Washington — A contentious House hearing this week laid bare a deepening conflict over how federal immigration authorities interpret long-standing asylum protections, as Representative Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York, sharply questioned Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the legality and transparency of the department’s recent enforcement actions.

The exchange, which unfolded during an oversight session of the House Judiciary Committee, centered on a core but often misunderstood point of U.S. immigration law: that individuals who file asylum applications are considered lawfully present in the country while their cases are pending. That principle, in place for decades, is designed to ensure that migrants fleeing persecution have access to a legal process before removal decisions are made.

Mr. Goldman pressed Ms. Noem repeatedly on that statutory requirement, asking whether deporting migrants with active asylum cases would constitute a violation of law. Each time, the secretary pivoted to broader critiques of prior administrations’ handling of the border, prompting Mr. Goldman to accuse her of “filibustering” and refusing to answer a direct legal question.

“If you have an open asylum case, you are here lawfully,” Mr. Goldman said at one point, raising his voice as Ms. Noem attempted to redirect the discussion. “You can’t just decide you’re not going to follow the law and deport people who have ongoing applications.”

The hearing quickly became a referendum on the department’s street-level practices. Drawing from reports in New York, Mr. Goldman described multiple cases in which migrants who appeared for scheduled court appointments — a requirement for maintaining asylum eligibility — were detained immediately afterward. In some instances, he said, they were transferred to detention facilities and removed from the country before their claims were adjudicated.

“These are individuals who followed the rules,” he said. “They showed up. They complied. And instead of due process, they were arrested.”

To underscore his point, Mr. Goldman referenced a September incident involving a man allegedly separated from his wife and children after a court appearance. Committee staff attempted to play a video related to the case before technical issues delayed its presentation. When the correct clip was later shown, it depicted a forceful encounter between an individual and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer — an episode that ICE initially condemned as “unacceptable.”

Ms. Noem told lawmakers that an internal investigation had been completed and that she could provide findings to the committee. Mr. Goldman responded that he had requested those findings months earlier and had received no reply. “I’m actually surprised you haven’t gotten it,” the secretary said. “I will ask my staff.”

The New York Democrat then broadened his criticism to address what he described as a pattern of opacity, citing unanswered letters, incomplete responses to congressional inquiries, and reports that ICE officers in multiple cities were conducting arrests while masked, in plain clothes, and without clearly visible identification.

“All of our officers are identified,” Ms. Noem insisted.

“That is not the case,” Mr. Goldman replied, pointing to a recent confrontation in New York in which NYPD officers were injured during a chaotic joint encounter with masked ICE personnel. He said the lack of visible identification had caused confusion among residents and first responders, raising concerns about public safety and the possibility of impersonation.

The questioning reflected an ongoing national debate over the limits of executive authority in immigration enforcement. For years, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have struggled to balance humanitarian protections with border management. But Mr. Goldman argued that whatever policy disagreements exist, federal agencies are not free to disregard statutory requirements.

“If you don’t like the asylum system, you change the law,” he said. “Bring it to Congress. We’ll work with you. But you can’t selectively enforce what you do and don’t want to follow.”

Legal scholars say the exchange highlights a structural tension in the immigration system. Asylum cases often take years to resolve due to staggering backlogs, leaving hundreds of thousands of applicants in prolonged legal limbo. Enforcement agencies, facing their own resource constraints, sometimes prioritize operational flexibility even when doing so raises questions about compliance.

“These disputes stem from a mismatch between law, capacity, and politics,” said one expert in immigration law who reviewed the hearing. “But statutory rights don’t disappear simply because an agency is overwhelmed.”

By the close of the hearing, Mr. Goldman had shifted from legal critique to a broader warning about public trust. Wearing masks, ignoring identification requirements, reinstating officers after publicly condemning their conduct — such actions, he said, erode confidence not only in immigration enforcement but in government itself.

“Law enforcement legitimacy depends on transparency and consistency,” he said. “When people cannot tell who is exercising power over them, the system breaks down.”

The committee then moved to questioning by Representative Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas, but the central dispute — whether the administration has adhered to the legal protections Congress established — remained unresolved. As migration pressures and political rhetoric intensify ahead of the election year, hearings like this are expected to continue shaping the national conversation about the rule of law, the limits of executive discretion, and the future of America’s asylum system.