Hearing Wrap Up: Abuse of U.S. Immigration System Creates Financial Burdens on American Taxpayers

WASHINGTON-Today, the Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses held a hearing titled "Amnesty and Chaos: Abuse of U.S. Immigration Policy." During the hearing, members examined how prior presidential administrations and the amnesty lobby have weaponized the U.S. immigration system against Americans, pushed reckless open borders policies and engaged in frivolous litigation to stall enforcement of the law. Members also analyzed current tactics the radical left uses to undermine the Trump Administration's efforts to strengthen the immigration system and keep Americans safe.

Key Takeaways:

The Biden Administration opened the border and allowed millions of illegal aliens to enter the country, paroled them en masse using a smartphone app, and granted backdoor amnesty by abusing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations.

• Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, testified that "The two programs are immigration, parole and Temporary Protected Status. Presidents have used parole to allow in foreigners who have no right to be here in any number, anyone they want, for any reason, for as long as they want. And the presidents have used TPS to let people who have already illegally entered the country stay indefinitely. And the key in both cases is that the point is to get work permits and social security numbers into the hands of illegal immigrants, so it's harder to deport them in the future. Those two programs are the pillars of a shadow immigration system operated across administrations to circumvent immigration limits enacted by Congress."
• Matt O'Brien, Deputy Executive Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), testified that "For decades, administrations of both parties have selectively ignored portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, when those provisions were viewed as politically inconvenient. As a result, the agencies charged with enforcing our immigration laws have too often relied on inconsistent regulations, shifting policy memoranda and operational guidance that depart from the text and the intent of the laws enacted by Congress. To put it plainly, the executive branch has repeatedly substituted policy preferences for statutory requirements."

Activist groups are engaged in frivolous litigation and forum shopping to slow down and thwart the Trump Administration's efforts to restore integrity to our immigration system and keep Americans safe.

• Mr. O'Brien also stated that "At the same time, some states have sought to exempt themselves from federal immigration enforcement, despite long standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing immigration as primarily a federal responsibility. The result has been a confusing and often contradictory system that undermines public confidence and creates incentives for further violations of the law. During my 30 years working in immigration law and policy, I often heard a phrase repeated by immigration officers and DHS attorneys: 'The case isn't over until the alien wins.' That sentiment reflected a growing belief that the system increasingly prioritized delay and loopholes over consistent enforcement of the law. Now, historically, our immigration system operated on the principle that foreign nationals seeking admission to the U.S. or immigration benefits within the U.S. had the burden of establishing eligibility under the law. Legally, that framework still exists. In practice, however, many modern policies have treated virtually every humanitarian or discretionary program, including parole, TPS, and asylum, as opportunities to create broad exemptions to statutory limits established by Congress."
  
• Activist groups bring frivolous legal challenges to efforts to secure the border and end TPS designations that have persisted for decades. Some District Court judges nevertheless continue to rule against securing the border and protecting American citizens in favor of illegal aliens.

It should not take months or years to enforce immigration laws while waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down activist lower court judges.

• The plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act supports the President's authority to enforce immigration laws, including ending TPS designations.

Member Highlights:

Task Force Chairman Brandon Gill (R-Texas) grilled Chris Newman, General Counsel and Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), on whether he and his organization supported giving American taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits to illegal aliens.

Task Force Chairman Gill: "There are fewer illegal aliens coming into the country right now. It's astounding that you won't at least admit that. Should illegal aliens receive taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits?"

Mr. Newman: "It's not an area of my expertise, uh, either. My concern primarily is the organization I work with."

Task Force Chairman Gill: "You promoted a petition telling [Governor Gavin Newsom] to-this is your organization, National Day Laborers Organizing Network-B-2847, will provide unemployment benefits to workers who are ineligible to receive unemployment insurance solely due to their immigration status."

Mr. Newman: "Mr. Chairman, if I could answer your first question."

Task Force Chairman Gill: "No, I'm asking you, do you think that illegal aliens should receive taxpayer funded unemployment benefits?"

Mr. Newman: "Well, first off, I don't know what you mean by illegal aliens, but if you're talking about residents in the state of California…"

Task Force Chairman Gill: "I'm asking about people who entered our country illegally."

Mr. Newman: "People come here for all kinds of reasons and-"

Task Force Chairman Gill: "Without documentation."

Mr. Newman: "Residents in California."

Task Force Chairman Gill: "This is a really simple question. Should illegal aliens receive taxpayer funded unemployment benefits?"

Mr. Newman: "I think people in the state of California should receive benefits according to the law."

Task Force Chairman Gill: "Illegal aliens should receive taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits?"

Mr. Newman: "Again, that's your word and what I'm trying to get you to do, Congressman, I'm trying to get you to do is to stop throwing around dehumanizing rhetoric."

[…]

Task Force Chairman Gill: "…Shutting down one of the busiest bridges in the nation in order to push for a $500 million fund to give taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits to illegal aliens?"

Mr. Newman: "I think we should give-"

Task Force Chairman Gill: "You think that's a good thing for the country?"

Mr. Newman: "I think we should allocate resources accordingly to people who are going to become citizens of this country eventually."

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) probed Chris Newman on whether his organization paid people to protest American immigration laws.

Rep. Biggs: "[You] also provided over $800,000 worth of travel expenses. Who's using the travel expenses? Are you funding travel? Are you guys funding any participation in any kind of protest or organized protest anywhere?"

Mr. Newman: "Well, I was invited by this Committee on Friday, and the ticket prices are quite high because obviously gas prices are high. So I spent money on that travel."

Rep. Biggs: "That didn't get to the question. I mean, it's a great dodge. It's a beautiful dodge, but would sure be nice if you just answer whether you guys fund anybody traveling to protest, which is what the question was."

Mr. Newman: "People have a first amendment right to protest, and we definitely pay for the gas."

Rep. Biggs: "And you help fund the protests, right?"

Mr. Newman: "Well, I mean, I'm here, in essence, to protest immigration policy."

Rep. Biggs: "Sure, sure. But I mean, you're protesting other…are you participating in the Delaney Hall protest? Are you funding people to get there?"

Mr. Newman: "We are definitely trying to ensure that there is a peaceful protest in solidarity with the brave hunger strikers who are trying to defend their-"

Rep. Biggs: "So I take that as a yes, then?"

Mr. Newman: "So the answer, Congressman, is yes."

Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) inquired about non-governmental organizations (NGOs) facilitating illegal immigration at American taxpayers' expense.

Rep. Cloud: "…The migration here is not organic, it's funded through NGOs, but we're seeing protests doing the same. Mr. Krikorian, could you speak to the NGO industrial complex that was stood up surrounding immigration?"

Mr. Krikorian: "Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's huge. And it is partly, in fact, funded by the federal government and in a variety of ways. See, one thing that people obviously focus on is the NGOs in the United States that were flying people under Biden around the country, but there are U.S. taxpayer-funded groups outside the United States, sometimes through the [United Nations] or funded directly, that were moving people, giving people, you know, debit cards in order to facilitate their movement toward the U.S. border. So, the taxpayer under President Biden was funding NGOs abroad to move people to the border, and then NGOs inside the country to move people around the country."

Rep. Cloud: "So in a sense, we're forcing taxpayers to pay for the demise of their own country and communities?"

Mr. Krikorian: "Well, it hasn't stopped completely as far as I know, but most of the flow obviously is stopped."

Rep. Cloud: "Are these organizations still at work or lying dormant?"

Mr. Krikorian: "I don't know. That's a good question. I assume they're lying dormant, eagerly waiting, like many of the legal immigrants have said to reporters waiting for the next administration and hoping that they will let them in."

Rep. Cloud: "Right. And as I mentioned at the beginning, we still have a lot of loopholes to close to make sure this doesn't happen."

Rep. Brian Jack (R-Ga.) asked about how left-wing activist groups are stalling the Trump Administration's effort to solve the illegal immigration crisis and how illegal aliens are abusing the U.S. asylum system.

Rep. Jack: "Mr. O'Brien, the Trump Administration has moved to end certain TPS designations and parole programs, but much of that effort has been tied up in litigation. Could you walk us through how various activist groups are actively slowing down and trying to thwart the administration's efforts to solve this immigration crisis?"

Mr. O'Brien: "Certainly. Well, in a number of cases, there are specific provisions within the legislation implementing these programs that strips the courts of jurisdiction to review the designations. So TPS contains one of those provisions. Many of those things were put in place because these are acts that affect the presidential exercise of the foreign affairs power, the diplomatic power, the war powers. There seems to be a large number of suits that were filed based on forum shopping and then submitted on a wing and a prayer in hopes that even though the suit had no merit, it would be heard. So at the very least, there would be an injunction blocking large numbers of these particular moves. And if you look at this from a common sense perspective, lots of these things are absurd. I mean, there [are] TPS designations that are based on volcanic eruptions that happen 20 to 30 years ago that clearly have no effect whatsoever on the countries that we're talking about. And we're simultaneously removing many citizens from those countries to those places safely with no problem whatsoever when those people are subject to deportation for violating the immigration laws."

Rep. Jack: "Could you also explain for us the legal definition of asylum and elaborate on whether this classification is being abused to allow unauthorized individuals into our country?"

Mr. O'Brien: "Well, it's most definitely being abused. So asylum is available to individuals who are experiencing persecution by their own government or parties that the government is unable or unwilling to control, which a classic example of that is, say, the FARC in Colombia, where a non-governmental group has seized control of part of the country and it can be given on the basis of persecution that occurs on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Nobody knows what a particular social group is. It's never been clearly defined. So what is happening is that when I was an immigration judge, virtually every single asylum application that I saw was made by someone coming from Central America who is claiming that MS-13 had taken control of their country and that MS-13 was seeking them out. The vast majority of these people had never attempted to access the criminal justice system or file any kind of complaint or seek any kind of protection in their own country. And so what, in effect has been happening is that asylum, rather than being used as humanitarian protection, for people suffering persecution the way perhaps Soviet dissidents did in the past, it has become a protection that appears to be applicable to anyone who's living in a country where the conditions aren't as nice as the United States."

Click here to watch the hearing.