[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
THE APPREHENSION, DETENTION, AND RE-
LEASE OF NONCITIZENS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT
IN THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS,
AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES,
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-690 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
Art Arthur, Staff Director, Subcommittee on National Security
Sean Hayes, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and
Administrative Rules
Sarah Vance, Clerk
Subcommittee on National Security
RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee Ranking Member
JODY B. HICE, Georgia TED LIEU, California
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
WILL HURD, Texas BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania,
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee Ranking Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Distict of
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming Columbia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
RON DeSANTIS, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina, Vice BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chair MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
MARK WALKER, North Carolina Vacancy
JODY B. HICE, Georgia
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 25, 2015................................ 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Scott R. Jones, Sheriff, Sacramento County Sheriff's
Department
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 11
Mr. Jamiel Shaw, Sr., Father of Jamiel Shaw II
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Mr. Michael Ronnebeck, Uncle of Grant Ronnebeck
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Ms. Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Mr. Gregory Z. Chen, Director of Advocacy, American Immigration
Lawyers Association
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
APPENDIX
Letters to Jeh Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Homeland
Security....................................................... 88
Letters to The Hon. Ron DeSantis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Security.............................................. 91
Letter to The Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 94
Migration Policy Institute report titled ``Deportation and
Discretion: Reviewing the Record and Options for Change''
website listed................................................. 99
Migration Policy Institute report titled ``Immigration
Enforcement in the U.S.: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery,''
website listed................................................. 100
Letter from Marc R. Rosenblum, Migration Policy Institute........ 101
May 2013 University of Illinois at Chicago report titled
``Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police
Involvement in Immigration Enforcement,'' website listed....... 107
A REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE APPREHENSION, DETENTION, AND RELEASE OF NONCITIZENS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
----------
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, joint with the
Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and
Administrative Rules,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m.,
in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis
[chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security] presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on National Security:
Representatives DeSantis, Mica, Hice, Russell, Lynch, and Lieu.
Present from the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and
Administrative Rules: Representatives Jordan, Walberg,
DesJarlais, Meadows, DeSantis, Walker, Hice, Carter,
Cartwright, Norton, Watson Coleman, and Cooper.
Also present: Representatives Salmon and Lujan Grisham.
Mr. DeSantis. The subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
The American people have every right to expect the
government to abide by the laws of the land, especially those
laws that impose duty on government officials to protect the
safety and security of the American people. The Nation's
immigration laws both recognize the valuable contribution
illegal immigrants make to American society and provide a
framework to safeguard the Nation's sovereignty and the public
safety.
The U.S. Government has a responsibility to execute the
laws of the land, yet today's hearing will demonstrate that the
Federal Government is failing to enforce the laws that protect
the public safety.
The attacks of September 11, 2011, tragically demonstrated
the importance of our immigration laws in protecting the
American people. The staff report of the 9/11 Commission on
Terrorist Travel found that, ``every hijacker submitted a visa
application,'' containing false Statements; that, ``at least 2
hijackers and as many as 11 of the hijackers presented to INS
inspectors at ports of entry passports manipulated in a
fraudulent manner''; and that two of the hijackers overstayed
the terms of their admission.
The 9/11 attacks were an act of war against our country by
a terrorist group who exploited the lack of enforcement of our
immigration system in service of their murderous ends.
Today, we will hear from Jamiel Shaw, Sr., whose son,
Jamiel II, was murdered by a gang member who was in the country
illegally on March 2, 2008. The murderer had a long criminal
history and was facing pending felony charges, yet he was
released into American society a mere 2 days before he killed
Jamiel Shaw II.
As a high school football player, Jamiel II received
interest from schools such as Stanford and Rutgers. As his dad
will testify, he was a good kid who was trying to pursue his
dreams and make something of himself. The tragic fact is this:
Had the government simply fulfilled its responsibility to
protect the public and faithfully executed the law, Jamiel Shaw
II would be alive today.
The government's failures to safeguard the public appear to
have grown more severe since the murder of Jamiel Shaw II. For
example, in 2013 the Department of Homeland Security freed
36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention. According to
the Center for Immigration Studies, this group included aliens
convicted of hundreds of violent and serious crimes, including
homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.
The vast majority of these releases from custody were
discretionary, not required by law and, in fact, in some
instances, apparently contrary to law. Nor were they the result
of local sanctuary policies.
Unfortunately, since 2013, 1,000 of these same released
criminal convicts had been convicted yet again for additional
offenses. In other words, people have been victimized because
the government has failed to repatriate these criminal convicts
to their home countries, as provided for under the law.
Concerns about Immigration and Customs Enforcement's
effective use of its resources to protect the American people
have been intensified by the DHS November 20, 2014, guidance on
the apprehension, detention, and removal of illegal immigrants
present in the United States. In that guidance, the Department
appropriately designated aliens who pose a danger to the
national security and who have been convicted of aggregated
felonies as the highest priority for removal. Even that
designation, though, contains significant caveats that could
allow such aliens to remain at large in the United States and
to continue their criminal activities.
Of equal concern is the fact that the Department has
identified as a lesser priority for apprehension, detention,
and removal other criminal aliens, including aliens who have
been convicted of what the agency has categorized as the,
``significant misdemeanors'' of domestic violence, sexual abuse
or exploitation, burglary, firearm offenses, and drug
distribution or trafficking.
The subcommittee will examine how effective the Department
of Homeland Security has been in using its resources and
authority to identify, apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who
pose a danger to the people of the United States and the
ramifications of the Department's newly adopted policy in
fulfilling this crucial obligation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I thank
them for their time, and, in advance, I thank them for their
testimony.
And I will now recognize my colleague from Massachusetts,
the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing, joint hearing.
And I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this
morning and helping the committee with its work.
Let me begin by expressing my sincere sorrow to the
families of Jamiel Shaw and Grant Ronnebeck for the loss of
their loved ones. Jamiel's father, Mr. Jamiel Shaw, Sr., and
Grant's uncle, Mr. Mike Ronnebeck, are here with us today.
And I would like to thank you both for helping the
committee work through our issues here with this law and as we
examine the Department of Homeland Security's revised
immigration enforcement policies and procedures. And I thank
you, as well, for your willingness and your strength in trying
to turn your personal tragedy into something positive as a way
of honoring your son and your nephew.
Just for the record, I want to indicate that I am a
cosponsor of the Jamiel Shaw Act that Mr. Walter Jones of North
Carolina has recently filed in memory of your son and that
would require notification by the FBI of any crimes committed
by undocumented workers, any individual not in this country
legally.
Importantly, the department-wide memo issued by Department
of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in November 2014
provides enhanced guidance for those Federal agencies
responsible for carrying out immigration enforcement and
removal activities by specifying and prioritizing threats to
our national security, public safety, and border security,
including persons convicted of criminal street gang activity
and other felonies. The Department is now seeking to better
ensure that its limited resources are dedicated to addressing
the most serious law enforcement cases for the benefit and
safety of the American people.
I understand that there are many inside and outside of
government who continue to raise concerns over the
effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security's
enforcement efforts. In fact, the underlying premise of today's
hearing appears to be, in part, the premise that the 700,000-
plus employees of the Department of Homeland Security,
including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are not
enforcing our immigration laws. I do not believe that that is
the case.
Just to be clear, the Department of Homeland Security has
detained and removed more people since 2008 than during any
other period in its history. According to the Migration Policy
Institute, approximately 1.95 million people were removed
between 2008 and 2013, which is about the same number removed
during the entire 8 years during the Bush Administration.
In addition, the administration continues to focus
resources on targeting immigrants who are criminals, threats to
national security, and public safety risks. Eighty-five percent
of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement removals from the
United States in Fiscal Year 2014 were convicted criminals. So
that is 85 percent of the removals were of illegal aliens who
were criminals.
So, while I have my own questions and concerns regarding
our enforcement policy, I cannot agree that the laws are not at
all being enforced. The facts show that they indeed are.
I think it is important that we also understand that
current law requires detainees who have served their time be
released. Based on what I have read, it appears that most of
the detainees released by the Department in Fiscal Year 2013
were released as required by the 2001 Supreme Court decision in
Zadvydas v. Davis or other mandatory laws.
Notably, the Zadvydas case found that the indefinite
detention of a noncitizen who has been ordered removed but
whose removal is not likely to occur in the reasonably
foreseeable future raises serious constitutional due process
concerns.
The Department also released some detainees either due to
eligibility for bond, pursuant to section 236 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, or for reasons as deteriorated
health or advanced age.
In light of these legal and constitutional issues, I very
much welcome the opportunity to hear from Department of
Homeland Security today. However, it is my understanding that
the Department was invited to testify only 3 days ago, which I
do not believe constitutes adequate notice for a congressional
hearing. I must also mention that the DHS has indicated its
willingness to work with our committee and testify on this
topic in early March.
And, moreover, we should remember that Department of
Homeland Security is currently less than 2 days away from a
full agency shutdown. While I strongly believe that Congress
must serve an important role in debating and shaping our
Nation's immigration policy, we should not be holding our
Homeland Security funding hostage. We should not be threatening
to furlough approximately 30,000 Department of Homeland
Security employees, and we shouldn't be risking the much-needed
funding for the very law enforcement efforts that we are
seeking to secure here.
This is especially true at a time when the Department and
its more than 240,000 dedicated employees continue to remain on
high alert amidst the threat of international terrorism,
increased cyber attacks on our Nation's government and private
institutions, and natural disasters and emergencies.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this hearing.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hearing
from the Department in the near future as we review our
national immigration enforcement policies. And I also look
forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner as we
examine key policy issues relating to our national security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from the Fifth
District of Arizona, Congressman Matt Salmon, be allowed to
fully participate in today's hearing.
Mr. Lynch. No objection.
Mr. DeSantis. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize Mr. Jordan, chairman of the Subcommittee on
Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules, for his
opening Statement.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman for having this hearing,
and I will try to be brief.
And I want to thank our witnesses, in particular Mr. Shaw
and Mr. Ronnebeck, for being here today and, as family members,
what they have had to go through.
We appreciate you coming forward.
Look, we are having an important debate here in Congress
regarding the Department of Homeland Security. And the debate
centers around--and Mr. Lynch touched on this at the close of
his remarks--centers around the unconstitutional actions of
this President last November.
And so many people know what he did was unconstitutional.
We don't have to take conservative or Republican--we have all
kinds of legal scholars, both liberal and conservative, who say
it is unconstitutional. And now we have a Federal judge who
says it is unlawful.
And yet we invited the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security to come and testify today, and in the midst
of all this and people like Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ronnebeck coming
here to testify, Secretary Johnson said he couldn't make it.
And he couldn't even send a designee.
Now, you would think, with this debate being as big as it
is, the Department could at least come to Congress this week
and testify. I have seen Mr. Johnson on TV every day for the
last week and a half, yet he can't make it to a committee in
front of Congress with this panel? It is ridiculous, just
ridiculous.
So I appreciate this hearing, but the frustrating part is
we don't have the Department here to answer all kinds of
important questions--an important question like this: How can
Congress fund something we all believe is unconstitutional and
a Federal judge has said is unlawful? How can we do that? But
yet that is the position the other side wants to take.
Mr. Lynch just used the term ``hold hostage'' the DHS
funding. We are not holding anything hostage. We are upholding
the Constitution, and we are funding the Department of Homeland
Security. That is the bill that passed. That is the commonsense
bill that passed the House of Representatives.
And yet Secretary Johnson is unwilling to come to the
committee today and answer our questions. It makes no sense. He
can go on TV and talk about it all--he was on every single show
this weekend, but he can't come here in front of Congress, take
a few minutes of his time to maybe answer questions that
families who are here have. He can't do it. Can't do it.
So I appreciate the chairman having this hearing, but it
would have been better if the Department of Homeland Security
would have had the courage to come here today and answer not
just our questions but the questions the American people have
about this important issue on this important date during this
important debate.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair will now recognize the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative
Rules, Mr. Cartwright, for his opening Statement.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I also thank the witnesses for coming today.
And I want to join my colleagues today in thanking you,
particularly, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ronnebeck, and expressing my
deepest condolences for your loss and the loss of your
families.
Let me begin by saying I just returned from the Texas-
Mexico border last week, where I visited both the Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge and also the Donna International Bridge in
south Texas. I was with Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Gil Kerlikowske and also Edward Avalos, the Under
Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the United
States Department of Agriculture. I met with individuals from
CBP, Customs and Border Protection, who work tirelessly to
ensure that our international border is secure.
During the trip, what I witnessed was how vitally important
our trade relationship with Mexico is. My own State of
Pennsylvania exports $3.44 billion worth of goods to Mexico
every year, accounting for almost a quarter-million jobs.
Chemical exports make up our top export sector in Pennsylvania,
accounting for $868 million a year and fully 25 percent of the
State's total exports to Mexico. In addition, another $632
million in primary metal manufacturers are exported to Mexico.
I spent some time on South Main Street in McAllen, Texas,
where I saw block upon block of thriving stores catering to
Mexican nationals who come across the border to the U.S. to do
their shopping and then they return home to Mexico.
Our working relationship with Mexico is enormously
important to our safety and our economic security, and, as I
saw last week, DHS's work is vital to that mission. In fact,
the men and women of DHS do more than secure our border from
undocumented immigrants; they also inspect our imported fruits
and vegetables--I saw this--so as to prevent harmful insects
from infecting the crops in our country.
Without their important work, our agricultural industry
could stand to lose billions and billions of dollars. Mexico is
the largest supplier for fresh and frozen fruit to the U.S. It
accounts for over 30 percent of the volume and the value of
fresh and frozen fruit imports. These men and women at DHS are
integral to keeping our food supply safe.
My trip also confirmed that the administration is shifting
resources to the border to strengthen enforcement efforts. The
administration has been sending hundreds of additional Border
Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, agents to
the border and increasing ground surveillance systems. I spent
time in one of the booths where they interview people coming
across the border, and I saw the technology at work there.
According to the DHS data, the number of Border Patrol
agents increased from 17,499 in 2008 to fully 21,391 at the end
of 2013. In addition, in Fiscal Year 2014, DHS conducted
414,000 removals and 162,000 returns. CBP made 486,000
apprehensions.
I appreciate today's hearing to examine the President's
priorities outlined in the November 20 memorandum. It seems to
me the President is enforcing our laws and focusing his limited
resources on targeting immigrants who are criminals, threats to
national security, and public safety risks.
ICE only has the capability of removing 400,000 illegal
immigrants per year, just 4 percent of the total illegal
immigrant population. Given these limited resources, it is very
important that we spend the money wisely.
I am, however, troubled by this hypocritical effort of some
of my colleagues who are threatening to hold the DHS funding
bill hostage--that is an apt expression--unless it defunds the
President's immigration actions. It is exactly the type of
Washington politics the American people are tired of. The
American people sent us here to pass laws, to work together to
solve problems, not to defund enforcement efforts at our
border.
In our district, in addition, in northeastern Pennsylvania,
our fire companies rely heavily on fire grants to provide much-
needed safety and firefighting capability. That will be stopped
if DHS funding is stopped and there is a DHS shutdown. That is
ridiculous, and it is counterproductive.
I also have questions about some of the President's
actions, but I will not support these destructive efforts by my
colleagues.
And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
Members who would like to submit a written Statement.
We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
to welcome Mr. Scott Jones, Sheriff, Sacramento, California,
County Sheriff's Department; Mr. Jamiel Shaw, Sr., father of
Jamiel Shaw II; Ms. Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies
at the Center for Immigration Studies; and Mr. Gregory Chen,
director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers
Association.
And I am now happy to yield to my colleague from Arizona,
Mr. Salmon, to introduce one of our witnesses that hails from
his district.
Mr. Salmon. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for giving me
the opportunity to introduce Mike Ronnebeck.
Mike, it was great talking to you yesterday. Break a leg
today. I am sure you are going to do great, and your brother
and your family is going to be really proud of what you have
done.
Sadly, Mike is here to tell you about his nephew, my
constituent, Grant Ronnebeck, who was just 21 years old, who
was gunned down at a Mesa convenience store over a package of
cigarettes by an illegal immigrant who was out on bond awaiting
a deportation hearing.
This is a clear example of why we need to address the
failed catch-and-release policies of the Obama Administration.
As of October 2014, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
reported that 35.4 percent of illegal immigrants arrested
within the county and given detainers or holds by ICE are
repeat offenders. That means that they are caught, arrested,
and then they are flagged by ICE, and then they don't know what
happens to them.
Charges against these illegal immigrants have included
kidnapping, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, armed
robbery, sexual abuse, and child molestation. I believe there
is simply no excuse for ICE to be releasing individuals like
this back out onto our streets to endanger and kill hardworking
Americans.
Shockingly, these violent individuals do not roam our
streets due to our lack of knowledge about them; in fact, they
do it in spite of it. In a recent Statement by ICE, the agency
acknowledged that the Maricopa County Superior Court had
notified the agency about this individual's status and his
criminal history but that he had been released pending the
outcome of his case in immigration court due to the Obama
Administration policy.
Thank you for inviting Mike today to tell this story of his
nephew and this vicious crime that has so devaStated our
community in Mesa, Arizona.
God bless you, Mike.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Salmon.
Welcome, all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify.
If you can please rise and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
All witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Thank you, and please be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written Statement will be
made part of the record.
And, with that, Mr. Jones, you are up for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF SCOTT R. JONES
Sheriff Jones. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today.
I am Scott Jones, sheriff of Sacramento County, California,
one of the largest sheriff's departments in the country and a
constituency of over 1.4 million people.
I was invited here today to talk about the national policy
on immigration and how it is affecting law enforcement at the
local level. And I can most easily describe that as there is a
lack of coherent national immigration policy, or what I refer
to as anti-policy, which is an unwillingness by the Federal
Government to enforce the existing policies and laws or, worse
yet, failing to challenge contrary laws and policies
promulgated by the States, advocacy groups, and court
decisions.
I have identified a number of other problems, including the
inability to adequately identify undocumented persons in this
country, that I have put in your reading materials, and I hope
you have an opportunity to read it. But I want to center my
comments today about the Secure Communities and its progeny,
the Priority Enforcement Program, and why that program is not
working.
Both of those programs are dependent on detainers--ICE
serving a detainer on a local jail facility that says
basically, after the local charges are cleared, we want you to
hold this person for no more than 48 hours, someone we've
already identified is in this country illegally, so we can come
to the jail, take custody of them, and do whatever's
appropriate for their purposes. It is crucial for the success
of the Priority Enforcement Program. It is crucial for the
safety of each of our communities.
It is important to note that the Federal Government in the
initial stages of these programs were adamant that these
detainers were mandatory, not permissive or mere suggestions.
Over the last couple of years, as States and advocacy groups
became emboldened and talked about how their assertion was that
they were mere requests and not mandatory, the Federal
Government remained conspicuously silent for a couple of years
and now, lately, has capitulated to these advocacy groups that
they are mere requests, not mandatory, despite the mandatory
nature of this statutory language.
As a result, in-custody ICE arrests in California--perhaps
the Nation, but I know in California--are down 95 percent over
1 year ago today.
So who is making immigration policy if not the Federal
Government? In the lack of the Federal Government coming up
with clear, coherent immigration policy, there is a policy
vacuum. So who's filling that? The States, by coming up with
their own statutory schemes on immigration.
It's important to note that immigration is a plenary
function of the Federal Government. The States have no legal or
statutory authority to come up with any immigration laws
whatsoever. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that
wholly Federal questions are within the exclusive province of
the Federal Government. Yet they feel emboldened to change and
continually add to and modify immigration law because they know
the Federal Government will not challenge them at all.
Also filling this policy vacuum is court decisions and
advocacy groups. In Clackamas County, Oregon, there was a
district court decision that decided that a detainer, ICE
detainer, amounted to an unlawful detention without probable
cause. Now, this law is only applicable to Clackamas County,
Oregon, yet the ACLU used this as a vehicle to write a letter
to every single sheriff threatening a lawsuit based on this
court decision and said that we cannot honor any ICE detainer
for any person, despite their crimes, for any reason.
In looking to the Federal Government to intervene, to
appeal, to challenge that court decision, there is nothing. And
so sheriffs across this country are left with no alternative
other than to not honor any ICE detainers. So anybody coming in
on fresh charges throughout California and, indeed, most of the
country is getting in and out of custody through bail, law, or
any other release mechanism without appropriate identification
and scrutiny from ICE. The detainer is not working.
So the ACLU, in effect, has created, established, and
effected national policy on immigration and will continue to do
so unless the Federal Government takes up its charge to do so.
Make no mistake about it: The safety and security of this
Nation and its communities is eroding at an unprecedented rate,
and the Federal Government has been a spectator at best and a
willing participant at worst.
So what must be done? First of all, the Federal Government
must take the lead in the national immigration discussion and,
by doing that, challenge any contrary law, policy, advocacy, or
assertion by courts' decision, by advocacy groups, or by States
that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government's plan.
They must stand with their law enforcement partners, like
myself. If they don't, if they continue not to stand with us,
then we are left to blow in whatever political wind is blowing
in our States and in our communities, and we, too, will become
de facto vehicles and instruments for advocacy groups like the
ACLU.
They must fix the broken detainer system--it does not
work--by either changing their stance on their policy, by
changing the law, or by changing their practice. There are ways
to do it.
I remain deeply committed to this issue and will do
whatever I can as an individual for the purposes of advancing
this.
I thank you very much for your time, and I will take any
questions that the committee may have.
[Prepared Statement of Sheriff Jones follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
The chair now recognizes Jamiel Shaw, Sr., for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMIEL SHAW, SR.
Mr. Shaw. Good morning, Chairman DeSantis and Ranking
Member Lynch. My name is Jamiel Shaw. My son, Jamiel Andre Shaw
II, was murdered by a DREAMer, a DACA recipient, a child
brought to this country by no fault of his own. My family's
peace and freedom were stolen by an illegal alien from Mexico.
He was brought here by his illegal alien parents and allowed to
grow up as a wild animal.
Some people believe that if you are brought over by no
fault of your own that it makes you a good person. They want us
to believe that DREAM Act kids don't murder. I am here to
debunk that myth. Kids brought over the border by no fault of
their own do kill Americans.
How many Americans killed by illegal aliens are too many?
One? Two? Hundred? Thousand? Hundred thousand? Ask any parent
whose child was murdered by an illegal alien how many is too
many. As one of those parents, I am here to tell you that one
is too many.
My son, Jamiel Shaw II, was murdered while walking on his
own street. Three houses down from his home, an illegal alien
on his third gun charge was visiting a neighbor when my son was
coming home. He shot my son in the stomach and then in the
head, killing him. Do black lives really matter, or does it
matter only if you are shot by a white person or a white
policeman?
The district attorney proved in court that my son was
murdered because he was black and wearing a Spiderman backpack.
Jamiel's mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, who was serving in
Iraq fighting for their freedom, called me from Iraq to ask was
it true that Jazz was dead. And ``Jazz'' is the name we call
our son, his nickname.
How many other military families have made that same phone
call from some foreign land, in disbelief that their sons or
daughters have been killed in America by illegal alien
invaders? Do military families matter?
DREAM Act kids have turned my family's American Dream into
a nightmare. The illegal alien DREAMer that murdered my son
only served 4 months of an 8-month sentence for assault with a
deadly weapon and battery on a police officer. He was released
from the county jail the day before he executed my son.
Why was this violent illegal alien allowed to walk the
streets of America instead of being deported? Why was ICE not
called to pick up this violent invader? We were promised that
the Federal Government would keep us safe from violent illegal
aliens. Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution
guarantees us protection against invasion.
I see in here black politicians, black athletes, black
stars say, ``Hands up, don't shoot.'' My son was shot in the
head by an illegal alien gangbanger while he lay on his back
with his hands up. He still shot him through his hand into his
head and killed him.
My son thought he could walk down the street and not be
murdered by an illegal alien, that he could depend on the
government to secure our borders and keep the bad people out.
Yes, black families matter. Yes, military families matter. All
families matter. But the duty of the U.S. Government is to
always put American families first.
Honorable Chairman--I had a different name, I'm sorry--
Honorable Chairman, Ranking Member, today's hearing was called
to review the Department of Homeland Security's policies and
procedures for the apprehension and detention and release of
noncitizens unlawfully present in the United States.
In his November 20, 2014, speech to the Nation on
immigration, President Obama said, ``If you are a criminal,
you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally,
your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.''
The President said he wanted to work with both parties to pass
a more permanent legislative solution.
The President also said, ``And to those Members of Congress
who question my authority to make our immigration system work
better or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has
failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.''
In three of the past four Congresses, Representative Walter
Jones has introduced the Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act,
which would address many of the issues this hearing was called
to discuss, but could never get a hearing. In the 113th
Congress, Representative Jones renamed the bill after my son,
H.R. 1888, the Jamiel Shaw, Jr., Memorial Act of 2013. It never
got a hearing.
As we sit here today, I offer for consideration H.R. 1041,
Jamiel Shaw II Memorial Act of 2015. It is only two pages long
but chops at the root of the problem.
Until the FBI is allowed to track and report illegal alien
crime, it is doubtful that the American people will understand
how severe the problem of violent illegal alien crime is.
I doubt any 10 people would define ``comprehensive
immigration reform'' the same way, but I can assure you that
what we really need is comprehensive immigration enforcement,
secure borders and ports of entry, and the oversight of
Congress to ensure that America and American families are job
one.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for your testimony.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Ronnebeck for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RONNEBECK
Mr. Ronnebeck. Thank you.
Good morning, distinguished committee members. My name is
Michael Ronnebeck. I am here on behalf of the Ronnebeck family.
I'd like to tell you about my nephew Grant Ronnebeck.
Grant was a 21-year-old son, brother, nephew, and grandson.
He was a bright young man with an infectious smile and a love
of life. He had a positive outlook on life, and everyone he met
knew it.
As a 21-year-old American, he was just starting out in
life--starting out to realize his dreams, starting to follow
his heart in manners of career choices, and just discovering
his life choices. His desire was to work his way up at the job
he loved, working for the QuikTrip Corporation, as he had for
the previous 5 years, or, possibly later, to become a member of
the law enforcement community.
He loved four-wheeling in the desert around his home near
Mesa, Arizona, and spending time with friends and family
watching the Broncos play during the football season. He was a
pretty typical young American man, but to us he was a very
special family and community member.
At 4 a.m. On June 22, 2015, while working the overnight
shift at his QuikTrip store, Grant assisted a man buying
cigarettes. The man dumped a jar of coins on the counter and
demanded cigarettes. Grant tried explaining that he needed to
count the coins before he could give the man the cigarettes.
The man then pulled the gun and Stated, ``You're not going to
take my money, and you're not going to give me my cigarettes.''
Grant immediately offered up the cigarettes to the man, who
shot him in the face, killing him.
Seemingly unaffected and callously, the man stepped over
Grant's body, grabbed a couple of packs of cigarettes, and then
left the store. After a 30-minute high-speed chase through the
streets of Mesa and Phoenix, Arizona, the man was taken into
custody. Inside his car were the cigarettes, at least two
handguns, and shell casings from the 9-millimeter handgun
believed to have been used to kill Grant.
Apolinar Altamirano, the alleged murderer, is an illegal
immigrant. According to a news article detailing his 2012
arrest, he's a self-proclaimed member of the Mexican mafia and
says he has ties to the Sinaloa drug cartel.
The news article States that in August 2012 he was arrested
with two others after kidnapping, sexual assaulting, and
burglarizing a woman in her apartment. He took a plea deal and
pled guilty to a charge of felony burglary for that incident.
He was sentenced to 2 years' probation and turned over to the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency due to his
undocumented status in the United States. He never served time
in custody. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency
released the now-convicted felon, Altamirano, on bond pending a
deportation hearing.
In the 2 years since then, while awaiting his deportation
hearing, Altamirano has had two orders of protection filed
against him, including one from a woman who claimed he
threatened to kill her and pointed a gun at her boyfriend. The
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was notified of the
protection orders by a Mesa superior court judge. Altamirano
was still allowed to be free in our country.
Your peer Representative Matt Salmon said it clearly in a
colleague letter to you. ``I believe there is simply no excuse
for ICE to be releasing individuals like this back onto our
streets to endanger and kill hardworking Americans.'' I have to
agree with Mr. Salmon's assessment; my family also agrees with
Mr. Salmon. ICE should be doing its job for the American people
with the American people's safety and security first and
foremost in mind.
It is my family's greatest desire that Grant's legacy will
be more than a fading obituary, a cemetery plot, or a fond
memory. Instead, we want Grant's death to be a force for change
and reform the immigration policies of this great Nation.
In closing, I am asking you, our elected scholars, lawyers,
and community leaders, to make these changes, to rise above
your political differences, to set aside your personal
interests, and to use your resources to make sensible
immigration reform a reality in the coming months so that
tragedies like this may not occur again.
Thank you.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Ronnebeck follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Ronnebeck.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Vaughan for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN
Ms. Vaughan. Good morning. And thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
There can be no doubt that immigration enforcement is in a
State of collapse. Even as the number of new illegal arrivals
is going up, the number of deportations is going down. And many
of those apprehended are released, and their cases are funneled
onto the dockets of the dysfunctional immigration courts, with
hearings put off for years into the future, enabling them to
remain and work here, with the expectation that they may
eventually someday be given legal status.
Today, the vast majority of illegal aliens residing here
face no threat of deportation regardless of when or how they
arrived, even if they are arrested and, now, even if they have
been deported before. It's no exaggeration to say that, under
the Obama Administration, the Department of Homeland Security
is running a giant catch-and-release program.
This is not because of lack of resources or flaws in the
law or because there are fewer illegal immigrants. It is the
result of calculated policy choices made by the Obama
Administration aimed at dismantling the immigration enforcement
system.
We can trace this to two types of policy changes: first, a
so-called prioritization scheme that shields from enforcement
all but the most egregious criminals and immigration violators.
And it's one thing to say that these are the priorities,
but, at the same time, the administration has abandoned
important tools that enable ICE officers, agents, and attorneys
to do their job in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Among the tools that have been abandoned: detainers, which
enable ICE officers to take custody of aliens who have been
arrested by local law enforcement agencies; accelerated forms
of due process, which avoid the need for long, drawn-out
proceedings in the clogged immigration courts; and partnerships
with local law enforcement agencies to identify and remove
criminal aliens in jurisdictions where ICE can't cover its
workload.
The drop in enforcement activity had become particularly
acute since the President's controversial Executive actions
were announced in November, which spelled out new restrictions
on enforcement. We are told that these policies are smarter and
more effective, but, in fact, they impose enormous costs on
American communities--not just distorted labor markets and
higher tax bills for social welfare benefits but, more
specifically, a real and present threat to the public safety
from criminal aliens that ICE officers are told to release
instead of detain and remove. ICE's mandated over-focus on
processing only the worst of the worst criminal aliens means
that too many of the worst deportable criminal aliens are still
at large in our communities.
Anyone who claims that immigration enforcement today is
robust, effective, or record-setting is massaging statistics,
making apples-to-oranges comparisons, or citing numbers from
programs that have been discontinued, like Operation
Streamline. The true State of enforcement is plainly evident in
Department of Homeland Security's own statistics and can also
be discerned by listening to career DHS personnel and local law
enforcement agencies.
Let's review just a few metrics. Border apprehensions,
which are considered an indicator of illegal crossing attempts,
have risen by more than 40 percent since 2011. This is mainly
due to the surge of new illegal family and juvenile arrivals in
south Texas. But apprehensions don't tell the whole story.
Nearly all of these arrivals have been and are still being
released into the country, usually to join family, instead of
repatriated.
The number of overall deportations--and that means all
deportations, not just removals--by all three enforcement
agencies has declined by nearly 40 percent since 2009. This is
the lowest number since 1973. Deportations from the interior
have dropped even more, 58 percent, since the peak in 2009.
While Obama Administration officials claim that their
policy changes have improved public safety by allowing ICE to
focus on criminal aliens, in fact, the number of criminal
aliens deported from the interior has declined by 43 percent
since 2012. This has occurred despite increases in the number
of criminal aliens identified by ICE as a result of Secure
Communities.
ICE is doing less enforcement with more resources than ever
before, as officers are forced to take a pass on hundreds of
thousands of deportable aliens that are brought to their
attention, usually after a local arrest.
As of mid-January 2015, there were 167,527 convicted
criminal aliens on ICE's docket who had received final orders
of removal but who had not departed and were at large in the
United States after release by ICE and a similar number who are
in pending deportation proceedings. Meanwhile, ICE is not using
detention capacity that is provided to it each year by
Congress.
Allowing so many deportable aliens, especially criminal
aliens, to remain at large in our communities means what little
effort the government makes to deport them is ultimately not
successful. And the main reason for that is because many of the
aliens who are released instead of kept in custody simply don't
comply if they are not detained. And there's a human cost to
these policies.
Congress is not helpless in the face of the President's
abuse of authority. One of the most urgent tasks now before
them is to restore integrity to our immigration laws by ending
this massive catch-and-release scheme that wastes government
resources and endangers the public.
Thank you.
[Prepared Statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Chen for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY Z. CHEN
Mr. Chen. Good morning. Thank you, chairmen and ranking
members and members of the subcommittee. I am honored to be
able to testify here before you today.
I also want to offer my sincere condolences to my fellow
panelists and their family members who have lost loved ones to
unspeakable crimes that no one can condone. And I think we all
agree that keeping our communities safe is an incredibly
important priority.
Turning to the subject of today's hearing, our Federal
Government is enforcing immigration law at unprecedented
levels. The funding for immigration enforcement has steadily
increased and now averages over $18.5 billion annually. And
that's more than all the other criminal law enforcement
agencies combined in the Federal Government, the FBI, DEA, ATF,
and the Marshals Service included.
In the first 6 years of the Obama Administration, DHS
removed about 2.4 million people, and that's more than any
other President. Immigration detention, in fact, continues to
rise, and more than 440,000 individuals are detained each year,
costing about $2 billion annually to American taxpayers.
The Department of Justice is prosecuting more people now
than at any time in history for the Federal crimes of illegal
entry and reentry. And we have more Border Patrol agents,
border fencing, drones, and other methods of border
surveillance than at any time in U.S. history.
Now, even at these current unprecedented levels of
enforcement, the Federal Government cannot possibly detain,
apprehend, and remove everyone who is living unauthorized in
the U.S. Just like any other law enforcement agency, DHS must
choose priorities. It makes more sense and will keep our Nation
safer to focus on those who present real threats to national
security and public safety.
Now, it is AILA's judgment that the DAPA and DACA programs
are valid exercises of prosecutorial discretion that rest
within DHS's legal authority. Many local law enforcement
leaders across the country agree. And, in fact, the Major
Cities Chief Association and many individual sheriffs and
police chiefs support these deferred action programs announced
by the President, and they've Stated publicly that the Federal
Government's ability to exercise discretion in immigration
enforcement actually promotes public safety.
Now, with respect to immigration detention, such detention
is a proper government function, but it must be done within the
boundaries of the Constitution and our laws.
From a legal perspective, immigration detention serves a
civil purpose and is not a form of criminal punishment.
Typically, those convicted of crimes who are subject to removal
face immigration detention after they complete their period of
incarceration as criminal punishment. Now, in those cases where
ICE has custody of an individual and has the legal authority
and discretion to detain or release that individual, it is
required to evaluate whether that person poses a flight risk
and a risk to public safety before it releases that person.
Now, the Constitution and our laws also protect individuals
from the unfair deprivation of their liberty, and that concept
must be balanced. AILA is gravely concerned about DHS's
detention of families who have fled persecution from Central
America. Last year, the refugee crisis in Central America
resulted in a large surge that had been growing steadily in the
years before of families and children coming to our border
seeking asylum protection.
Volunteer AILA lawyers have represented about 1,200 of
these people voluntarily, in pro bono capacity. We have found
and government statistics also confirm that extremely high
percentages of these detained women and their young children
are likely to qualify for asylum. But the Obama Administration
responded by escalating the use of detention on thousands of
families in order to deter more from coming to our borders.
Just last week, on February 20, a Federal district court
enjoined DHS from detaining certain families for the purpose of
such deterrence of future immigration. The Federal court's
decision underscores a broader principle that detention must be
justified on specific information demonstrating a safety threat
and that general assertions of such dangers are not going to be
adequate for detention purposes.
In summary, enforcement is occurring at very high levels--
in fact, at unprecedented levels on many metrics. DHS is
focused on national security, border security, and those
convicted of crimes, and that's intended to improve public
safety. Enforcement, of course, is bound by the Constitution,
and it must be balanced, however, by the principles in our
Constitution that undergird and are the founding concepts of
our Nation.
Thank you.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Chen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. I thank the witnesses.
The chair would ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a letter sent by myself and Chairman Chaffetz dated
January 29, 2015, to Secretary Jeh Johnson asking for the
information in DHS's files about the man who killed Grant
Ronnebeck.
Without objection?
Mr. Cartwright. Without objection.
Mr. Cartwright. And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous
consent also to enter into the record a letter dated February
22, 2015, from Brian de Vallance from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security noting that the invitation to Secretary
Johnson was received late Thursday, allowing less than 1 full
business day to prepare testimony, but also inviting the
committees and subcommittees to reschedule, particularly
offering the dates March 11, 12, or 19 or any other dates that
would be convenient for the subcommittees.
Mr. DeSantis. All right. Without objection, both will be
entered in the record.
Mr. DeSantis. Some of those days are recess dates, but we
appreciate it.
I would note that Chairman Chaffetz and I sent this letter
January 29 to try to get some answers for the Ronnebeck family
and the American people. We asked for the file to be provided
to us by February 4. To this date, we have not received a reply
from that letter, and I think that's very disappointing.
And so some of the protests about not having enough time I
don't think are as credible when you view it against the
background of basically thumbing the nose at the committee for
the past month.
And, with that, the chair will recognize himself for a
period of 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there appears to be
some lack of clarity as to whether our able colleague
Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham has been formally assigned
to this Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and
Administrative Rules.
To clear up any confusion, I ask unanimous consent that
Congresswoman Lujan Grisham be able to participate fully in our
hearing today.
Mr. DeSantis. Without objection, so ordered.
The chair now recognizes himself for a period of 5 minutes.
Mr. Shaw, thank you for your testimony. I was on the
Judiciary Committee last year when you testified. You were very
powerful. It made quite an impact on me in terms of how I view
this issue.
Can you just describe, how has this event impacted your
family?
Mr. Shaw. Oh, it's pretty much--like Obama said, it
fundamentally transformed us. You know, I mean, we are--it's
been 7 years, and me, personally, I still don't even believe it
happened. You know, my brain, I'm still asking is it true and
stuff like that.
You know, my son's mother, she's still in the military.
She's at Fort Hood, Texas, right now. So she's grieving, you
know. She hasn't been the same since.
My other son was 8 years old at the time; he's now 16. And
we're scared for him, you know. He's living in the Army base in
Fort Hood because we think that's safer than L.A.
So, you know, my mother, the whole family is--we are all
just devaStated.
Mr. DeSantis. Is there any doubt in your mind that your
son's death could have been prevented?
Mr. Shaw. Oh, yes, definitely. We see it as being murdered
by invisible people, because he shouldn't have even been here.
So he shouldn't be dead, you know? If the Homeland Security or
ICE would secure the border, he would have never been here, you
know.
He was brought over at 4 years old. And like they say, they
think just because you're brought over, then you're like a
child of God, so they don't even watch them. You know, the guy
who murdered my son was in the country 15 years before he
killed my son. So that shows that just because they're brought
over as kids, that doesn't mean for the future--you know,
you're putting everybody in jeopardy for in the future that it
might happen.
So you check them early. You have to do your job, secure
the border. That's the main thing.
Mr. DeSantis. When you hear that 36,000 convicted criminals
who were in the country illegally were released in 2013 and now
1,000 of those have already been convicted of new crimes, what
do you think of that?
Mr. Shaw. You know, to be truthful, it pisses me off. I
hate to say it like that, but it does.
Because the guy who murdered my son, he was in a car with
two other people. The guy in the backseat was just there
because he had to document that he got out of the car and he
killed somebody black. He had to be there to document it. The
guy in the backseat has since murdered someone since then. So
someone else's child was murdered, like, 3 years after my son,
but it could've been avoided if they would have deported him.
They just--it's just--no one--we feel like no one cares.
Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Ronnebeck, thank you for your testimony.
And please accept my condolences for your family's loss.
How has the family been impacted by Grant's murder?
Mr. Ronnebeck. You know, this can only be described as a
family's worst nightmare.
Grant was such a lively young man and a loving young man.
He was a mentor to his younger brother. He was, you know, by
all accounts of my brother, who is Grant's father, he was just
one of the best kids that a parent could ever have.
You know, I wish I could say that the pain is quickly going
away, but it isn't. It's going to be a long time.
Mr. DeSantis. Now, in your opinion, obviously, with the
circumstances involved and the murderer being convicted and
then being detained and released, is it your opinion that this
death could have been prevented had government done a better
job here?
Mr. Ronnebeck. Absolutely. You know, this guy was a
convicted felon that ICE released. I mean, they never even had
him in custody. They released him on a bond. If he had remained
in their custody and had been deported, this wouldn't have
happened.
Mr. DeSantis. And I will ask the same question I asked of
Mr. Shaw. When you hear that just 2 years ago 36,000 criminals
were convicted who were in the country illegally, they've been
released, and now, of those, 1,000 have already been convicted
of new crimes, how do you feel about that?
Mr. Ronnebeck. It makes me angry. It is just ludicrous that
the policies of our Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency
are that flawed that they are allowing these criminals to go
free.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Ms. Vaughan, we hear talking points about the number of
removals being high under President Barack Obama's
administration and that they're higher than they've ever been
under previous administrations.
But isn't the reason for that that they changed the
criteria for what counts as a removal, so you're counting
people under President Obama's administration who would not
have been even been counted under Bush, Clinton, or Reagan?
Ms. Vaughan. That's exactly right. And Secretary Johnson
has testified to this exact point, that the numbers today are
not comparable with prior administrations. What they've done is
taken cases from the Border Patrol that get turned over to ICE
for processing, and they're counting those for ICE and
sometimes also for the Border Patrol.
So it's important to look at removals of all three DHS
agencies, to look at returns and removals, and, in particular,
to look at what's happening in the interior of the country
because that's what people notice and that's where the public
safety problems are created, when ICE is not deporting people
from the interior of the country. Right now, two-thirds of the
deportations that ICE is taking credit for are actually people
who were arrested by the Border Patrol.
Mr. DeSantis. We've also heard about how some of the
released criminals, DHS, they had to release them, that was
kind of the law. Can you speak to that? Are these discretionary
or are they all just mandatory where there's no other option?
Ms. Vaughan. There are some of them that are
nondiscretionary, a small number. I was told that approximately
3,000 of the 36,000 from 2013 were due to the Zadvydas decision
that was referenced earlier. Most of them, though, are the
result of the prosecutorial discretion policies, the
prioritization, that ICE agents are told they're not to take
action against most of the people that they encounter, and so
they get released.
Mr. DeSantis. And my final question is, there are instances
in which you will have somebody who is in the country
illegally, they'll get convicted of a serious criminal offense.
Maybe DHS will went to return them to their home countryand
maybe there's resistance from the home government. But isn't
there a provision of the law that if that happens, the DHS
Secretary is supposed to notify the Secretary of State so that
the Secretary of State can suspend visas from that country
until they accept their national, correct?
Ms. Vaughan. That's right.
Mr. DeSantis. And has Secretary Johnson or his predecessor,
have they ever, to your knowledge, notified State that some of
these countries are not accepting these criminal--their foreign
nationals?
Ms. Vaughan. My understanding is that they have not asked
the Secretary of State to impose visa sanctions.
Mr. DeSantis. My time has expired. The chair now recognizes
Mr. Lynch--who is not here. So I'll recognize Mr. Cartwright
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
We've now heard your testimony, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ronnebeck.
And, again, I want to express my heartfelt condolences. And I
know I speak for everyone on both sides of this panel in saying
that.
Mr. Ronnebeck, you're still reeling from this recent loss.
But as you said, the pain doesn't go away.
And, Mr. Shaw, your loss was in March 2008. And I think you
probably agree with that, don't you?
Mr. Shaw. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. So, again, deepest condolences.
I was pleased to learn that just yesterday Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell decided to stop the process going on by
his Republicans colleagues in the Senate, decided to move
through the Senate a 4-year DHS funding bill without provisions
to defund the administration's immigration policies. He also
said the Senate will vote separately on a bill that halts the
administration's actions on immigration.
The Senate is expected to vote on the funding measure as
early as today, but Senate Democratic leaders want assurance
from House Speaker John Boehner that he will take up the bill
before Friday's deadline. Speaker Boehner really has to put an
end to this showdown and agree to bring up the clean DHS
funding bill to the floor as soon as it passes the Senate. This
is the very least we can do for the American people. And as Mr.
Lynch indicated, the Democrats will support the Speaker if he
brings up such a clean bill. In fact, every single Democrat
cosponsored a clean DHS funding bill already. And so all
Speaker Boehner has to do is bring it up for a vote, fund our
law enforcement agency, debate policy, pass laws.Is that too
much to ask?
So I'm sick and tired of what may fairly be called
hypocritical actions by some of my colleagues across the aisle.
It doesn't make any sense to criticize the administration for
not enforcing our immigrations laws and then threaten to shut
down the very agency responsible for enforcing those laws.
Now, Mr. Chen, my question is for you. Do you agree that it
is the responsibility of the Congress to fund the Department of
Homeland Security?
Mr. Chen. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
I do agree that funding the Department of Homeland Security
is going to be an important step to be able to ensure that
Homeland Security operations and protecting our Nation's
borders and public safety is an important thing that needs to
be done by Congress. And it's very difficult to be able to have
those operations continue, if we talk about any of the
enforcement operations, if Congress doesn't continue to fund
it.
Mr. Cartwright. Do you agree, Mr. Chen, that it is wise for
House leadership to leave the immigration debate out of the DHS
funding measure and bring up a DHS funding measure on a clean
funding measure basis?
Mr. Chen. Well, AILA's position with respect to the
executive actions is that they are within the President's legal
authority. I understand that there's deep controversy about the
wisdom of those decisions, as well as the constitutionality.
The funding of the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill needs to move forward.
And immigration is an issue that AILA is incredibly
invested in, in terms of having immigration reform happen
legislatively. AILA's concern is that to have it happen in such
a short period of time, such as being attached to an
appropriations bill, is probably not the right venue to do it,
given the limited amount of time and the debate needed to have
a discussion, a real debate on immigration reform.
Mr. Cartwright. And I agree with that. I think that the
funding of DHS is so important, because these are the people
that process the Fire grants that are so important to fire
companies all over the United States. They ensure not only the
safety of the fire men and women, but also the folks who call
them in the middle of the night.
So it is utterly irresponsible for us to shut down DHS
while we wrangle over some side political show. Even Speaker
Boehner's Republican colleagues in the Senate have come to
their senses about this, and I submit that it is time for
Speaker Boehner to do the same, bring up a clean DHS funding
bill, and let's act like grownups around here.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Benefits
Subcommittee, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania said that we haven't funded the Department of
Homeland Security. Last I remember, we actually passed a bill
that completely funds the Department of Homeland Security.
So, Ms. Vaughan, when the U.S. House of Representatives
passes legislation that funds the Department of Homeland
Security at levels the Democrats agreed to, would you think
that that's actually funding the Department of Homeland
Security?
Ms. Vaughan. The bill was passed that would fund the
agency. What it would not fund are the President's overreach of
authority.
Mr. Jordan. Exactly. Right. So to say we haven't funded DHS
is just flatout wrong. We have funded DHS at exactly the level
the Democrats wanted it funded. But what we also said was that
the actions the President took in November we think are wrong.
Would you agree with that, Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. I would. And the bill that the House passed,
in fact, would address the issues that we're talking about
today because it would roll back the executive actions that
prevent ICE from doing its job.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. Now, I'm not the expert you are, but I
actually think what the President did was, in November, was
unconstitutional. Would you agree, Ms. Vaughan, that it was
unconstitutional, the President's actions? Five million folks.
Would you agree that's unconstitutional, what the President did
in November?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes. In my opinion, it is an abuse of
executive authority.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. And you don't have to take my word or your
word or all the other legal scholars who said it, we actually
had a Federal judge, right, just a week ago who said what the
President did was unlawful, correct?
Ms. Vaughan. That's right.
Mr. Jordan. All right. So when the previous speaker, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, said is it too much to ask for the
House to pass a bill and fund DHS, A, we've done that, right,
Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, we passed it. It passed the House. There
was a vote taken. I remember. I voted. It's over there. It's
been there for over a month. So we've done it. But we did make
clear in that legislation that we think it's unconstitutional.
We take an oath, we just took it last month when we were sworn
in, an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe it's
unconstitutional. I don't know how we couldn't put the language
in the bill that we did. And, oh, by the way, a Federal judge
has agreed with us and said it's unlawful.
So the real question to ask my colleagues on the other side
is, is it too much to ask Democrats, is it too much to ask them
to say, you know what, let's pass a bill that agrees with the
Federal judge and doesn't fund something that he said was
unlawful? Isn't that the central question, Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes. And my understanding is that the Senate
would like to have a debate on it, but the Democrats are
preventing that debate from starting.
Mr. Jordan. Exactly. We can't even pass something a Federal
judge says makes sense, the American people understand makes
sense, you understand makes sense, that everyone gets. We can't
pass it. We can't even debate it. They won't even let it be
debated.
So when they use the term, my friends on the other side use
the term ``hold hostage,'' you got to be kidding me. They won't
even debate it? So if anyone is holding anything hostage, it's
the folks in the Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, who won't
even talk about it. We're willing to talk about it. They're not
willing to talk about it. Secretary Johnson was invited to be
here today to talk about it. He won't even come. He can go on
every stinking TV show there is, but he can't come answer our
questions and the American people's questions, and particularly
questions from families who were wronged by some of the very
actions taken by this administration's immigration decisions.
For the life of me, this boggles my mind. Why in the world
do Democrats insist upon language in a bill to fund something
everyone knows is unconstitutional and a Federal judge has
ruled is unlawful? That's their position. And somehow, oh, no,
it's Republicans doing the wrong thing? You've got to be
kidding me.
Mr. DeSantis. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Jordan. I'd be happy to yield because I want someone to
give me an answer to that commonsense question that we keep
asking the Senate. So I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, because we talk about a clean bill, and
people use that term. Wouldn't the definition of a clean bill
mean a bill that funds the statutes as they actually exist and
that is consistent with existing law? And if you're actually
funding things that were not constitutional, I wouldn't want
that. I wouldn't say that was clean. I would say that's a dirty
bill. That's a violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Jordan. The chairman makes a great point. Clean
legislation is legislation that's consistent with the Federal
judge's ruling last week. That's what our bill does. We want to
make sure TSA agents are paid, our Coast Guard is paid, our
border security. We want to make sure everyone who is doing the
good work that needs to be done gets paid, but we want to do it
in a way that's consistent with the Federal judge's decision
and the oath we took when we were sworn in just a month ago.
Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
And first of all, thank you, Mr. Jones. I was in the
California State Legislature for nearly a decade. Thank you for
keeping the communities around us safe.
And to Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ronnebeck, I am very sorry for your
losses. And nothing I can say or can do will bring those people
back. But I get the sense from you that you would like to see
some changes so that this doesn't happen in the future, and I
share with you those views.
But for us to get something done, the Founders put in a
separation of powers. So not only do we need the executive
branch to agree, we need Congress to agree, then we need the
courts to sign off on it. And I want to delve a little more
into the Supreme Court case that appears to put some
restrictions on DHS.
Senator Grassley made an inquiry that 36,000 criminal
immigrant detainees were released by ICE in Fiscal Year 2013.
And then ICE responded, and I would like to enter into the
record ICE's response to Senator Grassley, which is date
stamped August 15, 2014.
Mr. Lieu. And that response Stated, ``ICE had no discretion
for the releases of many of these individuals.''
And so my question to Mr. Chen is, I just want to make
sure, is it true that ICE further Stated that some of these
nondiscretionary releases were, in fact, due to the Supreme
Court's ruling and not because ICE just decided to do it.
Mr. Chen. I can't speak to what ICE said before. But my
understanding is that, yes, many of those releases--I don't
know all the circumstances around each one of them and I'm not
here to testify on behalf of the Department of Homeland
Security--but the Supreme Court ruling that Ranking Member
Lynch mentioned before, Zadvydas v. Davis from 2001, does, in
fact, place restrictions on when Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement and for how long it can detain an individual.
Yes, there are countries that delay or refuse to accept
their nationals back after they've been ordered removed. And
ICE, the Supreme Court said, cannot indefinitely hold those
individuals here in the United States.
And one other thing that I would mention is that ICE has
taken efforts to hold individuals under special circumstances
beyond the presumptive 6-month period that the Zadvydas court
mentioned, people who pose extreme danger to the community. It
has taken those steps, and there are people who actually have
been detained for years now. They are people who have committed
unspeakable crimes, and I don't think anybody would disagree
that those individuals probably pose real dangers to the
community. But ICE has made those efforts to extend the
detention of those individuals pursuant to the Zadvydas ruling
and the rules that have followed.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. And I'd just note that when people
read ICE's response to Senator Grassley, you'll see that of the
169 ICE detainees with homicide-related convictions who were
released in 2013, 154 were released pursuant to court order.
And I want to sort of bring up another point, which is that
this problem is not particularly unique in terms of release to
undocumented aliens. In California we shifted tens of thousands
of convicted felons from Federal prisons to local jails.
Because the jails are overcrowded, many of them were released.
And they were releasing convicted, dangerous sex offenders, for
example. One had been released over a dozen times and then
killed someone.
So I authored a law last year that actually said, no, no,
no, you need to hold these people in these jails. But it's a
resource issue. And so there had to be more funding to allow
for that to happen. And it's my hope that we can increase
revenues through the Federal budget which would allow us to
give more resources to all Federal departments, including DHS.
And if we can fund DHS, that would certainly be of immense help
to making sure that things like this don't happen in the
future. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Russell [presiding]. The gentlemen yields back his
time. The chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes.
The real issue here is both domestic and also a national
security issue. One of the things that we see is that States
are frustrated, as Mr. Jones has attested to in his law
enforcement capacity. A lack of action by Federal enforcement
has only demoralized State and local law officials. Many
efforts to aid Federal immigration enforcement could be very
successful, But when they're turned in, they're merely
released. In my home State of Oklahoma, they even had the
provisions to, when they did make apprehensions, to turn these
individuals over to ICE, even paying for the transportation and
incurring those costs. The result was, however, that nothing
happened. They were released.
Article IV, Section 4, it is very, very clear that it says
that the government has a responsibility to protect States
against invasion, as was pointed out by Mr. Shaw. And yet the
Preamble of the Constitution says that we have a requirement to
provide for the common defense. Now, we've heard an awful lot
of talk about what the Constitution is. I've been defending it
since I was 18 years of age in a previous life and now as a
Member of Congress.
The concern in an illegal transnational terrorist entrant,
who can be found in no data base, could now be characterized as
a nondeportable. He could be free to remain, plot, plan, aid,
abet the harm of the United States and its people.
And my question for Mr. Chen is, do you believe, as my
colleague from Pennsylvania has Stated, that upholding the
Constitution is some side political show.
Mr. Chen. I'm not sure I understand the question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Russell. Do you believe that upholding the Constitution
is a side political show?
Mr. Chen. AILA, as attorneys that represent businesses,
families, individuals across the country every day, certainly
believes in the importance of upholding the Constitution.
Mr. Russell. I agree.
Mr. Chen. With regard to the politics, we don't have a
comment.
Mr. Russell. Well, then Article I, Section 8, Congress
shall have the power to--and a long list of powers that it
retains--establish a uniform naturalization rule. Who has the
power under Article I, Section 8, in that explicit language in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?
Mr. Chen. I would have to defer that question. I am not
familiar with that particular provision.
Mr. Russell. Article I, Section 8, Congress shall have the
power to establish a uniform naturalization rule. It's pretty
clear. Article IV, Section 4, we have protection against
invasion, which we Stated earlier. How do you believe the
President's immigration actions--when you have the legislative
branch of government, you have the judiciary branch of
government, and now even the executive branch of government in
agreement when the President Stated 22 times he had no
authority to do what he did, and yet here we are--how do you
believe that the President's immigration actions uphold the
Constitution and the security of the United States?
Mr. Chen. As I mentioned before, AILA does believe and, by
our legal analysis, it is our view that the November 20 reforms
are legal and also constitute good policy with respect to
immigration reform. The basis for that legal authority draws
from the inherent authority of the law enforcement agencies to
set priorities. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the well-
established principles of setting those kind of enforcement
priorities. That has been a practice that has been done by law
enforcement agencies historically. Legacy Immigration and
Naturalization Service used that practice. And Presidents
before President Obama exercised prosecutorial discretion.
Mr. Russell. They did with the authority of the Congress,
Mr. Chen, not on executive action unilaterally.
How many other than Mexicans, OTM's classified, cross our
southern border a year? We have evidence thatindividuals from
Afghanistan, Iraq, two places that I've fought as a combat
infantryman, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Venezuela,
and Egypt have crossed into our border. Do you think this poses
a threat to the United States?
Mr. Chen. I don't have any specific information about those
individuals that you mentioned. As we all know, the border
security, Customs and Border Protection, are charged with
screening those individuals very carefully. But I can't speak
to----
Mr. Russell. And so on a screen, then what would happen if
they can find really no evidence and they can't run, they're
not in any kind of data base, are they or are they not just
deferred and put into some type of hearing status? And could
they be at large in the United States?
Mr. Chen. Well, as I mentioned before, substantial
background checks and security checks are done on individuals
upon entry, especially if they have those kinds of records.
Those individuals should be screened out. People who request
visas are also screened very carefully at the Department of
State in the consular process to make sure that they don't have
those kinds of records.
Mr. Russell. Those would be for legal entrants.
My time has expired. And the chair will now recognize the
lady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses for sharing their stories
and to certainly recognize the tragedy involved in some of
them, tragedies that we see throughout our systems even when
there are good faith efforts to uphold the law. Some of what
has been said here today reinforces the administration's policy
of prioritizing known criminals for deportation.
My colleagues are fond of holding up the Constitution as
some kind of prop. Once you get into the content of the
Constitution there are sometimes very inconvenient truths. For
example, if someone breaks into your home, kills my loved one,
he is going to get the same due process that someone who is
obviously innocent gets under our Constitution. So that it
seems to me worth asking Mr. Chen to discuss with us why any
immigrant detainees would be released for any reason. And I'm
asking that question in light of briefly what the Due Process
Clause of the Constitution of the United States requires as
applied to the detention of unlawful immigrants,so that we can
get straight right now why these unlawful immigrants cannot
simply be held simply because they are unlawful.
Mr. Chen. Thank you for the question. And as we've already
discussed before, there was the Supreme Court decision in
Zadvydas, which I won't go through again, but it is based on
the principle, as you mentioned----
Ms. Norton. I want the principle to be discussed, the due
process principle, and why it should apply to people who are in
the country illegally. Why did the Supreme Court say, since
they're here illegally in the first place, why does due process
apply to them?
Mr. Chen. Well, the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process
Clause certainly do apply to people who are here in the United
States as immigrants or even those who are unauthorized, and
the court has spoken on that, and I mean the Supreme Court with
that respect. And before an individual is going to be released
the government is bound to follow the Constitution in how it
examines and how it's going to detain that person.
One requirement is that the individual will be screened,
and there needs to be specific information as to whether or not
that person poses a threat to the community. That protects the
individual's liberty interest, and that is specifically
something that derives from the due process clause.
Ms. Norton. So that those people can have bond and can get
released just like ordinary people who are being held for
unlawful acts here in the criminal justice system?
Mr. Chen. Well, for those individuals who would be entitled
to bond, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or sometimes
they can come before an immigration judge to make that
determination as to whether they constitute a flight risk or a
threat to public safety. I should point out that many people
are held indefinitely or for prolonged periods of time without
ever having the opportunity to appear before a judge.
Ms. Norton. How can that happen?
Mr. Chen. It's one of the aspects of our immigration system
where individuals are not afforded the opportunity----
Ms. Norton. And what kinds of individuals are these, Since,
obviously, many individuals have not been held indefinitely,
which has come up again in this hearing? Who is it that can be
held indefinitely?
Mr. Chen. Well, these are individuals who typically would
be unauthorized in the United States. Some are held pending
their proceedings and----
Ms. Norton. Yes, but that doesn't answer, Mr. Chen. Many of
these people cannot be held under court decisions now. There
must be a group that you're speaking about who can be taken out
and held indefinitely in a country which usually does not allow
indefinite detention. What kind of an alien does that have to
be in order to be held indefinitely?
Mr. Chen. Well, the Zadvydas decision that was mentioned
before grows specifically out of the set of examples of
individuals who cannot--their countries are refusing to or are
delaying acceptance of their return after they've been ordered
removed.
Ms. Norton. So those are countries like China, these are
not usually the countries like Mexico or Central America?
Mr. Chen. That's right. And the specific circumstance that
I want to mention is that under the Supreme Court decision
there are special circumstances where certain individuals who
have mental illness or who pose special threats to the
community, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the
government can present those facts and request longer
detention. That was not been used frequently, but I believe
that there are individuals who have been detained very long
periods of time under that provision.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Russell. And the gentlelady's time has expired. The
chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a number of questions I'm prepared to ask this
panel. And I appreciate you being here, and especially the
family members that have suffered such tragedy, and I would
concur, without sense, senseless tragedy.
But, Mr. Chairman, I guess I would like to continue with
some Statements in response to what I've been hearing from my
Democrat colleagues. And with all due respect, I think we're
all here to defend Article I, Article II, Article III powers.
That's the beauty of our grand experiment in democracy based
upon a Constitution and a separation of powers that gives us
the ability to expand what we do for our people and to make
sure that they're carried across the finish line of their life
in this great country with success and with safety.
But I hear Statements that talk about us not acting as
adults and getting on with what is necessary to carry out our
responsibility for our country, and specifically in this area
of dealing with illegal aliens in the land that are committing
atrocities or aren't committing atrocities but they have
violated the law. We have in this Congress, this House, passed
significant legislation that funds all of the processes that
we're looking for with this panel. We have taken care of
funding border security. We have taken care of dealing with
ICE. We have taken care of giving powers to our Governors,
including Michigan, in the border States to secure the safety
of their people. We've done that. We've acted as adults in the
room.
We've also said that we will establish our constitutional
authority and not relinquish it to any President, this or any
other President to come. We will take that authority and we
will use it because we represent the people--the people--who
should be the strongest authority in the land. We have done
that. We have not relinquished our authority. It is the Senate
Democrats that have been unwilling to follow the course that we
have designed in our Constitution to carry out action, to
protect our people, to secure the liberties for our people, and
to establish policy that moves within the Constitution and not
outside of it. That's what we've done.
And shame on, Mr. Chairman, the Senate Democrat leadership
for being unwilling to even debate the issueand do what the
American people expect us to do. And I, for one, am sick of
that. And I just want to make sure that all who are listening
in this room, all who are listening on C-SPAN, all who are
listening on any report that comes from the news media hear the
fact that we have done our job to secure this country, to deal
with the problems that these two individuals who have family
members who were murdered senselessly should expect us to carry
on.
The House has acted. The Senate needs to act. And where
should the language that pushes back against an
unconstitutional takeover by this President of authority that
we alone have, where should that be placed? None other than in
the Homeland Security funding bill. That's where it's
appropriate to be passed.
And so I hope that the pressure is placed upon the
appropriate entities in the U.S. Senate to do their job as
we've done our job, because, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Ronnebeck, you and
your families deserve that.
Now, let me back off a bit and get to a question. Ms.
Vaughan, what impact will the Priority Enforcement Program have
on law enforcement's ability to accurately identify those
undocumented persons who present a threat to society?
Ms. Vaughan. It's going to make it much more difficult, the
result is going to be less enforcement because ICE is really
going to be subject to the decisions of local law enforcement
agencies and the ability of local law enforcement agencies to
notify them in a timely manner when a criminal alien that ICE
selects for deportation is going to be released so that ICE can
take them into custody. It's setting back immigration
enforcement more than a decade and consigning them to using
emails and fax machines and telephone calls instead of the
electronic, very efficient system that was set up by the Secure
Communities program that worked very well.
Mr. Walberg. Insignificant tools.
Mr. Russell. And the gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico,
Ms. Lujan Grisham.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I too want to express my sincere condolences to the
families. And these are really tough hearings, and it takes
incredible courage and determination to come before this
committee and any other committees and to talk about your
personal stories and to ask us, and particularly this
committee. It's an oversight committee with incredible latitude
and power to get at the right kinds of solutions for problems.
And my hope in every hearing, but particularly these kind
of hearings, where the stakes are so high, that we do
everything in our power to do things that we can do right now,
which is why I hoped that we were planning to have the
Department of Homeland Security here before this hearing to
talk to us about several issues that they can do right now and
to talk to us very clearly and specifically about what they do
to protect Americans, to protect families, to screen
appropriately, to prioritize. They always, there's always some
kind of prioritization process.
I appreciate my colleague, Ted Lieu, speaking of that. I
was a county commissioner where you're trying to manage jails
and the State prison populations and figure out what you do.
And I wish that wasn't the case. I wish none of us had those
real harmful criminal activities or issues that we have to deal
with in our communities. That's what I wish. And so this
committee really can do something and should do something.
And to illustrate that, I want to ask Dr. or attorney Chen
to--I guess I can say Dr. Chen, I'm a doctor of law myself--I
know that we've mentioned the 2013, the 36,000 criminal
immigrant detainees that were released. You referenced the
court decisions that required that potentially. Do you have any
information about how many have been released, say, over the
last several years, so that we're including 2014 and 2012, so
we get an idea of the scope of the problem?
Mr. Chen. I do not.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Do you have any idea how many have been
released after committing a crime?
Mr. Chen. I don't.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Do you have any idea what types of
crimes that we are talking about, what they've committed?
Mr. Chen. Besides what's been mentioned here and what was
written publicly by the Center for Immigration Studies, I don't
have any other information. I don't believe the Department of
Homeland Security or ICE has provided that detailed
information.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And I'm going to just illustrate my
point one more time.Do you know exactly what the proportion is
between the undocumented immigrants that DHS is forced to
release and how many they've released under their own
prioritization or discretion?
Mr. Chen. I don't have any numeric data as to the
proportions that were released either discretionarily with ICE
having that authority to release or those that were mandated by
the Zadvydas decision.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And so I have more questions than I have
answers. And that's, I don't think, an appropriate environment
for the families who have taken the time and had the courage to
talk to us about the severity of the issues that we have a
responsibility and this administration has the responsibility
through Homeland Security to address. And I am encouraging the
subcommittee and the full committee to ensure that we have the
opportunity to do that.
I was the secretary of health in New Mexico from, I hope I
get this right, 2004 to 2007. And one of the programs that our
Department of Health in New Mexico was required to carry out
and oversee is something called the developmentally disability
community programs, and that means that folks who need 24-hour
supervision and support, both, are provided that in our State.
One of the individuals I was providing support and care to
in that design was an undocumented individual who was also
developmentally disabled who committed several murders and
other crimes in New Mexico and Texas. And actually the State in
that program has no authority and in the Department of Health
it's the wrong department to provide the right support in this
situation. And so why would we have this person in our program?
Because a Federal judge mandated that we do it. And it was a
very difficult situation. I recognize how difficult the
situation is. And I recognized it was my responsibility in that
job to assure the safety of the other families and family
members, individuals who were in those programs.
And so I'm expecting that this committee look for a way to
address these complex issues and to do it in a way that
protects our families and respects and does something
meaningful about the tragedies that have already occurred.
I thank you very much for coming. My condolences again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Russell. And the chair thanks the gentlelady.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can't begin to express as others have and I appreciate
every comment regarding our condolences for the tremendous loss
that you have experienced and for the courage that you exhibit
by bringing your stories out into the public for the sole
purpose of correcting an extremely serious problem that we have
in our country.
And, Mr. Ronnebeck, I believe you said it so well when you
said this is a family's biggest nightmare. I can only imagine.
And our prayers for each of you.
Ms. Vaughan, I would like to begin with you. A while ago
Mr. Chen gave some statistics with great platitudes that would
try to convince us that all is well when it comes to our
Federal Government deporting illegal criminals. But as you,
yourself, pointed out, those stats are flawed at best. There is
some information from the Weekly Departures and Detention
Report from ICE from September 2014 in which they said that as
of September 2014 there were some 166,781 convicted criminal
aliens who had received final orders of removal and yet for one
reason or another were not removed. They are to this day still
at large in the United States.
In addition to that number was another 174,283 convicted
criminals who are facing some sort of pending deportation, and
they now are at large as well in the United States. These
numbers come up, to my addition, over 341,000 convicted illegal
aliens in this country at large.
Is that number roughly correct, Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes. That number comes directly from ICE's
statistics and I believe is the exact information from the
previous question.
Mr. Hice. The question has got to be, why in the world is
ICE releasing these convicted criminals?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, the main reason is because of policies
in place that the Obama Administration has implemented that
either exempt large numbers of even convicted criminal aliens
from immigration enforcement because they are deemed not a
priority or because ICE officers are told to release them
pending, ``deportation proceedings that are not going to happen
for years into the future.''
And that's the exact case of Altamirano, who killed Grant
Ronnebeck, is that he was allowed to be released and await
deportation proceedings rather than held in custody and removed
in an expeditious manner. Most of these are discretionary
releases. They're ICE's choice. A few of them are court orders.
But the vast majority of them are coming about as a result of
policies, deliberate policies.
Mr. Hice. OK. You mentioned earlier--and I'm going to
paraphrase but I jotted down a couple of notes--you mentioned
something to the effect that illegals face no threat of being
deported. And you went on to say, in essence, that the Federal
Government says that they will not tolerate criminal behavior
by illegal aliens. And yet, in essence, the Federal Government,
on the other hand, has removed the necessary tools that ICE
needs to do their job. Is this an accurate assessment of what
you had Stated?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes.
Mr. Hice. OK.
With that, I would like to, Sheriff, come to you. Again,
thank you for your service to our country and your commitment
to keep us safe. You mentioned in your testimony that there's a
policy vacuum, actually an antipolicy attitude from this
administration to adhere to the rule of law and to do what
they're required to do. I'm amazed with the startling ease that
illegals are able to get driver's license. Can you real quickly
address that?
Sheriff Jones. I can. Specific to the driver's license
issue, there's a couple of issues. If anyone will give you
honest feedback in any of the States that issue them, and now
California does as well, they're mostly predicated on forged
birth certificates or inadequate documentation. They do nothing
to truly identify any of the folks that are here illegally.
In California, as a matter of fact, you don't even need any
government documentation. You can simply go in, meet with a DMV
representative, and they can, quote/unquote, verify your ID
through the course of that interview. We had a deputy killed in
the line of duty several months ago by someone in the country
illegally. He was in possession of a Utah birth certificate or
an out-of-State birth certificate and on an alias.
And none of the DVM information from California and many of
the States that issue driver's licenses to undocumented
immigrants share any data with ICE, so there can be no cross-
checking of identification with the folks that have the actual
identification.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Russell. And the gentleman's time has expired.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Chen, I was wondering if you could describe a way of
balancing the concerns that we have with regard to proper
balancing of due process rights that we grapple with and also
in each and every case getting to the issue of expeditious
deportation of those individuals who have been charged with
crimes. That's the challenge that we have placed on the
Department of Homeland Security and ICE. And in fairness to
them, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision, they
seem to be struggling with that.
You seem to be someone who has had particular experience in
this. Is there a bright-line distinction that we could
introduce that would address the situations that we're
presented with here today but also would recognize the legal
reality of what we have to deal with in those cases?
Mr. Chen. Thank you for the question.
I don't have a magic bullet solution or proposal that would
address, certainly not the pain that I think the people who
have testified here and the loss that they have experienced, to
fill that loss. The fact is that people who are here who are
unauthorized, if you've committed a crime or if there's some
information that indicates that the individual poses a threat
to the public safety, if ICE has the discretion to release that
individual ICE is going to look at the facts before it and make
that determination. I'm not here to testify for the government
or defend it, but my understanding is that is the analysis that
ICE officers will use to screen individuals.
People who are held in detention are made priorities on the
court docket for removal. Typically they are processed much
more quickly than people who are released from custody pending
their immigration court proceedings.
One thing I should mention is that the immigration courts
are severely backlogged, and AILA has called for greater
increases in funding for the immigration courts. But that
funding has never kept pace, largely due to the fact that
Congress has been more focused on funding Customs and Border
Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the
courts just don't have the judges or the personnel to keep up
with that. And so there are lengthy backlogs. But one way to
solve it is to make sure the courts are adequately funded so
that they can process these cases quickly.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Russell. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here. And, Mr. Shaw and Mr.
Ronnebeck, my deepest condolences for your loss. I can only
imagine. And I know it has to have shaken your confidence in
your government, and I could certainly understand that. And
then for you to show up today, and thank you for doing that,
and then we can't even get the Director to show up, that has to
even be more disappointing. So as far as I can, I apologize.
I'm sorry. But, nevertheless, thank you again for being here.
Obviously we've got some real problems, some problems that we
need to address.
I want to ask Ms. Vaughan,and if this is an unfair
question, I apologize, but I feel like you would be the one to
ask about this. I had the opportunity to go to the southwestern
border, and that was a great opportunity for me because I had
never been before. It was educational, enlightening. I learned
a lot and actually went with an open mind and came back with
some different ideas from what I had before.
One of the things that has always concerned me is, what is
the Mexican Government doing to help us? Are they putting any
effort into helping us? From what I understand, particularly in
the children who are coming across, that they're further down
in Central America, coming from countries further down. And is
Mexico helping us at all? Is that something that you could
address?
Ms. Vaughan. The Mexican Government has not been
particularly helpful in addressing the surge of illegal alien
families and juveniles who have been coming. In fact, they've
made it easier for people to traverse Mexico by informing their
own immigration authorities that they're to let people who say
that they're going to the United States pass without harassment
through Mexico. They consider this to be a problem for the
United States, not for them. They know that they're just
passing through.
Mr. Carter. To your knowledge, has the administration done
anything to address that?
Ms. Vaughan. I believe that they issued some public service
announcements to be broadcast in Central America. I mean,in
years past when we've had these kind of mass migration crises,
the government has been very proactive in trying to do joint
operations and work together with authorities in Mexico to stop
people before they get near the U.S.-Mexico border. Those were
very successful in preventing tens of thousands of people from
arriving on our doorstep and they worked very well, but those
have not been used at all to my knowledge in this recent
crisis.
Mr. Carter. Well, again, back to my trip to the border,
when we were in the Rio Grande Sector, the Rio Grand Valley
Sector, and that's where most of the children had come in, in
the previous spring of last year, we were told to expect even
more this coming spring. So I think it's going to be even more
of a problem in the spring than it has been in the past. That's
discouraging, discouraging news to hear.
Mr. Jones, I wanted to ask you--and thank you for what you
do, very important--but I know that the administration has
changed. They've changed their policy and gone with the
Priority Enforcement Program. And I just want to ask you the
effects, if you've seen the effects of that, and exactly what
have they been.
Sheriff Jones. I have. And, first of all, having the
priority, putting people in a Priority 1 necessarily means that
you're ignoring the rest of folks. But even in that Priority 1
you can have folks with multiple felony arrests, youths under
16 with extensive gang activity, misdemeanor convictions, and
many felony convictions, as long as they aren't considered
aggravated felonies. None of those things would get you into
the first priority.
But secondarily, and as I mentioned in my testimony, the
detainer system is broken. That necessarily relies on our
ability to hold folks that are arrested on fresh charges for
ICE to be able to identify them and come to our jail and take
custody of them. That is not happening. That's why in-custody
ICE arrests are down 95 percent.
There are ways to fix this ICE detainer problem. I mean, I
figured out a way to solve it with $14 million. And even though
I'm a doctor of law, as I guess I've now been elevated, as well
a sheriff, I'm sure there are bright minds in Washington that
if they had the notion to fix it could come up with equally or
better ideas to fix it than I can.
Mr. Carter. Well, please don't stop trying.
Sheriff Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. We appreciate your efforts.
Again, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ronnebeck, my deepest sympathies,
and thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the patient lady from
Michigan, Ms. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
I want to thank everyone that's here today to testify. I do
appreciate you taking your time.
Sheriff Jones, I was a previous mayor and have so much
appreciation for my law enforcement and the service that you
do.
I want to be on the record that all lives does matter, and
it should, all lives should matter. To the families that are
here today that suffered a loss, my heart goes out to you.
Being a mayor, I've seen crime and the results of that. So I
want you to know that that's something that I care very deeply
about.
I do want to echo what my colleague just said, we can't
stop trying. It seems to me, though, that there is an
underlying misperception of this hearing that the Obama
Administration solely is not enforcing our immigration laws.
And I just wanted to share for the record, and, Mr. Chairman,
please, if you would allow me, I'd like to request that two
reports from the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan
think tank in Washington, DC, be entered into the record. I
have them here. And I would ask that they both be entered into
the record.
Mr. Russell. Without objection, that will be the order.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
These reports highlight the levels of detention and
removals under the Obama Administration. And I want to echo
again, we can't stop trying. But you cannot dispute the fact
that the numbers under the Obama Administration has increased.
I would also like to enter into the record a letter from
the deputy director of immigration policy at the Migration
Policy Institute, Marc Rosenbaum, dated today, that further
clarifies some of the findings of these reports and includes
some updated statistics regarding this administration's
enforcement record.
Mrs. Lawrence. And I just want to quote from this letter.
Mr. Rosenbaum States the Obama Administration's overall record
on immigration enforcement is characterized by an unprecedented
investment of law enforcement resources provided by successive
Congresses and by the new enforcement policies at the border
and within the interior, record-setting immigration removals
that have been increasingly focused over time on high-priority
targets, failing border appreciation, and most importantly a
subsidized drop in the size of the U.S. Unauthorized
population, the first such drop in U.S. History.
Mr. Chen, I want to ask this question, and this is in the
spirit of we can't stop trying, we can't ignore what has
happened, but we can't ignore the progress that we have made as
well. In your testimony, you highlighted the enforcement
efforts of the Obama Administration. For example, you indicated
that in the first 6 years of the Obama Administration DHS
removed approximately 2.4 million people. Is that correct?
Mr. Chen. That is correct. And if I may clarify, given some
of the controversy about these statistics, that is a
Department-wide statistic that covers all the immigration
enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP. The definition of
removal has not changed during the period that I'm referring
to. And it has increased substantially over the past decade.
That increase is not solely attributable to Mr. Obama's
policies as President, but had begun during President Bush's
period as well. But those statistics I stand by and are
accurate.
Mrs. Lawrence. And from your understanding, is that more or
less than any other President? You said it was successive. But
this administration, has it been more or less than any other
President?
Mr. Chen. On the number of removals?
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Chen. This administration has removed more in total
numbers and on average than any previous President.
Mrs. Lawrence. Can you also explain that detention has
increased over the years, totaling over 440,000 individuals in
Fiscal Year 2013. Is that correct?
Mr. Chen. That is correct. And I'm looking at a chart that
I can hold up with a graph showing that around Fiscal Year 2001
to 2003 the number of immigration detentions annually was about
200,000 per year. And it hasn't grown exactly steadily, but you
can see it's climbed up to about over 400,000 per year and has
remained at about that level for the past several years.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Chairman, I'm closing. I would like to
emphasize that while many people may have questions about the
policies of this President's administration related to
immigration actions, the record, this President's record of
detention and deportation is clear. And I do agree that we need
to keep working at it, every life does matter, and that this
commission, our responsibility is to make sure that we keep
moving forward. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Russell. The gentlelady's time has expired.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I've just joined the committee, coming
from another one. But I have a couple of questions for Scott
Jones, Sacramento County sheriff. I guess under the Secure
Communities Program, it was designed to identify each
undocumented person prior to their release from custody by
allowing ICE to serve detainers on local jails to hold those
who were arrested for new crimes and custody for no more than
48 hours, I believe, if there was a reason to believe they were
illegally in the country.
The President's November 20 executive actions, in fact,
dismantled this action. So how did the Secure Communities
Program assist in your department's identification of arrested
individuals? Could you describe it for us?
Sheriff Jones. I can. Thank you. And the way Secure
Communities did it is because we had to submit fingerprints to
ICE. So they were able to identify and take appropriate action,
whatever appropriate action is for ICE, on every single person
that was arrested on local charges.
Now, with their prioritization limitations of the Priority
Enforcement Program--or Secure Communities Light, as I call
it--they are much more hampered on what offenses they can take
action for. But, again, I have to stress that both are
dependent on the ability for jails to honor detainers or
requests from ICE to hold those folks so that ICE has enough
time to get down to the jail to take custody of folks they've
already identified.
Mr. Mica. But they're not able to identify----
Sheriff Jones. They are not.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Individuals who are illegally here.
Sheriff Jones. Because of activism and the Federal
Government unwilling to challenge contrary decisions or
assertions, no sheriff in----
Mr. Mica. So how does this impact you? What are the
ramifications if they can't identify? What kind of a situation
does that create for you?
Sheriff Jones. Well, there's a couple. No. 1 is we don't
have access to ICE data bases. So our officers on the street
don't know someone's status or if they're here illegally or
not, which puts them at grave risk, which is a contributing
factor to what happened to my officer several months ago that
got killed. But it also allows criminals to escape consequence
not only for their criminal offenses, but their offenses for
being in the country illegally despite perhaps prior removals
and other prior actions by ICE.
Mr. Mica. There's also the impact of the Federal
Government's failure to challenge lawsuits that attempt to
erode immigration enforcement. What happens in this instance?
Sheriff Jones. Yes, sir. Like I mentioned in my testimony
about the Clackamas County, Oregon, decision that invalidated
ICE detainers as amounting to an unlawful detention without
probable cause, rather than challenge that assertion, rather
than intervene in that case during its pendency or challenge
its assertion afterward, they've simply decided not to be
involved, remain conspicuously silent, thereby emboldening that
one single district court opinion to now be exacerbated by the
ACLU and other advocacy groups, put the rest of the sheriffs in
this country on notice that they would be sued now based on
that one court's decision if they were to honor any ICE
detainer. So as a result many sheriffs in this country no
longer cooperate with ICE in any way because we've asked and
they are unwilling, by policy far above their heads, to
cooperate with us.
Mr. Mica. So is that what led to your decision not to honor
any of the ICE detainers for any reason?
Sheriff Jones. Yes. As a matter of fact, when the TRUST Act
came out, which limited, not relating to the court decision,
but limited our ability to do that to, it specified which ICE
detainers we could honor, my public opinion was that I was not
going to honor the TRUST Act. I actually came back to
Washington, spoke with some very high officials in ICE and
asked them to please stand with me, that I would be willing to
stand with the Federal Government in the faith of California
State law. They made it very clear to me that during this
administration those things would not change, they would not be
able to stand with me, and I was left no choice. So several
months after the impact I was forced to comply with our TRUST
Act and now comply with no ICE detainers because of the
decision in Oregon that should have no precedential effect on
us.
Mr. Mica. Well, Mr. Chairman, the chaos reigns supreme. I'm
hearing from another jurisdiction, another county. In some of
my jurisdictions they have law enforcement pick up people, ICE
isn't able to identify them in a similar manner, and so they're
just taking to the next jurisdiction and dumping them because
they don't know what to do. And the cost to incarcerate is
bankrupting some of our jurisdictions.
I don't know if you have seen a similar situation, Sheriff.
Sheriff Jones. Yes, sir. And I will say that myself and
other law enforcement leaders have really no interest in
enforcing immigration law. But that does presuppose that there
are people that are interested in enforcing immigration law,
that are interested in keeping our communities safe like we
are, and are interested in identifying, detaining when
necessary, and removing predator undocumented persons from our
communities.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Russell. And the gentleman's time has expired.
And we'll now recognize Mr. Cartwright for a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time I
would like to enter into the record a May 2013 report, apropos
of many of your comments, Sheriff Jones, and thank you for your
testimony. This is from the University of Illinois at Chicago.
It's titled ``The Insecure Communities.'' It highlights some
crucial facts about police involvement in immigration
enforcement. It found that 45 percent of Latinos surveyed were
less likely to report a crime because they were afraid local
police are going to ask them or people they know about their
immigration status. That's a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Russell. Without objection, that will be the order.
Mr. Russell. I would like to thank our witnesses that have
taken the time to come today. It's very important what you all
do, even if we might have even political differences. I think
in many cases the record-high numbers of apprehensions can also
be commensurate with the fact that we have record-high numbers
of illegal entrants. And there is a correlation, and it's
worthy of noting that.
In fact, it's important that even today one of our
witnesses, Ms. Vaughan, has Stated that even the detention bed
issue, with 34,000 spaces available for those that could be
awaiting deportation, only 27,000 on a daily basis have been
used since this fiscal year. So we do see a lot more effort
could be exerted, and we hope that that will be conveyed and
taken back.
And I can't thank enough Mr. Shaw, Mr. Ronnebeck.We really
cannot even imagine. But we can imagine the constitutional
requirement that we have to uphold life, liberty, and property
of all Americans. You deserve that. Thank you for your efforts.
And thank you, Mr. Jones, for your continued efforts, and
all of the witnesses, Mr. Chen, for the dedicated work that you
do every day,Ms. Vaughan, a Rolodex of information, and thank
you so much for all that you do.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]