individuals while they are waiting for these lengthy court hearings. >> all they need to do is provide us with an address. it can be in a skier address. for instance, -- it can be an obscure address. we were arresting brazilians in the sector and a large number of them were giving us the exact same address over and over again. >> large buildings. >> exactly, and we released those individuals based upon the

addresses they were giving us. >> i assume this is frustrating to your colleagues. extremely frustrating, but what gets even more frustrating is when we have a cdp commissioner who tells us if we don't like it, we can go find another job. are thecgraw, how administration's efforts, or enforcement priorities, reflecting your organization? >> clearly, the governor has expressed concern about the potential syrian refugees coming to texas. there is no ethical way to properly vet them and that is a concern from a national security standpoint. we are concerned that we will continue to see transnational gangs, criminal aliens, cartel, and cartel operatives. we will still see drugs infiltrating sexes, and throughout the nation. those -- those are the key

concerns we have. belated transnational crime happens when you become a shipping center for the cartel, including home invasions, high-speed pursuits, stash house extortions, and kidnapping. all of those things occurred and we are having to address them. today, the border is not secure. assumed that you have an idea about what will resolve that? you are responsible for securing your people's safety and borders. could you do it? >> i will tell you the people right next to me could do it. --border patrol is given the they ask if they can do it today. there is no doubt in my mind that they can do it. >>, so this is not a problem, but for the fact that you are what you areo do able to do.

and i assume that goes for mr. vitiello as well. >> the bottom line, border security has not been a priority. the concern is it relates to multiple administrations. in our environment, you cannot afford not to be concerned. from a publicas safety standpoint, from a national security standpoint, and the rest of the nation. >> the gentleman's time has expired. 4> mr. judd, very quickly, 201 as a result of the change in the president's policy on immigration in 2014, we saw a surge of minors crossing the borders. is that true? >> do we know the percentage of those miners that are from continuous countries, -- from contiguous countries, like canada and mexico? >> there if you. the-- most of them entering

the country are from non-contiguous countries. >> how are they treated differently? a juvenile from mexico, they will be treated basically, the exact same. it doesn't matter what country are from. if you claim a credible fear, if you say that you are seeking asylum, you are going to be treated the same by the border patrol. how they treat them, i don't know. >> mr. vitiello, any different treatment or process that was used for the contiguous versus noncontiguous individuals? >> in the case of mexico and in others from central america, both populations would be screened to make sure they are not victims of human trafficking. in most cases, we can facilitate the return to mexico with the assistance of their government. logistics and turning people over to ice or to be placed with

agreeoes not always with those in mexico. they will try to repatriate their citizens. >> there is a legal distinction between how individuals are treated in contiguous countries versus noncontiguous. >> the lot that all the populations are screened so they are not victims of human trafficking. if they are from noncontiguous countries, the law allows for us to do that procedure. tois sunday work of dhs transfer them to another government department, which puts them in a setting to where they can either be reunited with family and the united states, or be cared for more appropriately given their age. >> and that is individuals in noncontiguous countries? >> correct. >> in many of those noncontiguous countries, you used the term "friendly."

law changed, we could in a situation where they are not victims of human smuggling or seeking asylum. we could arrange for those individuals to be returned to those countries without going through the five to seven year hearing process. >> that would require a change in the law, as far as i know. >> do you see any adverse effects in changing that law? >> i'm not sure. i guess we would have to look exactly at what it entails. certainly, we are in a relationship with mexico and this is a smaller problem. that all wedicated need is more money. we just print more money, increased our national debt above $19 trillion. we could take care of this problem.

a simpler solution and much love costly, and frankly, more humane to the individuals coming into this country, would be to change that law and allow these individuals to return to their homes. we need to say policy that does not attract juveniles like magnus. i think it would be more humane, rather than putting someone in a wherefor five years, they don't know if they are in this country or not. i yield back. recognizes thew gentleman from wisconsin for five minutes. i am going to cover some territory we have already covered. i want to ask you a general question, mr. judd and you, mr. ting. general, how effective do you think the administration's commitment to border security is question mark i am asking you to compare it because i am not a partisan person.

said, how sincere has the commitment ben, both in this administration and in the last administration to border security, which to me, is the basic part of being a country. >> i was going to yield to mr. judd, but how serious are they about quarter security? i think there is a lack of concern for deterrence. i think deterrence is an important part of immigration policy. we will never have enough resources. we will never have enough border patrol agents on the line. if we don't deter people from attempting to violate our laws. think deterrence is part of immigration policy, which has been abandoned by this administration and has not been a high priority of previous administrations. one of my colleagues said, the poor people of the world may be

poor, but they are not stupid. they are as good as doing cost-benefit analysis to determine what is in their best interest. anyone in this room can figure that out and they are going to figure it out and if we don't deter people, they are going to figure out that you have a better life, your kids go to school for free, there is better security, there a better job opportunities, you can compete with americans for jobs in the united states. amazing. if it's into the cost-benefit analysis. we can overwhelm whatever resources we are try to put on the border is sending messages that we're willing, like angela merkel, willing to accept unlimited numbers of people to come and live with us in the united states. we can do that and it will matter how much money we spend on the border. and how many border patrol agents we put up. >> i don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me

that at least under the last two administrations, the average american knows we have a border control and thinks we have a border control because we have immigration laws. there has not been a commitment for many years in this country by powerful people. they said they wanted to enforce the immigration laws. they passed reason, administration to both parties. they don't seem to care that much for enforcing our immigration. i don't know what is going on in their heads, but do you think that is an accurate statement? >> this is the first election campaign that i can recall it has been a major issue. historically, i think both for the goal parties have not wanted to raise immigration because it is such an emotional and divisive issue. and really for the first time, this year, for only immigration has popped up. mabye it is the unusual

situations we have seen with the border. certainly, it is a national security concern we are all feeling, but i think the american people are focused on immigration and we are asking, why are we having such overwhelming problems on our borders and wanting something to be done about it? but i think deterrence is part of it. the administration has to send a message out saying we are serious about enforcing our laws and that we are going to do the best we can to enforce them efficiently. people who are not needed here will be turned around at the border, promptly. we are giving a prompt asylum interview on the spot. not a credible fear interview, but in asylum interview. if they are denied asylum, they should be turned around immediately. >> mr. judd, if you will, what is you have toe have agency officials who are going to tell you the truth. not the truth, they have to be open.

they have to tell you everything. i will tell you right now that you have a chief patrol agent who has been very open and has given you all candor. i fear that because of that openness, because of that chief, our current acting patrol agent will not even be considered for the department chief because he can't be controlled, supposedly. in my finalund out 10 seconds. i want to correct mr. ting. i think there are a lot of republicans who want to enforce the border and i think there are a lot of us who are very concerned about what happened under president bush. many of us don't want president bush. >> i would like to think the witnesses. this hearing was important in flushing out some problematic aspects of our national policy here. we do not have a secure border. watching threats in our

country. they goes from having more resources and physical security, but you have to have laws that are enforced and people need to see that. that would deter many people coming as well. i do know we are going to continue in this vein on this committee. in particular, there was a recent report that ice having custody 124 different detainees that were here illegally. after isis released them, they were charged with murder. that is the type of thing where if ice had done its job properly, maybe those people would not have been killed. i think that is an absolute tragedy. with that, i will think our witnesses again. the subcommittee stance adjourned -- the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[crowd speaks simultaneously]

>> for this year's student cam contest, students tell us what issue the candidates should discuss. economy,told us of the equality, education, and immigration were all top issues. thanks to all of the students and teachers that competed this year and congratulations to all of our winners. every weekday in april, starting on april 1, one of the top 20 winning entries will air on c-span. all the winning entries are available for viewing online at studentcam.org. >> next on c-span, washington journal. then, vice president joe biden on supreme court nominee garland. , and coming up and45 minutes, kurt volker michael breen, president and ceo

of the truman national security project on u.s. policy and the fight against isis. the, alicia caldwell of associated press talks about u.s. security in the weight of the terrorist attacks in brussels. host: good morning everyone, we begin this morning with a call for civility in politics by house speaker paul ryan. ,n a 30 minute speech yesterday the wisconsin republican governor called on americans to aspire for more reasonable debates. it washington post this morning says it is part of a larger effort to build a firewall between congressional republicans up for reelection and donald trump. we will show you what the speaker had to say this morning and get your thoughts.