Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Asylum Ngos topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts debate parole, NGO contracts and missing unaccompanied children during immigration hearing
Summary
Policy witnesses at the subcommittee hearing offered competing explanations for large migration flows: one expert blamed expanded parole, NGO-funded wraparound services and asylum processing changes; another described legality and humanitarian considerations and warned against sweeping deportations.
Laura Reese of the Heritage Foundation told the panel that policies implemented during the previous administration — including expanded use of parole, broad asylum intake and increased work authorization — encouraged mass unauthorized migration and overwhelmed government systems.
Reese said the prior administration “encouraged millions to come and apply for asylum,” and that parole was used “based mostly on nationality and in violation of the immigration statute” to admit large groups. She testified that the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services paid nongovernmental organizations billions to create shelter and transportation networks she described as infrastructure for mass migration.
Reese also cited encounters with 550,000 unaccompanied children over four years and said HHS “turned them over to unvetted sponsors,” adding her concern that HHS “lost track of at least 300,000 of them” (these figures were presented by the witness and cited in her testimony).
Aaron Reichlin Melnick of the American Immigration Council acknowledged the prior administration achieved results late in its term, including a significant drop in apprehensions, but warned that aggressive interior enforcement by the current administration risks detaining longtime residents, veterans and people with no criminal record. Melnick told the committee the legal and policy decisions around parole, temporary protected status and mass removals require careful review to protect due process and community stability.
Members asked witnesses whether individuals with final orders of removal should be enforced; answers varied. Reese and other witnesses answered yes when asked about enforcing final orders; Melnick said enforcement decisions depend on individual circumstances and cited that many in-absentia orders are later overturned.
