[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-111
__________
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
23-480 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
_________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Art Arthur, Subcommitte on National Security Staff Director
Dimple Shah, Counsel
William Marx, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2016................................... 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Sarah R. Saldana, Director , U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 9
Mr. Ralph Martin, Chief of Police, Santa Maria Police Department
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 74
Ms. Wendy Hartling, Mother of Casey Chadwick
Oral Statement............................................... 77
Written Statement............................................ 79
Mr. Scott Root, Father of Sarah Root
Oral Statement............................................... 84
Written Statement............................................ 87
Mr. Chris Burbank, Director of Law Enforcement Engagement, Center
for Policing Equity
Oral Statement............................................... 91
Written Statement............................................ 93
APPENDIX
Enforcement and Removal Operaions at Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security,
Statistical Tracking Unit. This information was collected from
a Freedom of Information Act request (2015-ICFO-95524) Entered
by Chaiman Chaffetz............................................ 122
Breakdown of the Types of Specific Criminal Convictions
Associated with Criminal Aliens Placed in a Non-Custodial
Setting in Fiscal Year 2015, Entered by Chairman Chaffetz...... 126
A letter from Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst regarding the
case of Sarah Root, Entered by Chairman Chaffetz............... 133
Responses to Questions for the record, from the Director of the
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the Department
of Homeland Security, Sarah Saldana, to Chairman Chaffetz...... 135
Responses to Questions for the Record from Assistant Director
for Congressional Relations Jason M. Yanussi, on behalf of
Director Saldafia of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within
the Department of Homeland Security, Entered by Chairman
Chaffetz....................................................... 155
November 24, 2015 letter from Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator
Chris Murphy and Representative Joe Courtney to the Department
of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Entered by
Ranking Member Cummings........................................ 158
Customs and Border Protection System Down Times at D FIS Passport
Control, Entered by Representative Ron DeSantis................ 160
February 2016 message from the Arlington Pubic Schools by Patrick
K. Murphy, Superintendent, Arlington Public Schools, Entered by
Gerald E. Connolly............................................. 161
March 21, 2016 letter from the Southern Poverty Law Center to
Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings Re: Families in Fear: The
Atlanta Immigrations Raids, Entered by Representative Gerald E.
Connolly....................................................... 162
CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Thursday, April 28, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan,
Walberg, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, Massie,
Meadows, DeSantis, Mulvaney, Buck, Walker, Blum, Hice, Carter,
Grothman, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Cartwright, Kelly, Lieu, and Welch.
Also Present: Representatives Young and Courtney.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order.
And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Preparing for this hearing has been--I am telling you, it
is hard to keep your cool in preparing for this meeting. And
let me tell you the heart of why we are here today. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, I have met with the men and women who
work there, wonderful, hardworking, dedicated people who do a
hard and difficult job. But I have got to tell you, what is
going on at Homeland Security, what is going on with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is one of the most
infuriating things I think I have seen in this government yet.
In a 3-year period, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has
released more than 86,000 criminal aliens into the American
public. These are people that were here illegally, got caught
committing a crime, were convicted of that crime, and then
instead of deporting them, they were just released back out
into the United States of America. All told, they had more than
231,000 crimes that they were convicted of, 86,000 of these
people.
In 2015, 196 of these people were convicted of homicide,
and ICE released them back into the public rather than
deporting them. One hundred and twenty-four of those that were
released between fiscal year 2010 and 2015, went on to commit
homicide.
Let me give you some other stats. In 2013, ICE released
36,007 criminal aliens, criminal aliens who were here
unlawfully and present in the United States. As of September
2014, 5,700 of those individuals went on to commit additional
crimes. In March of 2015, ICE Director Sarah Saldana testified
before this committee that during fiscal year 2014 ICE released
another 30,000 individuals with criminal convictions.
In fact, ICE released 30,558 criminal aliens in 2014 who
had a combined 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them. Of
those 30,558 criminal aliens, 1,895 were charged with another
crime following their release. Their convictions include sex
offenses, assault, burglary, robbery, driving under the
influence. And ICE told us that in 2015 the agency released
19,723 criminal aliens with a combined 64,197 convictions,
including 934 sex offenses, 804 robberies, 216 kidnappings, and
196 homicide-related convictions.
And that is on your watch. They were here illegally, they
got caught committing a crime, they were convicted of the
crime, and instead of following the law and deporting them, you
release them back out into the public and they commit more
crimes. How do you look those people in the eye? How do you go
back to a family and say, you know, they were in our detention
and we just thought it would be better to let them out into the
United States of America? That is so wholly unacceptable.
I want to show you this football stadium. This is Notre
Dame football stadium. You have released more people that were
convicted of crimes and should have been deported than you can
fit into that stadium. You would still have people waiting
outside the line. Those are the criminals that you released
instead of deporting.
And one of the people that is very passionate about this
issue and has spent a lot of time on that is our colleague, Mr.
DeSantis Florida. I would like to yield time to him.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we in this country, the government at all levels
has a responsibility to protect the safety of the American
people. For the Federal Government, most of the crimes that are
committed, particularly violent crimes are handled at the State
level. And I wish we could prevent every crime from happening.
I wish we could. But the fact of the matter is we rely on
deterrents, we rely on penalties to prevent people from even
trying to commit crimes in certain instances.
But in this case, this is an example of where government
could have prevented all of these crimes. You have somebody--
and the story that came out, I thought, was just shocking where
between fiscal year 2010 and February of 2015 there were 124
individuals who were in the country illegally, had been
previously detained by ICE, and were released that were charged
with homicide. You look at the number of convictions that we
have seen for people who have been released by ICE even after
being convicted of rape, of homicide, of domestic violence,
violence against women, other sex offenses, this is putting the
American people at risk.
Something is wrong. Something needs to change. We have
tried to highlight this over and over again. We get the numbers
of convictions finally given to us for '15, and it is startling
because we are told that, oh, we are going to focus on really
getting these criminals, but yet you have criminals in your
possession, don't have a right to be here, they should be
returned to their home country, and yet they are released into
American society and then they reoffend.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing. This
is an immensely, immensely frustrating issue to see this
because some of these crime victims, the families, you can say
to them had the Federal Government simply done its job, maybe
your loved one would be here today.
And I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Director Saldana, who is about to testify before us, has
testified before. She said, ``We welcome any amount of money
that we have. We can always do more with more resources. We are
just doing the best we can with the resources we have right
now.'' Except in June of 2015, Department of Homeland Security
leadership took $113 million from ICE's enforcement budget and
asked Congress to reprogram it to other DHS components with no
role in immigration enforcement. Further, in the latest budget
justification, Homeland Security seeks $185 million less, less
for deportation and transportation. Despite a mandate in the
law requiring ICE to maintain 34,000 detention beds, ICE only
wants funding for 30,913.
This administration's failure to secure our border, enforce
immigration laws, and hold criminal aliens accountable creates
an ongoing threat to our public safety and sometimes delays
consequences for innocent Americans. And many of those losses
are preventable. The numbers became real in February of 2015 in
a National Security Subcommittee hearing. During the hearing,
we heard testimony from Jamiel Shaw, whose 17-year-old son was
murdered by Pedro Espinoza, an alien living in the United
States illegally. Mr. Espinoza had been released from jail on a
conviction for brandishing a weapon before the Shaw slaying.
This is a weapons conviction.
We also heard from Mike Ronnebeck, the uncle of Grant
Ronnebeck. Grant was 21 years old when he was killed in Mesa,
Arizona, while working an overnight shift at a local
convenience store. The guy is just working at the convenience
store late at night trying to do the right thing. The alleged
killer was in removal proceedings due to a burglary conviction
but released by ICE on a 10,000 bond, and Grant was killed.
The Ronnebeck and Shaw families are not the only victims of
crimes committed by aliens unlawfully present in the United
States. Today, we continue to put names and faces with
individuals whose lives were changed forever by the death of a
family member killed by a convicted, convicted criminal alien.
The common thread among these stories you are about to hear
today is that each of them were preventable. If ICE had only
followed the law, it is highly likely that these witnesses
would not be sitting here today grieving the loss of another
loved one.
And I thank the family members that will be joining us on
the second panel. They are heart-wrenching stories, and it was
preventable. It didn't have to happen. You could have deported
them and you chose not to, and it is just infuriating.
Chairman Chaffetz. My time is expired. Let me recognize the
ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And let me first of all start off by expressing how very
sorry I am for the families of Casey Chadwick, Sarah Root, and
Marilyn Pharis. The crimes that were committed against them
were brutal and barbaric, and their lives were stolen away from
them all too soon.
But not only were their lives stolen away from them, their
lives were stolen away from their parents and their friends and
relatives. And so to Mr. Root and Charlie, I want to thank you
for being with us today.
I thank you for something else, though. I thank you for
taking your grief and turning it into a passion to make sure
that it does not happen to anybody else. I really appreciate
that. Thank you.
I know how painful it must be to relive these nightmares,
especially before a congressional committee, and when I read
your testimony, Mr. Root, I got to tell you, you said over and
over again a parent should never have to do this, identifying a
child who has been harmed and murdered. So only you can truly
know what losses mean to your families.
I also lost a loved one 5 years ago almost to the day, a
nephew at Old Dominion College. Folks busted into his room,
blew his brains out, 20 years old. And then to go there a few
days later and just see his brains splattered on the wall, I
tell you, when I read your testimony, I could not help but
think about all of that.
And a lot of people don't understand when you have somebody
who was murdered. I tell people it is hard to mourn properly
because you are always wondering why it happened, how it
happened, sometimes, in my case, who did it. But at the same
time, you mourn for what could have been.
Every time a friend of folks get married, you think about
your own, you know, what her marriage would have been like or
you hear about a child being born, and so it is just constant.
When the birthdays come, when Christmas comes, everything, it
just replays in your mind, mourning over and over and over what
could have been.
And so I know you want answers, and you deserve those
answers. And so I want to thank you also, Mr. Burbank and Chief
Martin, for being here, for dedicating your careers to
combating all types of horrible crimes in your communities. And
it should be the business of this Congress to help you be able
to do your jobs effectively and efficiently. After all, you go
out there, you put your life on the line over and over and over
again. And so often, you run into crimes that you can't even
solve. You try, you do the best you can, you don't get the
cooperation. So I am committed to making sure we get to the
bottom line.
And, Director Saldana, I want to thank you for your
testimony and for your work as a public servant. It is crucial
that we hear what Immigration and Customs Enforcement has
learned from these cases and about your ongoing efforts to
improve the agency's procedures.
You can understand why people are upset. Everyone on this
committee wants to help improve public safety and enhance the
security of all of our communities. Our committee is not just
about oversight. And I emphasize this over and over again. It
is not just about oversight. It is also about reform. If we
identify a problem, our goal is to address it.
For example, in one of the cases we will discuss today, ICE
repeatedly attempted to deport the perpetrator to Haiti before
his release in 2012, but the Haitian Government refused to
accept him, not once, not twice, but three times. Even after
Haitian officials agreed to allow him to board a plane bound
for Haiti, they reversed themselves and refused to accept him.
I am sure these facts offer little solace to Ms. Chadwick's
family. So we need to ask what ICE could have done differently
and what ICE can do in the future to improve these procedures.
We also need to--and I think the chairman made a good
point. We realize that there are issues that go to resources,
but the question is, are we using the resources that we have
effectively and efficiently. We also need to ask what more we
as a government can do to force recalcitrant countries like
Haiti, in this case, to honor their treaty agreements and to
accept their own citizens.
This process is already underway thanks to Senator Richard
Blumenthal and Senator Christopher Murphy, and Representative
Joe Courtney of Connecticut. On November 24, 2015, they sent a
letter to the inspector general of the Department of Homeland
Security requesting an investigation to determine what more ICE
could have done ``to overcome the objections of the Haitian
Government to the removal of this individual.'' So I ask
unanimous consent to enter their letter into our official
hearing record today, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. The inspector general has agreed to their
request, and this investigation is now underway. I absolutely
support these goals. What I absolutely do not support, however,
is the hateful rhetoric we hear and have heard coming from some
my members of the Republican Party who disparage all immigrants
with false condemnation.
Donald Trump has labeled Mexican immigrants as rapists. He
has also called for a shutdown of Muslims entering the United
States. These were not accidental lapses of off-the-cuff
remarks. They are genuine statements from the leading
Republican candidate for President of the United States of
America in 2016.
If you think his rhetoric is just words and does not cause
actual harm, consider the brutal assault of a 58-year-old
homeless Latino man in Boston. Last August, two brothers Scott
and Steve Leader, who have extensive criminal records, hit him
in the face, urinated on him, punched him, hit him with a metal
pole, and then walked away laughing. When questioned by the
police, one of the brothers said, ``Donald Trump was right. All
these illegals need to be deported.''
And when Donald Trump heard about this brutal attack, he
said that it was a shame but that his supporters are very
passionate and ``want this country to be great again.''
And so, as I close, if we remain silent, if we remain
silent in the face of these actions, hate will become our new
normal. What we are hearing is racism, pure and simple. I do
not like to use the word because it can sometimes be difficult
for people to hear anything else. It can become a distraction.
We are trying to work towards real solutions like tackling
criminal justice reform, immigration reform, and gun violence.
Unfortunately, in this case, it is warranted. So I have
lived too long and fought too hard. I will not sit by silently
as some have tried to plunge our nation into a hateful division
where we turn against each other.
And so I hope our committee ultimately will do more than
just hold a series of hearings on immigrants who commit crimes.
I hope we all will take heart and that we will examine all of
the legitimate questions. And there are a lot of legitimate
questions here we are facing as a nation and that we will act
to develop the bipartisan solutions needed to address them. We
must come together to reject racist rhetoric and work to make
our community safer in a comprehensive and constructive way.
And again, I want to thank our witnesses for turning your
pain into a passion to do your purpose. Thank you very much,
and I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the Criminal Alien Report released by Homeland Security
in 2015 and also enter into the record a letter from Senator
Grassley and Senator Ernst regarding the case of Sarah Root.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Chaffetz. And we will hold the record open for 5
legislative days for any member who would like to submit a
written statement.
And I will now recognize the distinguished witness on the
first panel. We have two panels today. We are pleased to
welcome the Honorable Sarah R. Saldana, Direction of United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of
Homeland Security.
Thank you for being here.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn
before they testify. If you will please rise and raise your
right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. Let the record reflect the
witness answered in the affirmative. We would appreciate it if
you would limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire
written statement will obviously be made part of the record.
Ms. Saldana, you are now recognized, Director, for 5
minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF SARAH R. SALDANA
Ms. Saldana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cummings, and other distinguished members of this committee.
I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to sit here and
hear an issue--and very important issues--related to the topic
of immigration reform be bandied about as a political football.
I'm a former United States attorney. I was a prosecutor for
10 years. I am about the law and law enforcement. I'm about
identifying problems and correcting them. I am here to get--to
tell the public what the situation is with some of the issues
we face, inform the public, and I would really appreciate we
focus on solutions, solutions as opposed to political banter.
Along with our sister agencies at the Department of
Homeland Security, ICE has no smaller mission, no smaller
mission than the national security, border security, and public
safety of our citizens. Like any law enforcement agency, we
deal with serious and difficult matters every day. In the area
of immigration, recent estimates are that there are about 11.2
million illegal immigrants in the country. There are
approximately 2 million, 2 million undocumented immigrants who
are involved in some form or fashion in ICE's administrative
process. There are about half-a-million, 500,000 of those who
are part of active cases in the immigration courts.
ICE detention program booked in approximately 300,000
individuals last fiscal year. And as you know, we've been
funded at the 34,000 bed level for the last couple years. You,
the Congress, had not only provided the funds to carry out our
responsibilities for which we're very grateful, but you've also
set forth the framework to execute those responsibilities. And
it's all right here in the Immigration and Nationalization Act.
You tell us who we are required as a mandatory matter to
detain, and you tell us who we exercise our ability to release
someone and not detain, make a decision about not detaining, or
bond for that matter.
Given the numbers I've just cited, obviously a very small
percentage of individuals are detained while an immigration
judge under the system that you the Congress has provided--are
detained while that judge makes a decision in their removal
proceedings. I am deeply mindful that this is not simply a
discussion of statistics, capacity, policies, or procedures.
There are families whose lives are personally affected by these
decisions.
As a human being and a mother, never mind my prosecutorial
experience, I feel very strongly any time someone is injured or
murdered or killed--otherwise killed by any person, and
certainly those within the immigration system.
I know that the women and men of ICE work tirelessly to
enforce the law and protect the public, and they steadfastly
bear the enormous responsibility that they are charged with.
When the chairman, respectfully, sir, says we just decided--
that being ICE--to let them out on the streets and ``we chose
not to detain people,'' that is misleading the public and
particularly these victims about the immigration situation and
the entire picture.
I think this committee well knows that this year over two-
thirds, over two-thirds of the criminal releases, something I
wish you had pointed out--over two-thirds of the criminal
releases were as a result of the Supreme Court telling us we
had to release someone, it wasn't ICE choosing to do so, and
another portion of the courts otherwise telling us that we had
to release, the immigration courts, who have overall
supervisory responsibility over this system.
So to sit there and say that the proud women and men of law
enforcement in ICE are choosing to release criminals is
absolutely unforgivable. I am very proud of representing those
men and women. Many of them are former police officers,
sheriff's department members, and they do not go around trying
to put criminals on the streets. So I want the record to be
clear, and I want these victims' families to know exactly what
ICE is facing. And I want them to have an accurate picture of
that.
So when ICE makes a custody determination upon an alien
with a criminal conviction, we act in accordance with the law,
a law that you have given us. We are committed to carefully
reviewing the circumstances of each case to ensure we make
prudent decisions and to use the tools at our disposal,
including supervision and conditions of release.
Further, we include in our data set things over which we
have no control when somebody's claiming to be a citizen or an
LPR. There are additional requirements on us. This is a very
complex law, and every time or virtually every time I have been
before a committee, I have begged, I have asked, work with ICE,
work with me, work with the Secretary for comprehensive
immigration reform. We can't kick this down the road or after
an election. We need to fix this, and I am--I implore you to
help us.
So this issue has been a very--of great importance to me
since I started at the agency about a year-and-a-half ago. In
March of last year, I set up a system that I think I've
testified about to this agency to look--review every criminal
release that there is. We have a panel that I've actually
visited with. I'm in the process right now, like I do with any
policy, of revisiting the policy to see how effective it's been
over the last year, because we started in March, and to see
what we can do better with--in that regard. I am willing to
learn, and I do listen.
So as you're aware, we're proud of the fact--and I think
it's as a result in part of this panel--of going from 36,000
releases in 2013 to, in 2015, a little over 19,700. So you
know--I want to be sure it's clear that while two-thirds of the
criminal releases in 2013 and 2014 were characterized even here
as resulting from ICE determinations, that ratio actually is
reversed in 2015. And as I said earlier, we have about two-
thirds of our criminal releases being required of us by courts.
And with respect to what Congressman Cummings pointed out,
and that is the recalcitrant countries in getting people to
take back their criminals, this world is a chaotic world. We
have countries with great instability, countries that have
suffered tremendous even natural disasters like Haiti and are
in turmoil, and trying to deal with them is very hard. But I am
working with the Department of State. Quite frankly, this
afternoon I meeting with Assistant Secretary Michele Bond to
talk some more about what more we can do with respect to
recalcitrant countries. And I'm glad to do that.
Let me conclude by saying that, having heard directly from
families over the last 11 years of victims of crime who've
suffered tremendous loss, I personally remain committed--Mr.
Chairman, I personally remain committed to implementing ICE's
priorities in a smart and strategic manner and to safeguard our
communities and maximize the agency's success.
I thank you for the opportunity to address the group, and I
await your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Saldana follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize myself
for 5 minutes. The numbers you gave us said just in the last 2
days discretionary releases by ICE were 54 percent. The total
is 46,422. These Zadvydas rulings, you said, were two-thirds of
the reason, and yet the numbers you gave us show that it's less
than 10 percent.
Your microphone, please.
Ms. Saldana. I don't know which numbers you're looking at,
sir, but ----
Chairman Chaffetz. You are the one that said that two-
thirds of the reason that you release people is based on the
Supreme Court decision. The numbers you gave us just 2 days ago
show that that number is actually less than 10 percent.
Ms. Saldana. The numbers we gave you, sir, were for 2015.
Chairman Chaffetz. We have 2015, 2014, and 2013.
Ms. Saldana. Okay. Let's just focus right now on 2015 as an
example, although we can do each year if you would like.
Nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-three--there was
19,723 criminal releases ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Let me ask you another way ----
Ms. Saldana. Now, let me ----
Chairman Chaffetz.--because ----
Ms. Saldana. Let me ----
Chairman Chaffetz.--the media ----
Ms. Saldana. If I may finish because ----
Chairman Chaffetz. No, no, no, no ----
Ms. Saldana.--you just said in the question that more than
that has happened.
Chairman Chaffetz. No. I want ----
Ms. Saldana. Eleven percent were Zadvydas releases. And IJ
orders, the immigration courts that oversee the entire
immigration system, were 52 percent.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. We will ----
Ms. Saldana. Only 37 percent ----
Chairman Chaffetz. We will hash out the numbers with your
own numbers, but what is unacceptable is even one
discretionary. Why do you even release one? Why do you even
release one person?
Ms. Saldana. Because of the statute the Congress has given
us ----
Chairman Chaffetz. No, it is not. It is discretionary on
your part, and you are not doing--you took more than $100
million and let it go to other purposes outside of the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You are not maximizing the
amount of money that you want in order to get to the beds that
is mandated under the law. And you have asked for $185 million
less for detention and transportation. You are not going to be
convincing us that you are dedicated to removing these criminal
aliens.
Ms. Saldana. If I may answer your question?
Chairman Chaffetz. Well, yes, go.
Ms. Saldana. You have said here only a certain number of
convictions even--they're primarily convictions, offenses with
convictions--are subject to mandatory detention ----
Chairman Chaffetz. And this is where ----
Ms. Saldana.--the rest are ----
Chairman Chaffetz.--you are totally wrong.
Ms. Saldana. If I may finish.
Chairman Chaffetz. You have somebody who commits homicide,
yes, we want them deported. That is the law.
Ms. Saldana. Then put it in the statute, sir, because in
the statute say if they do not commit one of those offenses
that are specifically enumerated, including aggravated
felonies, then these people are not subject to mandatory
detention, which you've specifically outlined here. And when I
say you, I mean the Congress. The rest you say, okay, ICE, you
will then make a determination based on what the judges--
Federal judges of this country make every day, and that is
based on flight risk and harm to public safety or potential
harm to public safety, you will decide which ones can be
released on bond.
Chairman Chaffetz. And there is a whole list of categories
there that are harm to public safety, including those that
commit homicide, that you went ahead and released anyway. And
so the law is crystal clear. You are making these discretionary
choices in releasing these people out into the public and they
are committing more crimes. And I don't understand why you
don't deport them. You used as an excuse these countries that
won't accept them.
Here is my question for you. Based on section 243(d) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, how many times have you
recommended to the State Department in writing that these
countries are--according to the law, ``on being notified by the
attorney general that the government of the foreign country
denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien,'' and then it
goes on that the ``Secretary shall order the consular officers
in that foreign country to discontinue granting visas or
nonimmigrant visas.'' How many times have you made that
recommendation to the attorney general or to the State
Department?
Ms. Saldana. I don't have the precise number, but we have.
Chairman Chaffetz. Have you ever?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, we have, sir. We are--we have a
memorandum ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Which countries? Right off the top of
your head, which countries have you recommended that we ----
Ms. Saldana. I can't tell you off the top of my head. I --
--
Chairman Chaffetz. When will you get me that information?
Ms. Saldana. I can get it to you within a week, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. So you will give me, just to make
sure we are on the same page, the letters that you have given
either to the attorney general's office or the State Department
regarding the problems that you are having and the
recommendations that you are making about the countries that
will not accept these aliens?
Ms. Saldana. And--yes. And you understand that I have to
talk to Department of State about that because some of these
are sensitive areas that I believe we can talk about this
further in chambers, sir, that I believe you would not want me
to ----
Chairman Chaffetz. No, we are going to talk ----
Ms. Saldana.--expose.
Chairman Chaffetz.--it in the public. I want to know which
countries are not taking--because, you know what, they
shouldn't be getting Federal aid and we shouldn't be giving
them visas so that more people from those countries can come to
the United States. I don't know what you think is so sensitive
about that, but I want you to prioritize Americans rather than
those other countries. That is what I want to hear. I want to
know that the citizens of our States are your number-one
priority and put it out there in the public. Let's know and
understand which countries are not taking back the criminals
that came here illegally and should be deported back into their
country.
Ms. Saldana. Let me remind you, sir, that the Department of
State is the one that issues visas, withholds aid. We don't
have money to give aid to countries. That's not what we do.
Chairman Chaffetz. I know but you have ----
Ms. Saldana. You have a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Department of State where we say we are going to recommend
to you certain steps, but we have it in a step-by-step
procedure because this is a complicated world, I think you all
understand, and we have to look at each country separately.
Syria and Iraq, that's a pretty hopeless situation ----
Chairman Chaffetz. You think that is your job ----
Ms. Saldana.--in trying to return those immigrants to those
countries ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Do you really think Syria and Iraq is
your job and your responsibility to make that determination?
Here is what the law says, and I am quoting, ``On being
notified via the attorney general that the government of a
foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an
alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of the
country after the attorney general asks whether the government
will accept the alien under the section, the Secretary shall.''
And so if you go to the first part of it ----
Ms. Saldana. Shall what, sir?
Chairman Chaffetz. ``Shall order consular officers in that
foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or
nonimmigrant visas or both to citizens, subjects, nationals,
residents of that country until the attorney general notifies
the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.'' What
is incumbent upon you personally in your duty and your role and
responsibility is to make that notification. If you are trying
to take even just one alien and deport them back to a country,
these are criminal aliens, remember? These are ones that
committed crimes and were convicted of crimes. If you are
trying to deport even one of those and the country won't take
them back, you need to give that notification to the State
Department.
Ms. Saldana. And the State Department makes the decision.
Let's just be clear on that.
Chairman Chaffetz. No, there is no decision because under
the statute it says ``the Secretary shall.'' And so it starts
with you, and if you don't give them that notification, it
doesn't work.
Ms. Saldana. I agree.
Chairman Chaffetz. My time is expired. I want to have
within a week's time all of those letters since you have been
in office that you have sent to the State Department and/or
attorney general telling them where there is a problem. And I
don't want to hear about this excuse any further.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Let just start where the chairman left off.
When that letter goes to the State Department, what happens
then? Who makes the decision at that point? What happens?
Ms. Saldana. There's a leadership group. The Consular
Affairs Assistant Secretary Michele Bond is the person I've
been dealing with. She makes the recommendation to the
Secretary of the Department of State, and they look at the
whole picture with respect to that country and make a decision
and notify us.
Mr. Cummings. And then that is the decision?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. And so you can't change that?
Ms. Saldana. ICE is not in the business of issuing visas.
Mr. Cummings. I see. I want to make sure we put all this in
some kind of context because remember what I said in my opening
statement about reform and trying to find solutions. You know,
we have these families here who have suffered greatly, and by
the way, I hope that--I know you may be leaving after your
testimony, as is usual, but I ----
Ms. Saldana. I'm staying.
Mr. Cummings. Oh, good, good, because I want you to hear
from them. I think they want you to hear their pain. And again,
they come a good distance, and I thank you very much for doing
that.
Ms. Saldana. And I offered to both families, the Roots and
Ms. Hartling, to meet with them personally.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We need to eliminate any misperception that immigrants as a
group are more likely to be criminals or commit acts of
violence. Let's start with the likelihood of landing in jail.
Census data from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 found that
incarceration rates for native-born, essentially U.S. citizens,
were 2 to 5 times higher than that of immigrants. Were you
aware of that fact ----
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Cummings.--Director? The fact contradicts the
misconception that immigrants are inherently predisposed to be
criminals. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. So studies have widely shown that the
recidivism rate for immigrant criminals is lower than for the
general population. Is that right?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. And, for example, and based on the data
submitted by ICE for fiscal year 2014, less than 5 percent of
the immigrant criminals committed new crimes after release
compared to more than 20 percent of all criminals across 30
U.S. States. Do you understand that?
Ms. Saldana. That sounds right. I've looked at the studies
by the Department of Justice and the statistics.
Mr. Cummings. Given this information, do you believe it is
fair to say that a person's immigration status does not
indicate an increased likelihood that they will commit another
crime?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. I ----
Mr. Cummings. Now, I have got to tell you that if I were
the family of a victim, I would say, well, Cummings, you know,
I am really not interested in hearing that because I suffered a
loss that will never be replaced. But I am trying to just put
all of this in some kind of context because I think if we look
at the total picture, then we have a better chance of coming up
with a solution that truly addresses the problem.
Now, I would like to discuss the cases in which ICE has
discretion. The chairman talked about discretion, and I think
he was absolutely right to address that. ICE has explained in
the past that some criminal immigrant detainees are released
after posting bond set by career ICE law enforcement officers.
Can you please tell us again why not simply deport all criminal
alien detainees that you have the discretion to the report? And
is it a question of resources?
Ms. Saldana. It's not so much a question of resources, sir,
as it is the statute. Congress in its wisdom gave people who
were found in the country and determined initially to be in the
country illegally a very complex set of rights and ability to
appeal and to have their cases heard by immigration courts.
Let me just make this really clear. We cannot--we'd be
violating the statute, which I think no one here wants me to
do. We cannot deport somebody without a final order of removal
from a court. ICE doesn't deport people on its own motion. It
has to have an order from the court. And obviously, we've got
to have the ability to put that person in the country of their
origin.
Mr. Cummings. Now, ICE has reported having the resources to
support only about 4 percent of the 11 million documented
immigrants. Is that right?
Ms. Saldana. That's right. And in fact, I think you all
have seen the studies that indicate that if we tried to deport
11.2 million people, it would cost anywhere from $650 billion,
$650 billion to $750 billion.
Mr. Cummings. So ICE also explained that discretionary
releases typically occur with individuals associated with less-
serious offenses. Based on your experience as a prosecutor--and
you were a former U.S. attorney?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. I have tremendous respect for our U.S.
attorneys. Why is it important for law enforcement agencies in
general to have the discretion to release individuals? What is
that about?
Ms. Saldana. Well, again, it's important for us because we
have to manage the money that this Congress has given us. But I
want to repeat, the bond procedure, the decisions to detain are
all--or not detain are all outlined in here. We must look at
flight risk, threat to public safety when we make those
decisions. But you have given us that authority, and it's
important for us because we've got to manage the number of beds
we have and obviously the entire fund that you have given us in
order to remove people from the country.
Mr. Cummings. I only have a minute left on my time. I
understand that these determinations are based on risk
evaluations giving consideration to factors like age, physical
and mental health, risk of harm to public safety, risk of
flight, and whether any mandatory detention factors apply.
Director, can you please explain why is important that these
evaluations are conducted on a case-by-case basis?
And then, knowing what you know and hearing what you know
you are going to hear, I want you to tell us things that we
could do as Congress folk to help you do the job that you are
trying to do.
Ms. Saldana. Okay. If I may start with the last part of
that question first, I would love to sit down with this
committee or a group of this committee to go through this
statute and talk about comprehensive immigration reform, what
we can do with respect to some of the very complicated parts of
this. And let's not forget, this is just the statute. We have
rulings left and right from all over the country literally
going left and right that we have to abide by, even though we
may be appealing them.
But with respect to your overall question with--regarding
discretion, we can--we have committed to deal with each
immigrant on a case-by-case basis because we don't have--I
don't think we have the will, nor do we have the funds to
deport 11.2 million people. We have to make decisions on a
case-by-case basis. Bright-line rules don't work here. If we
had a bright-line rule that we're going to deport anybody who
comes into our custody, we don't have time to do what we've
been trying to do and very successfully done, and that is focus
on criminal aliens. So this is why we need to have that
discretion and ability to make the decisions that we do.
And I will tell you, sir, are we perfect? I have great
faith in the judgments of our law enforcement officers in
making these determinations. They're experienced, well-trained,
and they care about the safety of our community. Are we
perfect? I can say firsthand I am not, and neither are our
officers, but we do the very best we can.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And I do want to echo the
director's remarks that our Customs and Border Patrol are some
of the most professional, accomplish, hardworking individuals
in the Federal Government. They work day in and day out to do
their job and protecting our borders. But we do hear that
things have affected their ability to control our borders.
First of all, the number of deportations total is down fairly
dramatically in this administration. Is that correct, Director?
Ms. Saldana. The numbers are lower ----
Mr. Mica. We have a chart there. Can you guys put the chart
up?
[Slide.]
Mr. Mica. So in the end of the Bush administration, we were
deporting about a quarter of a million. We are down to about
100,000; 2014 may be even lower than that. That is total, total
deportations, right?
Ms. Saldana. No, sir. I think you say up there ----
Mr. Mica. It is total deportations. And then if we turn to
----
Ms. Saldana. Sir, I'm--your chart says interior
deportations ----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Ms. Saldana.--not total.
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. Interior--there's also on the border--the
border ----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Ms. Saldana.--of removals.
Mr. Mica. Right. Well, in this case I am taking--they are
in the United States in the interior, not at the border. In any
event, criminal deportations were 110,000 in 2013 and now they
are down to 63,000. I don't have a chart on that. Those are
numbers provided by you, is that correct? Sixty-three thousand
in 2014. I don't know what 2015 is. I am sorry, 2015 is 63,000.
I don't have 2014. And 2013 was 110,000. In any event, it is
down ----
Ms. Saldana. Those are not the numbers I have.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, all I can go by is what we got from
you all. And you have said that the law prohibits some of your
actions to deport, but actually, the agents tell us, well, two
things. First, they say they are hamstrung by the President's
Executive order that has granted some amnesty to millions of
illegal aliens. That is what the agents say. Have you heard
that?
Ms. Saldana. From our agents or from border patrol?
Mr. Mica. From your agents and ----
Ms. Saldana. I've heard reports of that ----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Ms. Saldana.--sir.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Ms. Saldana. Nobody ----
Mr. Mica. Again, they are telling us that. They also say
that some of those people even--again, that there was a court
decision and ICE has admitted, however, that of the 2,457 of
the 30,000 releases, that that would the number affected by the
court decision, which is Zadvydas v. Davis so that 57 percent
were actually released at ICE's discretion, at your discretion.
So we have more than half of those at your discretion. We have
had hearings we have had your folks in, and this is what they
are telling us.
The other thing, too, is you have the right to deport
people, and again, the discretion is given to you. Again, your
agents have told us. But in more than half the cases, you
haven't exercised that discretion.
Then you also have when--the courts do let some folks out
on appeal, these criminal aliens have committed an act. How
many times have you appealed the bonds?
Ms. Saldana. Bonds, some occasions--I don't have the
precise number.
Mr. Mica. Could you provide that for the record because --
--
Ms. Saldana. I ----
Mr. Mica.--I think it is fairly limited.
Ms. Saldana. I can provide it.
Mr. Mica. But you have that discretion, too. So 57 percent
of the time where you have discretion, you haven't exercised
it. Then, where people have committed it, they are out on bond,
and you could appeal and go after those folks, you don't do it.
One of the other things that was brought to my attention is
we have lost total control of the border, and this is most
disturbing. I got this yesterday. This is the Customs and
Border Patrol system, the entire system that deals with
passport control. This is just the last 2 months from March 4,
2016, to April 17. The system has been down almost two total
days, and this is a record of the time the system has down. The
system that we have to control our border and who is coming in
is imploding. I don't know what it going on here, and I would
ask maybe the chairman of Government Operations or whoever is
in charge of this area in our subcommittee to look at this.
We have lost control of our borders, and your system that
protects us and the main computer system has been down, down,
and down, and I think this is something that needs to be looked
at. I am going to hand you a copy of this, and I would like you
to respond to these statistics.
Ms. Saldana. Are these ICE statistics or Customs and Border
Protection?
Mr. Mica. Customs and Border but ----
Ms. Saldana. That's another agency, sir.
Mr. Mica. Yes, but this is the system that controls the
passports and entry into the United States. And you are also in
DHS. I would like to have a response for the record.
Ms. Saldana. We should get the witness best able to answer
----
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Ms. Saldana.--the questions ----
Mr. Mica. And you will help me with that, and I appreciate
it.
Ms. Saldana.--regarding CBP, yes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time is expired.
I will now recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs.
Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. First of all, I would like to
thank Director Saldana for your public service first as a U.S.
attorney in Texas and now as director of ICE.
And I would like to understand the challenges that you and
ICE face in trying to deport criminal aliens back to their
countries and the countries refuse to take them. I want to
understand what the challenges are, and more importantly, what
can we do to force a country to take back their own citizen
when we are deporting them for serious criminal crimes.
Now, as you know, the Chadwick family is here. They lost
their beloved child, and they rightfully want to know why a
convicted--really a convicted, threatening, terrible felon was
not deported when he served his conviction in the United
States, he was out on release, the law said we can deport him,
we should deport him, and as I understand it his home country
Haiti refused to take him. And I want to understand how this
happens, and I want to understand what we can do about it. In
this case, the guy's name was Jean Jacques of Haiti.
And as we reviewed the record in this particular case, it
is stunning and shocking how many times the Haitian officials
approved his return to Haiti and then reversed themselves and
essentially pulled the rug out from under U.S. officials and
would not let him come home to his own country.
To give a specific example, on October 1, 2012, U.S.
officials submitted a request to Haiti to deport him. Haitian
officials gave their verbal confirmation that he was approved
to go back to Haiti, and are you aware that Haitian officials
approved his removal to Haiti on October 1, 2012?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. And you have cited--I don't know if
you're done ----
Mrs. Maloney. Yes, yes, yes. And then they changed their
minds. They told you, U.S. officials that he was denied for
removal. They pointed out that he was approved 3 days earlier.
And do you know why the Haitian officials decided on a whim
that he would not be allowed to come back to his country of
origin?
Ms. Saldana. We have not been given a response. It is
tremendously frustrating. We want to send this person back. We
wanted to. And there are others, unfortunately others in that
same position.
As I said, with respect to Haiti ----
Mrs. Maloney. Yes, yes. I want to go on. And this is really
critical because if we had succeeded in removing him and
deporting him, we would have saved an American life, we would
have saved an American family, and it was the right thing to
do.
So one week later, unbelievably, on October 10 Haitian
officials acknowledged to U.S. officials that they had actually
approved a flight to Haiti that includes Mr. Jacques. He was
supposed to go. But then on the very same day they reversed
themselves again. They said that he could not board the plane.
What in the world was going on with these Haitian officials?
Were they just playing games with us? I mean, this is the
second time they denied the deportation request of the United
States Government. And by treaty, they had approved that
illegal aliens and certainly criminal aliens would be accepted
back in their country.
Ms. Saldana. And what's extraordinary, Congresswoman, is
that actually the Haitian Government has worked with us in many
instances before. So it is a very arbitrary granting and then
denial and then granting and denial. It's extraordinarily
frustrating. Just like the United States requires people to
have travel documents when they come through the United Sates,
all these other governments require that, too.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is almost up. Now, this is almost
unbelievable. Then again on February 2 of 2016 of this year,
U.S. officials tried again to send him back to Haiti, and on
this day Haitian officials informed us the U.S. that Mr.
Jacques was once again approved for removal and then again on
the very same day these Haitian officials withdrew their
approval.
Now, what I want to know is what can we do about it? This
is something I would like to work with the majority party on
accomplishing. I personally support universal reform on
immigration, but if we can't reach a quick approval on that, we
should get a quick approval on how we can deport someone back
to their country, especially when they are ``allies,'' when we
have treaties, when you are literally giving this country aid.
And yet, three times they really made fun of the American
Government and said, no, we are not taking him back, reversing
a verbal confirmation that they would take this criminal back.
Now, I feel very strongly about this. I have my own two
daughters. I can't imagine the grief that this family is
facing. And this is such an injustice not only to this American
family and to this young girl but also to our whole country
that they will not abide by the treaty, they will not take
their felon back that came here illegally.
And my question is, and it is a serious one, how can we
enforce this and how can we stop this type of abuse of the
American Government?
Ms. Saldana. Well, we have a system in place and we have an
understanding with the Department of State, a Memorandum of
Understanding where ----
Mrs. Maloney. But if they refuse to take him, which is what
they are doing ----
Ms. Saldana. Exactly.
Mrs. Maloney.--what do we do about it?
Ms. Saldana. Exactly. And what we need to do is have
Department of State at the table, but we need to talk about how
we accelerate the process because right now, it is very, very
slow. We have ----
Mrs. Maloney. But you accelerated it. You achieved it.
Mr. DeSantis. [Presiding] The gentlewoman's time is
expired.
Mrs. Maloney. He was ready to be deported.
Mr. DeSantis. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. And the country said no. We have got to get a
system ----
Mr. DeSantis. The gentlewoman's ----
Mrs. Maloney.--where we can force these countries to be
responsible.
Ms. Saldana. I agree.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentlewoman's time is expired.
The chair notes the presence of Mr. Courtney from
Connecticut, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to
fully participate in today's hearing.
And without objection, so ordered.
I would also like to introduce for the record a CBP system
down-times log.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. DeSantis. And the chair will now recognize the
gentleman from Michigan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Saldana, thank you for being here, but let me
reiterate the fact that, number one, we support the proud
enforcement officials that you work with and that you lead. We
expect that the overwhelming majority of them are as frustrated
as we are in trying to deal with the problem, but our
frustration goes up to leadership aspects even above you and
concerns in making sure that our citizens are safe.
We are also concerned with the fact that there are plenty
of desiring immigrants who want to come to this country for all
the right reasons, but it is more difficult for them to come
because of what is going on with these illegals, and especially
the ones perpetrating the crimes and the murders in our
society.
And to get to the accomplishment of having comprehensive
immigration reform take place, we have to make sure that our
systems are working to keep this terrible, cruel element out of
our society.
And so let me ask you a question. Information that I have,
statistics say that as of August 2014, the administration
indicated that over 375,000 aliens and 121,000 level-one
convicted criminal aliens who the Obama administration deems
``the worst of the worst'' were removed as a result of the
Secure Communities. Instead of continuing to utilize that
successful existing system, the Obama administration ended it
and implemented the Priorities Enforcement Program that we are
under right now. Why did the administration end the successful
program that flags criminal aliens once they are booked into
jails?
Ms. Saldana. Sir, we may have to have a discussion on what
successful actually means. I think you are aware of the fact
that ----
Mr. Walberg. People living and not dying.
Ms. Saldana. I think you're aware of the fact that we, the
United States, have been sued many times because of Secure
Communities, and the fact that there are people that had claims
that they served in Federal court, some ended up being
successful even though we challenged them.
With respect to the implementation of the program, many
people are concerned that, as a result of Secure Communities
and the way it was implemented, something that was in place
before-- I was actually gone--before I got there, that there
was a tremendous controversy about it. Well ----
Mr. Walberg. Let me jump on here. During the Secure
Communities program that has been ended, how many detainers
were issued by ICE but ignored by local law enforcement?
Ms. Saldana. I don't have that number in front of me.
Mr. Walberg. Do you have a number of how many of those
ignored detainers resulted in an alien being released and
subsequently committing a crime?
Ms. Saldana. No, sir.
Mr. Walberg. Do you have ----
Ms. Saldana. For Secure Communities you're asking?
Mr. Walberg. Secure Communities.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. How many of those ignore detainers resulted in
additional crimes being committed? Do you have that number?
Ms. Saldana. I don't have it.
Mr. Walberg. Well, you have indicated you want solutions,
but it seems like you would want these numbers in order to get
to those solutions, wouldn't it?
Ms. Saldana. I just don't have them on the top of my head,
sir. They're available. We can probably find them. It may take
a manual search of our records, but--and some time, but we can.
I--the fact that I can't answer that right now shouldn't
undermine my point about wanting to do something positive in
this area.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I would like to have those numbers
provided for our committee, and whether it is the week that you
initiated--you said about the letters or not, we would like it
as quickly as possible.
Mr. Walberg. Why is the Federal Government satisfied with
localities coming in contact with removable aliens and then not
collecting sufficient information, records, fingerprints, et
cetera?
Ms. Saldana. Well, that is happening, and when you say
removal of aliens, no alien is removable until we have a court
order. So they go through a very--sometimes years-in-the-making
process, a very long process to make that determination.
I will tell you, though, you know that Secure Communities,
that program was replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program
where we work with all of these State and local jurisdictions.
That's what I did as a United States attorney. We relied on
local law enforcement, not only police departments but
Sheriff's departments, to assist us, and we do that. We ----
Mr. Walberg. And aren't there stipulations for them to
provide the information to you such as fingerprints on these
people?
Ms. Saldana. There's a provision in the statute that talks
about cooperation from them, not specifically fingerprints, but
cooperation.
Mr. Walberg. So cooperation would include information that
is necessary for protecting our citizens, correct?
Ms. Saldana. It could.
Mr. Walberg. It could? Well, maybe that is why this hearing
is being held today, and hopefully, information will come out
so that families won't be seated in the room again because
there is indication that we have not done what is necessary to
protect them. And that is my concern.
And again, it is not the ICE agents. It is the
administration that isn't doing what is necessary or at least
pushing for the funds, the resources, the systems in place to
make sure that we have that capability. And that is my concern.
That is not a charge. That is a request. Help us to do the
right thing. But in turn, don't give us excuses.
And I yield back.
Ms. Saldana. Another party, though, is the Congress, sir,
and you could help us by ----
Mr. Walberg. I think we have helped you with plenty of
things. We have asked questions today about why you haven't
used some of those resources, why there hasn't been the
pushback on other countries, why there hasn't been a request
for dollars to put toward the programs that keep these people
off the streets as opposed to other entities.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Cartwright for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Director Saldana, for being here, but I also
want to take time to acknowledge and thank everyone for the
presence of the families here today, starting with you, Mrs.
Hartling. Your daughter's case has been discussed a bit and we
will talk more about it, but our hearts go out to you. And I
know I speak for everyone here and everyone in the United
States Congress in expressing our most profound condolences.
Also, we have Chief Ralph Martin here taking up the cause
of Marilyn Pharis. And I know she is not family to you, but she
is starting to seem like it, I am sure. So condolences to you
as well, and thank you for taking up that cause.
But we also have Michelle and Scott Root here today, and
thank you.
Mr. Root. My wife is not here today.
Mr. Cartwright. Oh, okay. We have Scott Root here today,
and I thank you for being here. An ineffable, unspeakable
tragedy. I mean, we are talking about your daughter who just
graduated college the day before with a 4.0 in, of all things,
criminal justice. And then the next day in a drunken-driving
drag-racing incident, an undocumented illegal struck her from
behind with such force that she died within about 24 hours.
Unbelievable.
And this is a situation that I want to talk to you about,
Director Saldana. We had this 19-year-old illegal, a young man
named Mejia from Honduras, and really what happened after the
crime was even more shocking because he got out on bail. There
was a judge--this is in Nebraska, I think. A judge let Mejia
out on $50,000 bail. And if you know how bail works, if you
post 10 percent, then you are out on bail. Well, 10 percent of
$50,000 is $5,000. Mejia's brother came up with the money, and
as soon as he got out, he was gone. And are you familiar with
the case, Director Saldana?
Ms. Saldana. Oh, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So I want to look into that a little
bit because the thing--I was a lawyer for 25 years, and I know
a little bit about how bail is set. And one of the
considerations is when the judge decides to set bail, is this
person a flight risk? Is this person likely to be somebody who
would plunk down the 10 percent and skedaddle out and never be
heard from again?
In fact, Mejia had a history of brushes with the law before
this horrible drunk-driving incident. He had had a history of
skipping out on other charges when the judge considered bail.
But what I read, and I want you guys to disabuse me of this if
it is wrong, but what I read was that the trial court judge
never--the one charged with setting bail never even heard that
this was an illegal immigrant, never even heard of his history
with the law, and most importantly, never even knew that he had
skipped out on other charges before. This was the poster child
for somebody that ought to have a very, very high bail set. And
the judge never even knew it, and it was because the
prosecution, which knew all these things, never informed the
judge.
Now, that is what I got from news accounts, and if it is
wrong, that is why I am asking that I want you to tell me if it
is wrong. But we saw on the news accounts that the Douglas
County attorney acknowledged that his office could have handled
the matter better. And we will talk about it later, but if you
are familiar with the case, Director Saldana, am I getting the
facts right there?
Ms. Saldana. More or less, although I can't speak to
exactly what the judge had in his mind when he made the
decision to release Mr. Mejia.
Mr. Cartwright. And let me interrupt you. In a case like
that, does it require an ICE detainer for a local judge to set
a high bail in a case of probable flight risk?
Ms. Saldana. No, sir. He just needs to know the facts. And
we obviously were not in the courtroom at that time. It was a--
it's a distinct matter, as you all know, when it comes to this
kind of activity. And I want to tell Mr. Root, express my
sympathies as well with respect to this.
I think you said earlier that the DA had said that things
could have been done better. There's a lot--unfortunately,
there's a lot of different things that could have been done
better, and I'm--I am going to use this as a--when I said I was
revisiting our criminal review process, I am going to use this
as an example of what could we have done differently in this
case because I don't want this to happen again obviously, and
neither does the officer or the agents involved in this case.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Director. And I do look
forward to hearing from the families later today.
I yield back.
Mr. Walberg. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Saldana, you have reached out to the families, but I
want to make sure it is for the record that you reached out to
the families around April 22 only upon finding out about this
hearing and their testimony. So I want to make sure that is for
the record.
Ms. Saldana. And I want to be sure for the record ----
Mr. Gosar. You know, I understand. I made a statement ----
Ms. Saldana. You don't want me to ----
Mr. Gosar. I made a statement, ma'am, so let me--this is my
time, not yours.
Ms. Saldana. Okay. You ----
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Ms. Saldana.--understand that they are ----
Mr. Gosar. Once again, it is my time.
Ms. Saldana. And you understand that I would like the
record to be clear, sir. I am meeting with Ms. Hartling this
afternoon. I don't want to ----
Mr. Gosar. I find it--I am going on. I don't think you
ought to be picking a fight with Arizona. Of all places, you
better not go there. Operation Streamline goes away,
incarcerations over and over again, told them to release them.
It is not the men and women in ICE and Border Patrol; it is
leadership just like you, like the President, like the attorney
general all the way across the board.
So let's put a face on this. Are you aware in January 2015
of a young man in my home State of Arizona who was shot and
killed by an illegal alien who was facing deportation
proceedings but was out on bond? Are you familiar with the
murder of Grant Ronnebeck by an illegal alien in Mesa, Arizona?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. This is important because I want to make sure
you and your agency know about the numbers that you cite and
all these reckless, lawless policies, Director, have real
consequences, murderous consequences for real people and their
families. One life lost in this manner is way too many,
wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely.
Mr. Gosar. So the man who murdered Grant Ronnebeck was an
illegal alien who, instead of being detained or deported, was
out on bond. In fact, Apolinar Altamirano, a self-proclaimed
drug cartel member, had deportation proceedings dragging on
more than 2 years after he was released on bond following a
conviction, a conviction on a burglary charge. While out on
bond, this illegal alien had two harassment charges--very
similar to what my colleague on the other side was talking
about in the previous case--against him in which one of the
victims said that she feared for her life several times in
claiming to the court he pointed a gun at her and her
boyfriend. Yet this man remained on the streets.
Now, here is this thing you have talked about, this
discretionary issue. So then on January 19, 2015, Mr.
Altamirano walked into a convenience store, demanded a pack of
cigarettes in exchange for a jar of change. When the clerk,
young Grant Ronnebeck hesitated, Altamirano pointed a gun at
Grant and shot him, fatally shooting him, 21 years old.
Now, Director Saldana, Grant Ronnebeck's murder is a direct
result of your agency's failed policies. Why do you let
murderous people like this free into our communities? Once
again, all the discretion, I pointed out he has got a history
and a rap sheet. Tell me why.
Ms. Saldana. I can tell you, sir, what I said earlier with
respect to the fact that our officers ----
Mr. Gosar. It is not that code, and you keep pointing to
that code. It is not that code. There was no reason why this
man should have been on the street.
Ms. Saldana. I'm sorry, what did you just say?
Mr. Gosar. It is not about that code.
Ms. Saldana. The code?
Mr. Gosar. The code that you keep referring to ----
Ms. Saldana. Oh, statute.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. It is not about that. This man, the whole
rap sheet, this guy should have been incarcerated.
Unfortunately, Grant's murder is not unique, and this
murderer's situation is not an isolated case, is it, Director?
It is not an isolated case, is it?
Ms. Saldana. What is? The specific facts ----
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Saldana.--of that case?
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. Well ----
Mr. Gosar. There are lots of them. We heard one from Mr.
Cartwright.
Ms. Saldana. Yes--we--I think the numbers are in the
record.
Mr. Gosar. So how many aliens entered the United States
illegally were charged with felonies in fiscal year 2015?
Ms. Saldana. I'll have to look up that number, sir.
Mr. Gosar. How many in 2016?
Ms. Saldana. How many aliens who were in the system or who
are out there in the public?
Mr. Gosar. How many aliens who entered the United States
illegally were charged with felonies? If you don't have those
numbers, I would like them for the record ----
Ms. Saldana. Well, sir ----
Mr. Gosar.--2015 and 2016.
Ms. Saldana.--as I said earlier, there are 11.2 million
aliens in the United States illegally ----
Mr. Gosar. I don't care about the 11 million. I am asking
about those that come in with felonies, that were charged with
felonies. I want ----
Ms. Saldana. Some we haven't encountered. There's no way we
can have information on them.
Mr. Gosar. How many aliens who entered the United States
illegally were charged with felonies in fiscal year 2015? You
have those numbers. I want them.
Ms. Saldana. We don't have those numbers.
Mr. Gosar. After they got here. Don't you get it? I mean,
you were a U.S. attorney ----
Ms. Saldana. Many of them are not trying to be found, sir.
We don't have any record that they're here in the country. The
11.2 is an estimate.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, they are illegally here and they were
charged with a felony here. You got those numbers.
Ms. Saldana. No, sir. They wouldn't ----
Mr. Gosar. You have got to be kidding me.
Ms. Saldana. They wouldn't be complete.
Mr. Gosar. You have got to be kidding. These are illegals--
so they come into this country, they are illegal, they have
been charged with a felony. What are those numbers in this
country?
Ms. Saldana. Sir ----
Mr. Gosar. Are you kidding me?
Ms. Saldana. No, I'm not kidding you. I ask you to listen
to my answer. There are 11.2 million people in the country
illegally.
Mr. Gosar. I am not asking about the 11.2.
Ms. Saldana. It's ----
Mr. Gosar. I am asking about those that are here illegally
----
Mr. Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. I now recognize the gentleman ----
Mr. Gosar. Unbelievable.
Mr. Walberg.--from California, Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gosar. Unbelievable.
Mr. Lieu. And let me first say to the families, thank you
for being here, and I apologize for your loss.
I would like to follow up on Representative Maloney's line
of questioning about Haiti and Mr. Jacques. No one disputes
that he had a legitimate court order for deportation and that
the Haitian Government three times rejected accepting him back
to their country. Are you aware that the U.S. has been the
largest Federal aid donor to Haiti since 1973?
Ms. Saldana. No, sir. I ----
Mr. Lieu. Okay.
Ms. Saldana.--don't follow that.
Mr. Lieu. So we are the largest Federal aid donor in
history to Haiti. And are you frustrated that countries such as
Haiti don't take back their citizens after they commit crimes
in the United States and have a valid order for deportation?
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely. If we can remove somebody and we
have that order we want to remove that person.
Mr. Lieu. Right. Would you support a law or an amendment
that says countries like Haiti should no longer get foreign aid
or get a reduction in foreign aid if they do not accept their
citizens back that have committed crimes in the United States?
Ms. Saldana. I would support looking at that question, sir,
and working with the Department of State to see if that's a
reasonable and logical thing to do.
Mr. Lieu. Has the Government of Haiti apologized to ICE or
to the victim's family at all?
Ms. Saldana. I don't know about the family. I don't know --
--
Mr. Lieu. Have they apologized to the U.S. Government or
ICE for their actions?
Ms. Saldana. Not to ICE at least that I'm aware of.
Mr. Lieu. So I hope someone from the Haitian Government
watches this hearing because now they have got bipartisan
outrage about the Government of Haiti. That is not a good place
for the Government of Haiti to be in. They could lose Federal
aid, and I would like to know if ICE, since you have already
gotten a letter from U.S. Senators to look into this, if
perhaps you could communicate to either the Department of State
or the Government of Haiti and say that their behavior was
unacceptable, and we need them to change?
Ms. Saldana. I'll certainly raise that subject again this
afternoon.
Mr. Lieu. So I would like to talk a little bit about the
case of Sarah Root and how the person that killed her fled by
posting bond. It is my belief that the bond system is in
drastic need of reform in the United States. Only two major
civilized countries have a major bail bond industry, a for-
profit industry. It is the U.S., and the Philippines is the
other one. Many other countries actually banned money bond, and
that is because there is very little relationship between how
much money someone can have posted or the cash in hand they
happen to have and how dangerous they are. And in this case, it
is a good example where someone posted money and then fled.
It seems to me it would make a lot more sense if we
eliminated money bond and instead when to a risk-assessment
system, which is what the District of Columbia has done for
many years. And basically, they say, look, if you are at risk
of fleeing or if you are dangerous, we are just not going to
release you. But if you are not and you are poor and you can't
post a bail, we are going to release you. We are going to do it
based on a risk assessment.
And I think what happens often is these judges and the
whole system tends to look at the money factor and say, oh, if
they can post $50,000, we are just going to release them. In
real life, there is very little relationship between money and
how dangerous the person is or whether they can flee. Often, it
just depends can you get someone to post that 10 percent for
the rest of the bond.
And so I would appreciate if you could look at how the bond
system in the Federal Government may actually be helping to
release people that are quite dangerous or at risk of fleeing
and maybe we should reverse that and look at a risk assessment
system.
I note this is not a partisan issue. The State of Kentucky
is looking at moving towards a risk assessment system. And so
could you look into that issue and let us know?
Ms. Saldana. Well, actually, sir, it's supposed to be a
risk assessment. I don't know the specifics ----
Mr. Lieu. Well, here is the problem. When you attach for-
profit money to that system, it warps it so that judges, I
think, don't do their proper risk assessment. I think judges
would do a much better risk assessment if they thought, hey, it
is on me now. It is not really how much money this person can
post. It is my decision whether to release them and it is
totally on the judge and the factors. So would you at least
look at that issue?
Ms. Saldana. I certainly can.
Mr. Lieu. Great. Thank you. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Walberg. I now recognize Mr. Grothman for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Right. You right now are supposed to fill an
average number of beds of 34,000 a day, is that correct?
Ms. Saldana. That's what we've been authorized for, yes,
sir.
Mr. Grothman. Right. And of those, are they filled now
about?
Ms. Saldana. Excuse me?
Mr. Grothman. Are they filled now about?
Ms. Saldana. We're about at 32,000 I think the last time I
checked average daily population, and right around that number
in terms of like the last time I looked that day.
Mr. Grothman. And of those 32,000, how many are people who
have been found guilty of a crime and how many are people who
are maybe for just whatever reason grabbed at the border?
Ms. Saldana. There would be some that are there because of
having been charged with a crime and others that are recent
border entrants, some that came into the country after January
1 ----
Mr. Grothman. Right, right, right. About how much of each?
Ms. Saldana. I can get you that--those percentages.
Mr. Grothman. Like about half-half, 80/20, 90/10?
Ms. Saldana. I hate to pull something out of the air, sir,
but I certainly can look at that.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So you have extra bed space available
now?
Ms. Saldana. About 200 if I'm right, and of course that
number varies from one day to the next because ----
Mr. Grothman. I thought you said you had about 32,000 in
there and you're authorized for 34,000.
Ms. Saldana. I'm sorry. You're--did I say 200?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. Let me add an extra zero. I'm sorry, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Right now, what percentage of criminals
who could be deported you think are being deported?
Ms. Saldana. Every criminal who has a final order of
removal and a travel document is in the process of being
removed.
Mr. Grothman. Right, but there are criminals right now who
are arrested for crimes who are not removed, correct?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. And do you know percentagewise the number of
people we could remove, what percentage are being removed?
Ms. Saldana. Any given year, no, I don't, not right now.
Mr. Grothman. Could you guess wildly, half, a third, 90
percent?
Ms. Saldana. It's a portion of it. I would think it'd be--I
don't want to guess, sir. I'll give you a proper percentage.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Could you tell us what types of crimes
we don't remove people for now?
Ms. Saldana. Oh, traffic tickets ----
Mr. Grothman. Drunk driving, do you ----
Ms. Saldana. I'm sorry, that's not a crime obviously, it's
a civil matter.
Mr. Grothman. Right, right, right, right.
Ms. Saldana. It could be for minor offenses. Gosh, the list
is long and depends on a ----
Mr. Grothman. Well ----
Ms. Saldana.--State by State ----
Mr. Grothman. Well ----
Ms. Saldana. Where the--let me put it this way. Where the
offense has a sentence of--possible sentence of less than a
year probably. Those are often misdemeanors.
Mr. Grothman. And you wouldn't remove somebody for that?
Ms. Saldana. It depends. Our priorities do allow us to move
people with multiple misdemeanors. They are a priority. We just
have to look at every case on a case-by-case basis and the
facts relating to that case.
Mr. Grothman. Do you have a databank of all the people who
have been convicted of a crime who are here illegally?
Ms. Saldana. We have the criminal history on anybody we've
touched who's in the removal process.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Okay. This is kind of difficult. I am
going to ask the chairman if we would have another follow-up
hearing so you can come back with more answers.
But right now, if somebody is charged with two burglaries
in the State of Wisconsin and convicted, are they going to be
part of your database?
Ms. Saldana. The offenses they're charged with?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. Yes, probably so because we'll be drawing the
criminal history of each one of them.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So you have a databank somewhere in
which you are trying to keep track of all illegal immigrants
here who are convicted of crimes?
Ms. Saldana. Those that we know about.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Okay. And do you feel that there are a
lot you don't know about?
Ms. Saldana. Pardon?
Mr. Grothman. Do you feel there are a lot you don't know
about?
Ms. Saldana. Well, about--I said there are about 2 million
people in the process, and the guesses are that there are about
11.2 million here who we--who may--we may or may not know
about. So one could draw a conclusion from that that there's 9
million or so who we don't know about that are in the shadows.
Mr. Grothman. But the question is did they commit crimes?
You feel there are ----
Ms. Saldana. About people I don't know, we don't know--if
we don't know who that person is here, we don't know what their
criminal history is.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. This is the question I am going to try
to get at. If an illegal immigrant commits two burglaries in
this country, will you find out about it?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, we may. It depends on how ----
Mr. Grothman. Every one of your answers is not quite on
point. Yes, we may? I mean, will you or won't you?
Ms. Saldana. Sir, it depends on the local jurisdiction. I
mean, if the local jurisdiction keeps records well and we're--
and they input into the system that we are a part of, I can't
give you an unequivocal answer. It's not a simple matter.
Mr. Grothman. Can you give us any public policy reason why,
say, if somebody commits a burglary why they should not be
deported?
Ms. Saldana. No. It depends on the cases and the facts
relating to that case. If it's a burglary that was--if the
person's been here for 25 years, they have three U.S. citizen
children, and the burglary was 24 years ago, that, looking at
it on a case-by-case basis, we may make a decision not to
remove them but not to detain them.
Mr. Grothman. I have no more time.
Mr. Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
the ranking member on the National Security Subcommittee, Mr.
Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and
the ranking member for holding this hearing.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, and also the
written comments of the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
Courtney.
And I want to express my condolences to the families as
well, and thank you for turning your tragedy into something
that may eventually help other families from the same tragedy
that has befallen your families. So thank you for taking
something very, very bad, something very painful and trying to
make something positive out of it. And I appreciate your
courage and your willingness to do that.
I just want to make a couple of observations here. Ms.
Saldana, you are aware of the Zadvydas v. Davis case where the
Supreme Court back in 2001 said that if you are holding a
person, an illegal alien charged with a crime that has a
deportation order but there is no foreseeable opportunity for
that person to be deported, you have got to release him?
Ms. Saldana. Painfully away.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. So I am just pointing back to Congress, you
know, we have got a responsibility here. You have got to
recognize the context in which all this is happening, and it is
happening in the absence of a coherent and workable immigration
policy.
And I have had a chance, with my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, to go down to Central America, went down to
Honduras, went down to Guatemala, went down to El Salvador. And
like it or not, because of the Executive orders that are out
there, these human traffickers--they call them coyotes but I
think that is too romantic a term--these are human traffickers
capitalizing on that. And for $7,000 they will give you three
shots to get into the United States. And we visited some of the
centers where, if they get caught trying to cross the border,
they get sent back. And ----
Ms. Saldana. And we're targeting those, Congressman.
Mr. Lynch. Yes, I know, I am just trying to make a point
here. Every one of those kids that was returned, and there were
hundreds that got caught at the border and were returned
because in Mexico they support that sometimes, every one of
those kids was picked up by their family within a couple of
hours. So this is an organized attempt. It is not something
that is just, you know, people are desperate. You know, they
are economic refugees and they are trying to have a better
life.
The point I am trying to make is the last numbers we have
for South and Central America, there are 61 million people
living on less than $1 a day. They are desperate, extreme
poverty, less than $1 a day. So if we have a system, if we are
going to treat North and South America as a borderless region,
then I think if we want an idea of what might happen, I think
we look at Germany and we look at Europe because in that case--
and I have spent a fair amount of time in Germany and in the
Middle East and at refugee camps in the Middle East. We are
asking for the exact same problems where people are in
desperate situations, and we do not have control of our border.
We do not.
And it is not the fault of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement that we don't have control of our border. It is a
problem of a willingness here in Congress to grapple with that
problem.
And we have a serious, serious problem. We can't have a
Schengen zone here in the Western Hemisphere. We just can't
sustain that. That is not a system that is going to provide for
the safety of our citizens, and it is not going to be a system
that will adequately address our need for legitimate and legal
immigration.
And I think it is--At one point you were pointing back at
Congress and saying, you know, you have got a responsibility
here, too, and I think you are absolutely right, Ms. Saldana.
Congress is responsible. We are responsible.
And I think there is a solution out there. And, you know, I
think we have got to just, you know, let cooler heads prevail
despite the vitriolic language we hear elsewhere about, you
know, painting every single person south of the border with the
same brush. That is not helpful. It is not right.
But at the same token, we have a prime responsibility of
protecting our people. And this is a national security issue.
We have got to get control of our borders, north and south. And
the faster we do that, the better our opportunity we will have
to come up with a cogent and sustainable and responsible
immigration system.
So I thank you for your attendance here today. I see I have
exceeded my time, and I thank the chairman for his indulgence.
I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. [Presiding] The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Jordan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman and thank him for his hard
work on this issue and a number of other members of the
committee.
I was struck by the director's statement. In fact, she was
looking directly at Congressman DeSantis, now the acting chair,
when she talked about Republicans making this political. It is
not about politics. It is about enforcing the law. It is about
following ----
Ms. Saldana. I didn't say Republicans.
Mr. Jordan. Well, your comments were obviously directed to
Mr. DeSantis. The entire time I was here you were looking at
Mr. DeSantis and following his opening statement and Mr.
Chaffetz's opening statement. But that is fine. You can say
Republican, so that is fine. You did say, I think political
bantering was the term you used.
So I wanted to try to dissect these numbers. And again,
from my perspective, following the law is not politics, it is
the rule of law, it is what American is supposed to do and what
American is supposed to be about. So let's look at some of
these. It seems to me there are four categories of individuals
that ICE probably interacts with. You have people who are here
on a visa and they overstay or they violate their visa. I think
the law says if someone does that, they are supposed to head
back to their native country as well.
Then you have someone who is an illegal entrant. They
didn't come here on a visa; they just illegally entered the
country. If that comes to your attention, you have them, they
are also supposed to be deported is my understanding of the way
the law is supposed to work.
And then you have the categories that we are talking about
today, a subset of this bigger universe if I am getting this
all right. You have got people who overstay their visas or are
here illegally, illegal entrant who commit a crime and they are
in your custody. They are supposed to be deported.
And then it seems to me you have maybe the most important
category, overstayed their visas or illegal entrant who commit
a violent crime and then are in your custody and are supposed
to be deported.
So we have got four categories where the law says they are
supposed to be deported, but we are really only focusing on the
last two, actually, even a smaller subset, illegal entrants who
commit a crime who then you have in custody. And my
understanding is you have released 86,000 of just that subset
over the last few years. And over half of that 86,000 were
released at your discretion, what is commonly called
prosecutorial discretion. Is that accurate, Director?
Ms. Saldana. That's correct.
Mr. Jordan. That is all correct. So again, when you break
it down, people came here illegally, did a crime, many cases
violent crime, were in your custody, the law says they are
supposed to be deported, and at your discretion, not because
their country wouldn't take them back, you couldn't get travel
documents, or notwithstanding other reasons, but over half of
those 86,000 were you just decided you were just going to not
follow the law. You were going to release them.
Ms. Saldana. I disagree with that. We do follow the law.
The law that Congress has provided says that for those--other
than those that are subject to mandatory detention, a bond
decision must be made and cite some of the factors that we
consider, very much what you're familiar with in the penal
system.
Mr. Jordan. But the fact remains you release them.
Ms. Saldana. After a careful analysis of each case.
Mr. Jordan. Careful analysis. My guess is the families who
are here, who I also want to express my condolences to, would
disagree with your careful analysis.
Ms. Saldana. Are we 100 percent accurate every time,
looking back, sir, your--we--as I said earlier, we strive for
perfection, but we are human and we do fall short sometimes.
Mr. Jordan. Half of the 86,000 were the way I described. Is
that accurate, Director, over half?
Ms. Saldana. I think so. I think that is right.
Mr. Jordan. What are the other reasons? What are the other
40 percent, 45 percent, whatever it is?
Ms. Saldana. Someone who's on their deathbed and is going
to--you know, we have something from a doctor says there's no
purpose in putting this person in detention, they're going to
die in a few months, someone who is too ill to board a flight
and they have to be transported by air, someone who is
pregnant, those are some of the reasons.
Mr. Jordan. Well, I mean, again, I am struck by the four
different categories, we are focused on what I think American
citizens would say the most dangerous category and the fact
that over half of them are released just because you can do it,
that ----
Ms. Saldana. You provided--Congress has said we can do it.
We wouldn't do it if we--if Congress hadn't provided that you
consider bond for those that are not subject to mandatory
detention.
Mr. Jordan. But my understanding is you have the capability
to hold more and you are not doing that.
Ms. Saldana. We do, but I'm telling you that ----
Mr. Jordan. So ----
Ms. Saldana.--we exercise ----
Mr. Jordan. So ----
Ms. Saldana.--our judgment, sir, on ----
Mr. Jordan. Oh ----
Ms. Saldana.--based on what you have told us.
Mr. Jordan.--well, you can't have it both ways. It can't be
your judgment and you have the capability to hold more and then
you blame it on Congress.
Ms. Saldana. I'm not blaming it on Congress. I'm telling
you what the law ----
Mr. Jordan. Well, I think you just did.
Ms. Saldana. Well, that's what the law says, sir, if that's
what you ----
Mr. Jordan. But then it can't ----
Ms. Saldana.--how you interpret ----
Mr. Jordan. Then it can't be your judgment. So you can't
have it both ----
Ms. Saldana. No, you've given us that judgment. You've said
there are things that are mandatory and everything else ----
Mr. Jordan. And you have the ----
Ms. Saldana.--is discretionary.
Mr. Jordan.--capability to hold more people in that final
category, illegal entrant, committed a violent crime and they
are in your custody, you have the capability, the facilities to
hold more, and you are exercising your judgment to release
them. And some of those people you release did violent crimes
and actually took the life of American citizens.
Ms. Saldana. Today, we have about 2,000 beds available ----
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Ms. Saldana.--based on what you authorized, this Congress
authorized for us to do.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. So I think we are saying let's use them.
Ms. Saldana. Okay. And tomorrow, it may be 34. It may be 36
tomorrow. That number fluctuates.
Mr. Jordan. I am over. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Connolly from Virginia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Ms. Saldana, and my heart also goes out to the
Hartling family and the Root family. I am a dad with a
daughter. I cannot imagine. And it was a failure of the system
that made you victims. It made your daughters victims.
And we have got a problem with immigration, and I think
Director Saldana has been trying to point to that tome in front
of her saying I need your help in fixing that because there are
problems in the current system that affect American citizens
who count on it to protect them, but also immigrant families
who want to make sure that they are treated with respect and
dignity, because overwhelmingly, most of them are not
criminals.
I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, two pieces
of correspondence. One is from the Southern Poverty Law Center
about some of the problems with the Atlanta immigration raids,
and another one from my part of the country, northern Virginia,
from the Arlington Public Schools, direction given by the
superintendent of schools to all families and staff because of
growing anxiety about these raids in northern Virginia.
Mr. DeSantis. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Ms. Saldana, I added those letters into the record, and one
of those letters states that ICE ``trampled legal rights,
subjected mothers and children to terrifying and unnecessary
police encounters, and tore families apart.'' It also says
``these raids have turned to schools, including students on
their way to schools.'' Are there indeed ICE raids on students
on their way to schools?
Ms. Saldana. No, there are not raids. We conduct
operations, sir, and I really work very hard in the community.
I've met with lots of organizations that simply do not
understand what ICE does. And when the term raid is thrown
around, it implies a thoughtless sweeping of people. The people
we targeted in this--in both these operations that occurred
earlier this year, Operation Border Resolve, Operation Border
Guardian, were specifically targeted to people who had--whose
status was determined to be illegal, who had the whole--had run
their gamut of appeals and rights and the processes afforded
them by the Immigration and Naturalization statute, who had a
final order of removal and who were ready to be removed.
Mr. Connolly. Director Saldana ----
Ms. Saldana. That's not what I call a raid.
Mr. Connolly. All right. You don't call that a raid. They
do. And it is leading to the superintended of schools feeling
he needs to provide counsel and reassurance to an entire school
system based on the actions of ICE. Now, maybe that is
justified, maybe it isn't, but maybe you want to talk to the
superintendent of our schools in northern Virginia.
Ms. Saldana. I'm happy to. In fact, sir, let--if I can just
brag a minute, we have set up a network--we're setting up a
network of community relations officers, people who will meet
with law enforcement, with school superintendents, with rotary
clubs, whoever will listen to us so that we can lay out for
them exactly how we go about our business. The taxpayer is
entitled to know that ----
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Ms. Saldana.--and that's why we want to do that.
Mr. Connolly. Fair enough. But let me go back to a student.
So a student on the way to school, Supreme Court has ruled
that, irrespective of status, if you are a student, you show
up, you are entitled to a public education, correct?
Ms. Saldana. I am not sure. I take your word for it. I ----
Mr. Connolly. Well, that is a matter of case law.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. You were a U.S. ----
Ms. Saldana. Whatever it is ----
Mr. Connolly.--attorney. I mean, that was a Supreme Court
ruling. I am not making that up. And that is why local
governments throughout American have to educate children,
irrespective of status. So whether they are documented or not
is immaterial to a local public school. And is ICE targeting
children based on their documentation on the way to what is a
constitutionally protected education?
Ms. Saldana. No, just adults. Unaccompanied children ----
Mr. Connolly. Just ----
Ms. Saldana.--who have aged out are eligible ----
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Ms. Saldana.--if they're over 17, I believe, or older. So,
no, we don't target children.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. I have got a few seconds left. Just
while you are doing your outreach, I urge you to do it with
Members of Congress as well. I can tell you in my district
probably my number-one subject now is immigration, given the
demographics of my district. And we need a partner in your
agency. We are not trying to make your life more difficult, but
we are trying sometimes to solve through difficult problems
that are family-related and confusion and all kinds of other
things ----
Ms. Saldana. I'd like to follow up with you ----
Mr. Connolly. I would love to do that ----
Ms. Saldana.--and get ----
Mr. Connolly.--because ----
Ms. Saldana.--and get that arranged.
Mr. Connolly.--if we don't have your cooperation, we can't
resolve some problems. And trying to make sure that from the
top down caseworkers cooperate with Members of Congress as they
are trying to do their jobs, too, on behalf of their
constituents is always welcome.
I wish I had more time. I thank the chair for the hearing.
And again, my profound sympathies go with the families. There
aren't words to describe how we feel.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, I appreciate your service in a previous life, and
I have got to confess to you, I was surprised when you used the
phrase ``political bantering'' in your opening. I was not only
surprised, I was disappointed because you seemed to direct that
towards the Republicans. It was the solicitor general of this
administration not 2 weeks ago before the Supreme Court who
talked about the damage wreaked by the separation of families.
Of course, he wasn't talking about Sarah Root's family and he
wasn't talking about Joshua Wilkerson's family and he wasn't
talking about Casey Chadwick's family or Kate Steinle's family.
He was talking about the families of people who were not here
legally.
And that just struck me as a political comment that he
made, and of course it is not us on our side that advocate for
sanctuary cities, which is quintessentially a political
analysis that we are going to allow State and local officials
to decline to follow Federal process, but at the same time we
don't trust State and local cops enough to actually enforce
immigration laws. That is a political calculus. That is not
done by folks on our side of the aisle.
My friend from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, went to great
lengths to quote episodically from a single Republican. I have
never heard him quote Secretary Castro, who has come before
committees of this Congress and advocated for citizenship for
all 12 million aspiring Americans, like all 12 million can pass
a background check, all 12 million, not a single one of them
can't pass a background check.
So if we are going to talk about political bantering and if
we are going to use your phrase, and you are the one who used
it, I think we ought to at least acknowledge there is plenty of
political bantering going on on your side as well.
Ms. Saldana. Let me make myself very clear, very clear. I
was not referring to one party or the other. I asked for
everyone to drop the political banter and fighting and help me
get a system that works.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. Well, then ----
Ms. Saldana. I want the record to be clear on that.
Mr. Gowdy. The record is clear. Let's let the record be
clear about one other thing because I am vexed as to why Mr.
Mejia was not detained. Can you tell me as a former prosecutor
why the killer of Sarah Root was not detained?
Ms. Saldana. An individual from ICE looked at the specific
facts and circumstances related to that matter, had--the
individual had no criminal convictions, previous criminal
convictions, and made a determination based on his judgment
that he did not need to be detained.
Mr. Gowdy. And ----
Ms. Saldana. Could you and I disagree with that decision --
--
Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, it is more than that you and I
disagree with that. That individual was in fact wrong because
Mejia has failed to appear for court, has he not? Has he
absconded?
Ms. Saldana. It is very easy to look back, sir ----
Mr. Gowdy. Well ----
Ms. Saldana.--very easy to look back, and yes, he has
absconded.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I am looking back so we can look forward
and prevent the next one ----
Ms. Saldana. Exactly what I'd like to do.
Mr. Gowdy.--and that is about all we can do unless we have
a crystal ball is look back and see what facts we were given.
And Mr. Mejia--the only two things you look at in a bond
analysis are danger to the community and flight risk. Those are
the only two things you look at. So help me understand why
someone driving three times the legal rate of impairment who is
not here legally, did he have any criminal history at all, any
arrests at all?
Ms. Saldana. We did not find criminal history. I think I've
been advised by Senator Ernst that he had some traffic
violations previously, but criminal convictions, our records
didn't indicate that he had.
Mr. Gowdy. Has he failed to appear subsequently for court
appearances?
Ms. Saldana. Subsequent to what?
Mr. Gowdy. Subsequent to his killing of Sarah Root?
Ms. Saldana. Oh, no, he did not appear for his ----
Mr. Gowdy. Right. So he has ----
Ms. Saldana.--immigration court hearing.
Mr. Gowdy. He has failed to appear, that was my question.
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely.
Mr. Gowdy. So the discretion exercised was wrong.
Ms. Saldana. These are tough decisions, sir, and ----
Mr. Gowdy. This one actually is not that tough to me ----
Ms. Saldana. Well ----
Mr. Gowdy.--Director. With all due respect, it is not that
tough.
Ms. Saldana. Okay. Federal judges make these ----
Mr. Gowdy. Would you have granted a $5,000 for that
defendant?
Ms. Saldana. I don't think the bond was set at $5,000 ----
Mr. Gowdy. No, it was $50,000, which means he had to post
$5,000.
Ms. Saldana. Yes. I ----
Mr. Gowdy. Would you have set that bond?
Ms. Saldana. I would not if I were a judge in that State
court, and I believe that was a judge of the State court system
who made that decision, another factor that the officer from
ICE might have looked at in making his decision. I will tell
you, judges make tough decisions every day. And we can point to
judges--I was on the receiving end of many of these as a
prosecutor asking for bond--asking for detention and a Federal
judge said no, and later, that person absconded.
Unfortunately--it irks me every time of course. Unfortunately,
it happens a lot.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, it does happen, and sometimes with tragic
consequences.
I am out of time so I will close up with this. I believe in
a previous life I am sure you worked with State and local law
enforcement in addition to Federal law enforcement ----
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely.
Mr. Gowdy.--and it has always struck me as unusual that we
trust State and local law enforcement with the enforcement of
every category of crime. I am sure you had them on some task
forces, whether it be narcotics, whether it be human
trafficking. We trust them in child pornography cases. We trust
them in all categories of cases, including traffic enforcement.
So why don't we trust them in immigration cases?
Ms. Saldana. Well, we do actually. We have a 287(g) program
that we enlist the help of local law enforcement in helping us
with immigration enforcement. There are a number of
jurisdictions, and I've asked our people to expand that
program.
Mr. Gowdy. You have asked them to expand it? Because it
seems like it is shrinking.
Ms. Saldana. No, sir, it's not shrinking other than maybe a
jurisdiction withdrawing. That I can't control. We beg them to
stay, but sometimes they withdraw based on whatever
considerations ----
Mr. Gowdy. So you do trust State and local law enforcement
to enforce immigration laws, and you do not buy into the
Democrat mantra that somehow racial profiling prevents them
from being able to enforce that category of crime but not any
other category of crime?
Ms. Saldana. Well, that's a fully loaded question, which
I'd like to break down because there is racial profiling, sir.
I'm not saying that it happens every day, but there is. And so
for me to agree with your general proposition would require me
to agree with parts of it that I don't agree with.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I would like to have this conversation
more because there would be racial profiling in narcotics
cases, there is racial profiling in traffic stop cases, and
that doesn't stop feds and State and locals from partnering. So
I am just trying to understand why immigration cases are
different.
Ms. Saldana. And think I said they're not different. We
have a ----
Mr. Gowdy. You may have said it, but my Democrat colleagues
have not. You may have.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes Delegate Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am less interested in the racial profiling than I am in
the racial sensitivities raised by this issue. I want to thank
you, Director Saldana, for being here.
Like those who have spoken before me, I don't have the
words to offer to parents who have lost their children,
particularly when they consider that it could perhaps have been
prevented. I have only the deepest condolences.
I would like to get beyond recrimination and into how you
do law enforcement when the rhetoric is steeped with racial
overtones. Look, I grew up in the District of Columbia as a
minority group. It was a deeply segregated city. I went to
segregated schools. I couldn't go in public accommodations
because I was black. And even the newspapers, the best
newspapers would say John Jones, black, committed X crime in
northeast Washington. This had an effect on me and how I felt
about criminals to tell you the truth because John Jones,
black--sorry, they didn't say back then. John Jones, negro, I
don't know whether he was guilty or not. All I know is that by
pointing out his race, my community, minority group in the
city, felt that law enforcement was pointed at all of us.
So I want to ask about the delicate task of law enforcement
when those that are chiefly involved do happen to be from a
minority group. For example, Donald Trump, when he announced he
was running for President, said something that--if I put black
where Mexicans are, I think people would know how I and others
who are from minority groups felt. When Mexico sent its people,
they are not sending their best; they are bringing drugs, they
are bringing crime, rapists.
Now, I want to ask about the effect on law enforcement
where you have a delicate task of in fact going mostly after
perhaps Mexican-American, Central Americans who are coming into
this country and operating under the specter not of racial
profiling but from the highest levels on television every day
hearing ethnicity called out in relation to your work. How does
that affect law enforcement from the point of view of those
charged with carrying it out, with carrying out law enforcement
that will in fact mostly involve the very people whose names
have been called out? We are cheering from the grandstands. How
does that affect law enforcement?
Ms. Saldana. Well, we go about our business without regard
to race. I--it's--I will tell you this, though, Congresswoman.
Immigration enforcement is a little different in the sense that
the very definition of who we're after is determined by their
country of origin, the fact that they're not from the United
States and they're illegal.
Ms. Norton. Their country of origin will be where people of
color are chiefly located. I understand where they are coming
from. But the point is that they have many relatives in this
country, too, and somehow the other--law enforcement has to
handle the delicate task of--you heard talk about the raids,
perfectly legitimate to do, and somehow making sure it is not
caught in the rhetoric we hear.
We heard also from Mr. Trump that we should close up--I
would close up our borders to people, and he named who he was
talking about, in this case not Mexicans but Muslims. Apart
from the ignorance of that statement, is completely sealing our
borders to any group possible, and is it an effective way to
combat terrorism?
Ms. Saldana. Well, that's a huge issue, but I would say no.
That's why everything we do, starting with the Secretary and
his priorities, is based on a case-by-case basis. You've got to
look at every individual. It doesn't matter ----
Ms. Norton. So sealing the borders would involve what?
Ms. Saldana. I can't imagine how you'd go about that. I
think there have been some discussion about building a wall and
that kind of thing. That doesn't sound like it would secure
anything actually because I've seen the videos of a ----
Ms. Norton. Well, could you issue something for people
coming overseas saying if you are a Muslim, don't travel to the
United States; you will not be accepted?
Ms. Saldana. We would not do that.
Ms. Norton. From the highest point of leadership, somebody
has to make the American people understand the delicacy of this
task. So while first I think of the relatives who have lost, my
second thought is with those who have to carry out this
difficult mission.
Thank you very much.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentlewoman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Thank you for coming. I would just echo some of my
colleagues. You know, I appreciate your service and what you
are trying to do, but to dismiss what we are trying to get to
the bottom of as political banter, that is not what we are
doing. I mean, when we see reports where--and many of these
releases were before you were even in ICE. But when we see 124
people who had been in custody and were here illegally and then
end up getting charged with murder, when you see things like
Kate Steinle who was just going about her business and then she
got killed by somebody who had no business being in the
country, that is something that concerns people here in the
Congress and the American people.
And our government is involved in a lot of different
things, you know, the type of health insurance you have to buy,
how much water our toilet can flush, all these different
things, and yet a core function of the government is to ensure
the safety and security of the American people. And it is
frustrating when government is involved in all these other
things and then fails at its core function. So we are
absolutely serious about it. And it is not political theater.
It is just the frustration to have families who have to go
through this.
Now, you said something earlier in your testimony. You said
you that you need a removal order to deport someone. Without
that, they can't be deported, is that correct?
Ms. Saldana. A final order of removal.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, because aren't there administrative
removals?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, there ----
Mr. DeSantis. There are stipulated removals?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. DeSantis. And then there are expedited removals,
correct?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, a person can volunteer to go back, a
person who's caught at the border at ports of entry, we can
move through that process little quicker.
Mr. DeSantis. So there are ways to do it. And I think that
part of the frustration as we have gone through the numbers, a
lot about the numbers that were discretionary versus what ICE
would say because of the Supreme Court's precedent in the
Zadvydas case, but even there, that is a 6-month window.
So you have somebody in custody, let's say, who got out of
prison after committing a sexual assault against a child, and
that individual is being held, you do have time to be able to
repatriate that individual back to their own country. And what
we are a lot of times told by DHS is, well, they don't get the
paperwork to us in time, they don't do all this, and so then
the 6 months elapse and then this individual is released when
they are clearly a danger to society.
So you guys can work through this quicker, and some of
these other countries--and I get that they are not always going
to comply immediately--we have not used any of our leverage
against them. The State Department has not suspended a single
visa for any of these countries at all.
We have the ability to do that. They depend on us more than
we depend on their visa, and so what can you do to be able to
move through the process quicker so that people who are clearly
dangerous, have been convicted, don't have any legal right to
be here, can be repatriated before that time limit expires?
Ms. Saldana. I'm all about procedures and
institutionalizing a process to make sure it works. My interest
is not in second-guessing all our officers. It's in setting up
a process and procedure that would get to that.
Mr. DeSantis. So what do you need to do, though, to do
that?
Ms. Saldana. I ----
Mr. DeSantis. What do we need to do? Because Mr. Gowdy, he
has a legislative fix for this Zadvydas issue. Is that
something that you are familiar with?
Ms. Saldana. I am not.
Mr. DeSantis. Would that be something you would be open to
learning about?
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely, sir, and working with you on that
total subject.
Mr. DeSantis. Because here is, I guess, the issue, and you
have raised the statute books and you have said, look, they are
not mandated to be deported even if they have been convicted of
some of these bad crimes because Congress has made these
decisions. And while some of those crimes, it is true, may not
be mandatory, that doesn't mean that the law does not provide
you at least authority to detain them. In other words, just
because it is not in that book does not mean that they have to
be released. That does not follow that that is the case. Now,
do you agree with that?
Ms. Saldana. That is true.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. And then in terms of the immigration
courts, you have mentioned those. Just so that the American
people understand, the immigration courts, they are not article
III courts, correct?
Ms. Saldana. They're not. They're within ----
Mr. DeSantis. They are ----
Ms. Saldana. They are in ----
Mr. DeSantis. They are article II courts, correct?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. DeSantis. So they are within the executive branch?
Ms. Saldana. Within the Department of Justice.
Mr. DeSantis. And so if an immigration judge orders
somebody has got to be released and you feel very strongly that
that is bad for the safety of our country, you can then go to
the higher up in the executive branch and try to change that,
correct?
Ms. Saldana. You have immigration appeals and then circuit
courts after that.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Great. Do you know when we first did
this issue in fiscal year 2013 there had been 36,000
individuals who had been released who had been convicted of
crimes who are here illegally, and as of last year there had
been 1,000 of those people who had already been convicted of
new crimes?
Do you guys have the figures on anybody from fiscal year
2013 through fiscal year 2015 who has been in ICE custody,
previously been convicted of a crime, and then got released and
then got convicted of a new crime?
Ms. Saldana. I don't know about '15 precisely. We may have
'15, but yes, we do have those numbers generally.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Well, if you can provide those for us,
I think that would be important. And then also back from 'FY
2013, because I know that has obviously probably changed since
the last time we had it.
Mr. DeSantis. My time is up, and the chair now recognizes
Mr. Hice for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right. Bottom line when we all come to this, everybody
involved, when it comes to the issue of criminal aliens, the
public safety is paramount for past victims, as well as
potential future victims. We agree on that?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. With these criminals under the custody of ICE,
are there convicted sex criminals?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Do you have any idea how many?
Ms. Saldana. I think that number is available, but I don't
have it in front of me.
Mr. Hice. Okay. If you could provide that, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Saldana. In ----
Mr. Hice. But to that specific ----
Ms. Saldana. In 2015, sir?
Mr. Hice. From my understanding in '15 there were almost
1,000 sex criminals released.
Ms. Saldana. That may be right.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Let me go on from there. Of these sex
offenders who are released back into society, does your agency
notify law enforcement?
Ms. Saldana. We do. And this is something I think I
testified about the last time I was here. I'm very proud of the
fact that we have stood up the law enforcement notification
system whereby when we are releasing actually more than just
sexual offenders but other criminals into a State that we
believe they are going to--they have indicated and they're
going to a specific State, we notify them that there are ----
Mr. Hice. You notify who?
Ms. Saldana. The State database. Usually, it's the State
office and, for example, in my State of Texas, in Austin, the
----
Mr. Hice. Because you promised last time you were here that
by the end of 2015 that the States would--law enforcement would
be notified. I spoke with the sheriff of Gwinnett County this
week, which is the second-largest county in America next to
Harris County, Texas, where criminal aliens are being released,
and he says he does not hear from you.
Ms. Saldana. I did exactly as I promised. We did get the
notification system up and running by the end of last year to
the States. What we're working now is phase 2 ----
Mr. Hice. So let's just cut to the quick of this. So you
are saying that when an illegal alien sex offender or any other
is released into a community, you are assuring me that law
enforcement is notified?
Ms. Saldana. The State law enforcement, yes, the State that
is responsible for all the local jurisdictions within.
Mr. Hice. But not the specific counties?
Ms. Saldana. No. We have 254 counties in the State of
Texas. It would be very difficult to do that. But we are trying
----
Mr. Hice. But isn't that where the rubber hits the road?
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely, and that's why we're in phase 2,
Congressman. We're in phase 2, which is trying--we're going to
be communicating with the specific local jurisdiction ----
Mr. Hice. All right. What about victim notification? Are
they notified when the criminal is released? Say you have
someone who was raped, the rapist is released ----
Ms. Saldana. We ----
Mr. Hice.--in their community. Is that victim notified?
Ms. Saldana. We have a criminal notification system just
like the Department of Justice does with respect to the penal
system, and people sign up for that, and we do issue notices.
Mr. Hice. So let's suppose a rapist is released, they do
not register, as we know many of them do not do on the sex
offender registry. How does a previous victim know that that
predator is released?
Ms. Saldana. They sign up. I think Mr. Root did this also
with respect to his situation. He wanted to be advised about
the proceedings with respect to that particular illegal
immigrant. That they sign up for the victim notification
system, and that's how we get them that information.
Mr. Hice. And all of them sign up?
Ms. Saldana. I can't say that all of them sign up.
Mr. Hice. Well, I guess, really my question has to do with
the predators themselves who are released. Now, I have actually
introduced a bill, and I think that it closes this loophole,
H.R. 2793. It is called TRAC. It would require ICE to register
these sex offenders on the national registry when they are
released.
Right now, that is required of every citizen in the United
States who commits a sex crime. They are put on the National
Sex Offender Registry. That is not the case with illegal aliens
who commit sex crimes. And I don't understand that. For one
reason, it seems very commonsensical to me that if an illegal
individual in this country commits a sex crime, they need to be
put on the National Sex Offender Registry when they are
released. Would you have a problem with supporting that bill?
Ms. Saldana. Well, I understand that's what happens with
respect to any person that's ----
Mr. Hice. It does not happen with respect to illegals.
Ms. Saldana. Well ----
Mr. Hice. That is the point.
Ms. Saldana. And my concern is they--we expect the person
to ----
Mr. Hice. Do you really expect a person to put themselves
on a National Sex Offender Registry?
Ms. Saldana. That's ----
Mr. Hice. It doesn't happen.
Ms. Saldana. Well, that's what you all have provided for
with respect to sex offenders ----
Mr. Hice. Would you have a problem with ICE being required
to make sure that they are put on the National Sex Offender
Registry?
Ms. Saldana. I'd certainly like to look at that and study
it, sir, yes.
Mr. Hice. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to encourage all our
colleagues to get on board with H.R. 2793. This is a
commonsense approach to close an enormous loophole by requiring
these people to be put on the National Sex Offender Registry. I
yield back.
Ms. Saldana. Twenty-seven ninety-three?
Mr. Hice. Twenty-seven ninety-three.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Saldana, you know, I am going to come to you because
throughout this testimony this morning you have made a point to
pat the large book in terms of the law that you need help with,
you have said it is somebody else's fault. You continue to
focus on everyone else that has a stake in this, and yet some
of the blame actually rests directly with you. And so that is
where I want to go with this because you have been
equivocating, in my opinion, with some of the questions that
have been answered.
And you know I think specifically the ones that I had issue
with when you were talking with Mr. Grothman, when you talked
about the fact do you know the entire universe of those who
have committed crimes that get detained, do you know who they
are, yes or no?
Ms. Saldana. Who are in the country illegally?
Mr. Meadows. No, who get arrested by local law enforcement,
do you get notified of all of those under the new system, which
would be the Priorities Enforcement Program?
Ms. Saldana. We have the ability to check the system.
Mr. Meadows. Do you know, yes or no, all of the people that
are there? Do they ping DHS and you know it?
Ms. Saldana. Not necessarily.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. And is that a change?
Ms. Saldana. Is what a change?
Mr. Meadows. Where they don't ping DHS anymore, is that a
change in the way that you have been notified over the last 18
months?
Ms. Saldana. It's a database ----
Mr. Meadows. Yes or no. I know the answer, so yes or no, is
it a change?
Ms. Saldana. I don't understand the question.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Let me be a little bit--under the Secure
Communities Act, they were required to actually come and ping
you and let you know that they had someone who has committed a
crime and they would actually let you know that. Is that not
correct?
Ms. Saldana. I don't know that specific ----
Mr. Meadows. You are the head of the agency. How would you
not know that?
Ms. Saldana. That program has never been ----
Mr. Meadows. I am a Congressman and I don't even know and I
have had to read up on it. So ----
Ms. Saldana. That program has never been in effect since I
have been director ----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So the ----
Ms. Saldana. I am generally familiar with Secure
Communities.
Mr. Meadows. So the PEP program, let's look at it. You are
saying that they are all participating. What would you classify
as participating by someone under the PEP program?
Ms. Saldana. I didn't say they were all participating, all
the jurisdictions, 3,000 plus in the country are participating.
I wouldn't have said that because that's not correct.
Mr. Meadows. Well, you had said that--okay. Well, what ----
Ms. Saldana. We've made progress.
Mr. Meadows. Made progress. So if someone has committed a
violent act under the PEP program, are they required to let you
know that they have been incarcerated, yes or no?
Ms. Saldana. No.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So we could have an illegal alien
that has had a violent crime, and local law enforcement does
not have to let ICE know?
Ms. Saldana. Doesn't have to, but many jurisdictions ----
Mr. Meadows. I know many do, but they don't have to let you
know. Do you not see a problem with that?
Ms. Saldana. That's why I'm working so hard to change the
minds and hearts of ----
Mr. Meadows. Well, but you are not working hard. So let me
go on a little bit further. Why would ICE be arresting and
detaining 40 percent fewer people than they did in the previous
year?
Ms. Saldana. Apprehensions. Apprehension numbers are down.
Mr. Meadows. So is it your testimony here today that there
are fewer people that are actually committing the crimes?
Ms. Saldana. Well, I didn't get to finish my answer.
Mr. Meadows. No, I am all ears.
Ms. Saldana. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. Because I want to understand how all of a
sudden there has been this 40 percent reduction in crimes by
illegal aliens according to your stats because you are not 40
percent less on detainers, 40 percent less on administrative
removals. How all of a sudden did that happen this year?
Ms. Saldana. What happened, sir?
Mr. Meadows. Forty percent less detainers, 40 percent less
removals.
Ms. Saldana. Well, I'll tell you, we have less people in
the system. I mean, that's going to be ----
Mr. Meadows. By design because you have changed the system
to make sure there are less people in the system, and that is
the frustration of the parents is what happens is you have made
the universe lower so you can report fewer people that you let
out of jail free.
Ms. Saldana. I ----
Mr. Meadows. Do you not see a problem?
Ms. Saldana. That's not correct.
Mr. Meadows. Listen, if you want to go over the numbers
privately after this hearing, I will be glad to go over the
numbers. I am a numbers guy.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. So you tell me how it could be 40 percent
fewer.
Ms. Saldana. As I started, part of it is the apprehensions,
the number of people in the system. We are going about our
apprehensions--all our decisions on a very informed ----
Mr. Meadows. No, no, not informed ----
Ms. Saldana.--basis ----
Mr. Meadows.--because you have to know the whole universe
of the people in order for it to be informed. So how many drug
dealers, how many rapists, how many kidnappers do you let a
get-out-of-jail-free card?
Ms. Saldana. None that have a final order of removal and we
are able to ----
Mr. Meadows. No, no, no ----
Ms. Saldana.--remove them.
Mr. Meadows.--you are equivocating again. The ----
Ms. Saldana. I am not equivocating. There's not simplistic
answers ----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Out of ----
Ms. Saldana.--to you, sir.
Mr. Meadows.--the 7,000 plus that you had the discretion to
let go, were any of those violent that you had total discretion
over letting go? I am saying--they weren't traffic offenses,
out of those discretion, were any of those violent?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, there were some that had been ----
Mr. Meadows. So ----
Ms. Saldana.--convicted of homicide ----
Mr. Meadows. So don't blame it on everybody else. So it was
your ----
Ms. Saldana. I'm not blaming it on everybody else.
Mr. Meadows. So violent criminals at your discretion have
been let go?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. Some are by order of the court ----
Mr. Meadows. Do you not see a problem with that?
Ms. Saldana. Sir, it's all--it's all based on the statutes.
Mr. Meadows. No, no, no, no, don't go there because I can
go further ----
Ms. Saldana. How can I leave the statute out?
Mr. Meadows.--it is prosecutorial discretion. And that is
your discretion, ma'am, and that is my problem.
Ms. Saldana. And I can't ----
Mr. Meadows. And I am ----
Ms. Saldana.--ignore the statute.
Mr. Meadows. I am out of time. I am out of time. Are you
willing to take me up and go through all these numbers after
the hearing? Because I am ----
Ms. Saldana. I am always ----
Mr. Meadows.--perfectly willing, and then we will ----
Ms. Saldana.--always ----
Mr. Meadows.--go public with them, right?
Ms. Saldana.--happy to meet with you.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Farenthold.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have got a couple of lines of questions, but I want to
start with this discretion stuff that everybody is talking
about. Congress has given you guys the discretion to not deport
people. You know, I give my children discretion to spend their
allowance as they see fit. I would probably have to come back
and revisit that if I thought they were being stupid about how
they were exercising that discretion. And to me it seems like
you are exercising your discretion in a way that is coming up
with tragic results.
Listen, I can understand you have got a violent criminal
who is hospitalized and isn't expected to live 6 months, of
course you use the discretion there. It is not worth the money
or it is probably not even possible to safely transport that
person to their country of origin. But, you know, that is the
far extreme. I think you are too far towards we are just going
to let them go. And I think that is the criticism that you are
hearing from the Members of Congress here.
Even though we have given you the ability to do something
doesn't mean you should do it. And I just wanted to clear that
up because I think in all the back-and-forth here, that hasn't
entirely been made clear. I think the whole point of this
hearing is there are a good many members on this panel who have
you up here because we think that discretion isn't being
exercised wisely.
Ms. Saldana. I got that impression.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. I just wanted to make sure that
everybody was clear on that.
I want to talk a minute about the Priority Enforcement
Program. I meet and hear quite a bit from my local sheriffs in
Texas, and as a Texan, you know, everybody loves the sheriffs
and they all have an opinion. And what I hear from them is that
they are having problems in getting you guys to determine about
detainers. And sometimes, they will arrest somebody and it will
be 3, 4, 5 days before they hear back from you guys as to
whether or not to issue a detainer. And by that time, the
person is already bonded out. So how can we improve that
process to where they get, let's say, pick a number, 24-hour
response there?
Ms. Saldana. Okay. You know, I don't have to tell you that
there are 254 counties in the State of Texas, and it is wide
and long.
Mr. Farenthold. Right. But everybody has got a computer. I
mean ----
Ms. Saldana. Oh, yes. Yes, yes. So--but the problem is
getting to the specific local jurisdiction within a timely
manner. You know, so we try to get people there as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Farenthold. Right, but what they want is a
determination of whether or not to keep them. Most of the
sheriffs I know, they will drive them to you. They will be
happy to deliver them.
Ms. Saldana. Congressman, oh my goodness, thank you so
much. Would you give me the names of those ----
Mr. Farenthold. Yes, I will.
Ms. Saldana.--sheriffs? No, I am not only half-kidding. I
would like to know any sheriff that is having any difficulty in
hearing back from ICE. I want to know that.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. We will get you that information.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Farenthold. We have actually worked with some of your
local people and have seen that improve some. I also ----
Ms. Saldana. And I've got to say the great State of Texas
does a very good job of cooperating with us.
Mr. Farenthold. Well, we are spending an awful lot of money
doing the job that the Federal Government can do. We could do a
whole other hearing on whether or not and how much Texas should
be reimbursed for doing the Federal Government's job.
But I also want to talk about the 287(g) program. And what
the sheriffs have found is that if they have the revenue to pay
for somebody, and a lot of these small counties--you know, you
look at Brooks County, small county, very little property
value, they don't have the ability to pay for a person to--you
all will give them the training for free, but they have got to
pay the salary for the person.
But what has been found effective in that program in
addition is you get a jailer in that program where they can
actually access the computer and information database directly,
and then they are able to determine. So I would encourage you
to work on growing that program. I am working with the
appropriations to make sure you all have the money to continue
to make that work.
My final question is, we talked--I am going to get back to
discretion for a second. And you don't make the decision for
everybody there. I mean, it is delegated down the line. How do
you ensure that it is consistent, and how do you ensure that
the person who has the discretion isn't of a disposition to
say, oh, let's just let them all go?
Ms. Saldana. No. No, sir. They all know my background, and
they know that that would be fully unacceptable.
What we do is we train, we issue directives on policies,
make things clear, give guidance. We revisit. I have myself at
least once, maybe twice got on the phone with each one of the
24 field office directors with responsibility across the
country to say my expectations and to make sure that people
have the message of how we go about our business with respect
to detention and those decisions and the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion in general.
So--but it is a challenge when you have 6,000 officers out
there who are involved in this. We just stay on--need to stay
on top of it. I've got my field leadership coming in next week.
We're going to go through this item by item and talk about the
general subject of is the word getting down all the way. So I--
that's what I do. We're--it's a constant vigilance.
Mr. Farenthold. Well, I have plenty more to talk about but
my time is expired.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms.
Saldana, for being here.
Ms. Saldana, last year, it is my understanding that you
released 19,723 illegal aliens with criminal records, 19,723.
That is the number I have been given ----
Ms. Saldana. Illegal ----
Mr. Carter.--19,723.
Ms. Saldana. That number is correct by, remember, court
order or some discretion.
Mr. Carter. And these are illegal aliens with criminal
records such as kidnapping, sexual assault, DUI, and homicide?
Ms. Saldana. That's correct.
Mr. Carter. You say that somewhat matter-of-factly as if it
is okay.
Ms. Saldana. Well, it's not okay, but that's what the
statute tells me, sir. It tells me we need to--that we need to
abide ----
Mr. Carter. You know, it is just unbelievable to me that we
have released 19,723 illegal aliens with criminal records such
as kidnapping, sexual assault, DUI, and homicide.
Ms. Saldana. I ----
Mr. Carter. That is appalling. No wonder America is in an
uproar right now.
Ms. Saldana. It is appalling. I would ----
Mr. Carter. It is appalling.
Ms. Saldana.--appreciate you speaking to the Supreme Court
of Texas with ----
Mr. Carter. Well ----
Ms. Saldana.--the United States with respect to some of it.
The immigration courts have another ----
Mr. Carter. So tell me when you can detain them. What is a
priority 1? Explain to me what a priority 1 is very succinctly,
very quickly.
Ms. Saldana. Threats, generally, to national security and
----
Mr. Carter. So kidnapping, sexual assault, DUI, and
homicide are not priority 1?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, they are in that priority if they're
convicted.
Mr. Carter. If they are convicted?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Now, you have got me confused here. We
established the fact that you have released 19,723 illegal
aliens with criminal records, including those with kidnapping,
sexual assault, DUI, and homicide, and you are telling me you
shouldn't have released them?
Ms. Saldana. If--no, I'm telling you--you just asked about
priority 1. There's another priority they might be included in.
And let me just remind you, sir ----
Mr. Carter. There is another priority so there is more than
just priority 1.
Ms. Saldana. There are three priorities. There's three
priorities.
Mr. Carter. There are two priorities. And the second ----
Ms. Saldana. Three.
Mr. Carter.--priority includes kidnapping, sexual assault,
DUI, and homicide?
Ms. Saldana. Well, the first could also. The first could
because it is persons convicted of crimes. We don't--in the
United States we don't assume somebody is going to be convicted
until they've actually been tried. I'm just saying a simple
matter of fact. I think that's fairly obvious.
Mr. Carter. So you just go ahead and release them?
Ms. Saldana. And I should remind you that you all determine
----
Mr. Carter. So please answer my questions. So you go ahead
and release them?
Ms. Saldana. If we'd been ordered by a court or if we've
exercised discretion in looking at the entire case ----
Mr. Carter. So why ----
Ms. Saldana.--we may make efforts ----
Mr. Carter.--are you releasing them instead of deporting
them?
Ms. Saldana. Because of all the strictures in this statue,
sir. I am not going to go outside the law in what I do. I
cannot deport somebody without a final order of removal who's
had the entire framework--been allowed to follow the entire
framework you have provided, including appeals and
consideration by the courts with respect to their claims of
asylum or torture or whatever it is.
Mr. Carter. So you are just releasing them right here in
America, not deporting them at all, they are staying here, and
then we have had numerous examples of where they have gone and
committed these crimes again? Don't you find that to be
somewhat appalling?
Ms. Saldana. That's horrible. I wish we were--I wish there
were no crime committed by anyone ----
Mr. Carter. Let me ask you something else. Let me ask you,
and since fiscal year 2012 the annual budget has increased more
than $680 million. Is that correct? That is the figure I have
been given. Since 2012, your budget has increased more than
$680 million.
Ms. Saldana. ICE's?
Mr. Carter. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Carter. But at the same time the number of aliens
removed has decreased, decreased by 174,000, 174,000. Can you
tell me what the reason for that is?
Ms. Saldana. Because we can only remove those people that
have a final order of removal and travel--the appropriate
travel documents.
Mr. Carter. Well, if we cut your budget, would you stop
releasing them? Because we are giving you money and you are
releasing them.
Ms. Saldana. Sir, you know, you are misrepresenting the
facts when you say you release them ----
Mr. Carter. I am not misrepresenting the facts or ----
Ms. Saldana. Well, we ----
Mr. Carter. We have increased your budget over $680
million, and you have decreased the number of people that you
have deported by 174,000.
Ms. Saldana. Let's make it clear that these releases, only
7,000 plus have been entirely discretionary, but it's not
willy-nilly. It's made on a case-by-case analysis of the record
that we have in front of us and on flight risk analysis.
Mr. Carter. Let me ask you this. DHS leadership took $113
million that Congress appropriated to ICE detention and
reprogrammed for use by Secret Service and FEMA. Why was that?
Are you familiar with that?
Ms. Saldana. That is a secretarial-level decision.
Mr. Carter. Oh, secretarial-level decision.
Ms. Saldana. Well, it it's the Department of Homeland
Security, sir.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Okay. So you wouldn't have been involved
in that, and you wouldn't have known about that?
Ms. Saldana. In the decision?
Mr. Carter. Or even in the process.
Ms. Saldana. Am I informed about it? I'm informed about the
process, but the decision is the Secretary's.
Mr. Carter. So we are giving you money and here we are
releasing less than 174,000--you know, I am just appalled by
this. This does not make any sense at all what we are doing. No
wonder America is upset. They should be upset.
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time ----
Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, I apologize and I appreciate
this, but Ms. Saldana, we have got to do--this is ridiculous.
This is ludicrous.
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Carter. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Saldana, critics have argued that one factor
encouraging illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. is the belief
that, once they enter the country, they will not be removed. I
think that has been pretty well established here. Secretary Jeh
Johnson recently stated that the 11 million illegal immigrants
in this country are not going away and that are in effect--and
I find this absolutely astonishing--United States citizens.
Does that include those who have criminal records? It is a yes
or no. I am just asking, is that a yes or no?
Ms. Saldana. Sorry. I'm just a--if you won't mind repeating
me, what was your question specifically? Did ----
Mr. Palmer. Jeh Johnson stated that there are 11 million
illegal immigrants in the country who are not going away. They
are in effect United States citizens. Does that include those
who are here who have criminal records? That is a yes or no.
Ms. Saldana. I don't think he said they are United States
citizens, sir.
Mr. Palmer. He said ``in effect'' United States citizens.
But we are not debating what he said. I am asking you, do you
believe that that includes those who are here with criminal
records? Are they ----
Ms. Saldana. They are not ----
Mr. Palmer.--staying? Are they ----
Ms. Saldana.--United States citizens.
Mr. Palmer. No, are they staying?
Ms. Saldana. We're doing our best to remove them.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I don't know about that because let me
tell you what just happened in Alabama just earlier this month.
Authorities in Oxford, Alabama, which is not in my district,
arrested three men, two who are from Honduras and one from
Mexico. One of the men, Camilo Antonio Espinoza-Medrano, had
been ordered removed from the United States in absentia by an
immigration judge on or about January 7, 2014. According to the
affidavit, it appears Medrano failed to voluntarily deport
himself.
Another guy, one of the other guys, Enrique Benitez of
Mexico, an immigration history check confirmed Benitez was
illegally present in the United States. His criminal check
showed that he has prior convictions for possession of cocaine
in 2011 and evading arrest in 2008 in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas.
Now, let me tell you why they were here. They were working
for a security group out of Honduras who is a front for a drug
cartel, and they were here, and here is what the affidavit
says. They were here through a deal arranged through a security
company owned by the friend's boss, who Benegas, another one of
the guys, new as an enforcer and the collector for drug
organizations. They were going into a private residence to
steal a safe and kidnap the occupants, and Benegas further
stated that he and the other individuals traveled to Oxford,
Alabama, and were provided firearms, bulletproof vests,
camouflage clothing, and other gear to do the job. And the
group was instructed to assault the resident and take its
occupants captive.
Now, here is the point. Two of these men had criminal
records. One goes back to 2008. But they are still here. Now,
because of the excellent work of the Oxford Police Department,
who stopped them on a traffic stop but realized that something
was awry when they saw them in camouflage and had weapons. And
by the way, one of the weapons was a Smith & Wesson pistol that
was confirmed stolen by the Arlington, Texas, Police
Department.
Can you all imagine what would have happened if they had
carried out this and kidnapped those people? And let me tell
you what Benegas said. He planned to use the handgun to shoot
the occupants of the house if they presented a firearm during
the home invasion. I want to remind you, this is Alabama. Just
about every house has a gun, and for good reason. I won't get
into this administration's policy on gun control, but this, let
me tell you. Can you imagine what would have happened if they
had shot that police officer?
This is insane. You let people in here, you do criminal
background checks, they commit crimes. I have got a deal here
where one guy rapes a 10-year-old girl in Alabama. Here is
another one. Sofyan Eldani had 34 arrests over 12 years, he is
a Palestinian. When he was arrested by the Hueytown Police
Department, which is in my district, ICE told them they
couldn't deport him because the U.S. doesn't recognize
Palestine.
Director Saldana, it has been reported that ICE recently
proposed changing current policy to require that fingerprints
be taken from all people claiming custody of children who have
entered the United States illegally without an adult relative.
Let me ask you this. Among the many policy suggestions that
have been made, do you think this would be an effective policy
to actually implement for illegal immigrants who are repeat
criminal offenders that are not consider priority 1 in
accordance with current DHS policy?
Ms. Saldana. I would consider that. I don't--that--we have
not proposed that, but I would consider it.
Mr. Palmer. Well, why haven't you?
Ms. Saldana. Done what, sir, proposed that?
Mr. Palmer. Why have you not proposed that? Why haven't you
taken that action?
Ms. Saldana. It's a--I'll tell you, sir, there's a lot of
things I need to get to, and I'm pedaling as fast as I can. But
I--we are--we all have it under advisement right now and we're
looking at it.
Mr. Palmer. Well, pedaling as fast as you can won't do much
good for people who are at a funeral.
Ms. Saldana. That's the best I can do.
Mr. Palmer. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. And that is what is pathetic.
Mr. Walker of North Carolina is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by recognizing two groups of people. The
first one is Sarah Ann Root, age 21. Mr. Root, I am proud of
you for representing her today, and I am also proud of your
service to our country.
Casey Chadwick, Ms. Hartling, as a former minister, I can
only imagine what your family has gone through and losing this
25-year-old beautiful daughter here.
There is Marilyn Pharis. Chief Martin, thank you for coming
all the way to represent her today.
There is also another group of people that I want to talk
about, three people: again, Eswin Mejia, Jean Jacques, and
Victor Ramirez. They also have something in common today in the
fact that all three of them were arrested on previous charges
before they ultimately committed this heinous crime. Victor
Ramirez was an illegal from Mexico. The chief did his part.
Over a 15-month time, he arrested this gentleman six times, six
times over 15 months. This is the guy, along with his partner,
that beat Mrs. Pharis's face in with a hammer. Somehow she
fought back, survived 8 days. See, this is huge.
And then we hear today from my colleagues that the way we
justify this is that criminal aliens, according to one
statistic, commit less crimes than the general public, of which
you had a sweet chat with him about. But what if they weren't
here to begin with? Would they have committed these crimes? It
is not rhetorical. If they were never here, would they have
committed these crimes?
Ms. Saldana. No.
Mr. Walker. And then we talk about the challenge of
returning these people to their country. And then I believe
if--I want to make sure that you were on record saying this. As
the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, did I
hear you say correctly that sealing our borders or building a
wall or even finishing the wall of 2006 from the former George
Bush as President, you said that that would not help us prevent
illegals from coming in our country? Did you say that?
Ms. Saldana. I said--yes, sir.
Mr. Walker. Okay.
Ms. Saldana. Yes, because I've seen many videos where
people scale those walls very easily. I--you know, that's just
not the only answer. There's lots of things we have to do to
secure the border.
Mr. Walker. So it is easier to not have a wall at all
instead of making somebody go and scale a wall in your opinion?
I don't understand that a bit.
Here is the data--and let me start with the question here.
Do you believe that the sexual assault, abuse, and exploitation
are heinous crimes? You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Okay. And a little earlier my colleague, Mr.
Carter, talked about charges. These 19,000 are not charges;
they are convictions?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Okay. And according to this, including 1,614
convictions of sexual offense--my wife is a sexual assault
nurse examiner. She works in this world. She understands that
she is reaching out to the people who are going the very
darkest point of life. Three hundred and fifty-two convictions
involve commercial sex trade. My State is number nine in the
country. Yet for some reason these are listed as priority 2
instead of priority 1. Why is that?
Ms. Saldana. Sir, because the most serious offenses are
listed in priority 1. The most serious offenses, terrorism,
it's just a matter of directing resources in the place that
will hurt the country the most.
Mr. Walker. So you are telling me that sexual offenses or
the rape of a 6- or 7-year-old child is not as important an
offense as some other?
Ms. Saldana. I was a United States attorney. Do you--you
know the answer to that question.
Mr. Walker. Well ----
Ms. Saldana. Of course it's a serious offense.
Mr. Walker. But I am just going by what you just told me,
that you said no, that is not, that is priority 2 ----
Ms. Saldana. It is.
Mr. Walker.--because it was more concerned with other ones.
Ms. Saldana. Sir, in your authorization, you directed us,
you have directed us to prioritize--you directed the--``the
Secretary of Homeland security shall prioritize the
identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime by
severity of that crime.'' And that is exactly what we've done.
You may disagree with the three categories or the way they were
placed, but you directed us to do that, and the Secretary did
that.
Mr. Walker. Well, here is what I hope we agree on is that
we have a major problem, and we have illegal aliens in this
country committing heinous crimes who are not being deported.
I also want to add one more thing in closing here in my 30
seconds that I have left. There was a statement made earlier
that law enforcement needs to be concerned about the delicate
task of not putting some of the nation of origin into the
definition of the criminal activity. Do you believe that law
enforcement should stop being--I look at Chief Martin, who
worked 30 years in gang-related activities with El Salvador and
did some great work there. Do you believe that we should stop
or drop the race part of describing some of the crimes that are
going on?
Ms. Saldana. We have to look at whether someone's in the
country who's not a citizen, so we have to look at the country
of their origin.
Mr. Walker. Okay. I don't know whether that was a yes or
no, but with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mulvaney. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Saldana, you got a little bit of attention at your
outset when you encouraged us this morning in your opening
statement to drop the political banter, and I think you have
pointed to the rules and regs and the statues that are in front
of you, and you invited us to help you develop a system that
works. And I would like to talk about that. In fact, you and I
have talked about that in the past.
So let's go back to something you and I have talked about
before, which would it help you develop a system that worked if
we figured out a way to require local law enforcement to
cooperate with your retainer requests?
Ms. Saldana. Well, we need to figure out a way to get law
enforcement to work with us just like this individual from law
enforcement works with us. And I don't think he would take
kindly to us browbeating him ----
Mr. Mulvaney. Not browbeating ----
Ms. Saldana.--and forcing him to do things ----
Mr. Mulvaney. Let's stay on topic. You know where I am
getting at, which is, would it help you develop a system that
works if we required local law enforcement to cooperate with
ICE?
Ms. Saldana. Compulsory?
Mr. Mulvaney. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. It would help me to some extent, but that's
what I'm doing in PEP is I am trying to get everybody ----
Mr. Mulvaney. All right. Let's talk about that.
Ms. Saldana.--to the table.
Mr. Mulvaney. To what extent? Because that is the third
answer I have gotten now ----
Ms. Saldana. Well ----
Mr. Mulvaney.--because I asked you the exact same question
in June of 2015. I asked you ``Would it help if we clarify the
law to make it clear that it was mandatory that those local
communities cooperate with your detainer requests?'' And you
answered, ``Thank you, amen, yes.'' The next day however, you
released a statement that read in relevant part a different
answer: ``Any effort at Federal legislation now to mandate
State and local law enforcement's compliance with ICE detainers
will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step.'' Now,
today, you just gave me a third answer, which is, ``In a way,
it would actually help.'' So let's talk about how requiring
local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE would help you.
Ms. Saldana. In enforcing the 4,000 laws that the
Department of Justice had to enforce and I had to enforce as
United States attorney, I found that the best way to work with
State and locals is through cooperation and agreement and
standing by--side by side.
Mr. Mulvaney. Well, that is fair, but if I am in a city
that has said, you know what, we want to be a sanctuary city,
we don't want to cooperate with ICE, my guess is that chance
for cooperation is probably gone at that point. Wouldn't it
help you do your job if we went to these so-called sanctuary
cities and say, you know what, you can't do that. You have to
cooperate with ICE when it comes to dealing with the sorts of
people who kill their children?
Ms. Saldana. I am working with the--with all the cities
whether they want to ----
Mr. Mulvaney. How is that working in San Francisco?
Ms. Saldana. We're making some inroads.
Mr. Mulvaney. Some inroads?
Ms. Saldana. I believe we've gotten--yes.
Mr. Mulvaney. Would it help you more if we required them to
do it?
Ms. Saldana. I don't think the government would be--the
local government would be more cooperative if you browbeat them
over the head by saying the feds ----
Mr. Mulvaney. How about if we required them by law to do it
or deny them some type of Federal money?
Ms. Saldana. I think that they are--at least I've heard,
sir, and read that State and local government don't want the
Federal Government to tell them what to do.
Mr. Mulvaney. Do you think that a State and local
government should have the right to tell the Federal Government
that they are not going to cooperate with an immigration issue?
Ms. Saldana. No.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. So they don't have a right to do it,
but they are doing it anyway, and you don't want us to bring
them into line? You don't want to require ----
Ms. Saldana. I am telling you the realities of the real
world, and that is in trying to get people to work with us for
the bottom line, and that is the public safety ----
Mr. Mulvaney. I hate to be melodramatic because it is not
usually what I am very good at. Turn around and tell the people
behind you about the real world.
Ms. Saldana. I have been, and I hope they've been hearing
me.
Mr. Mulvaney. Let me ask you this. Does the sanctuary city
program put your field personnel at more risk than they would
be otherwise?
Ms. Saldana. Having to--yes, having to go into a
jurisdiction when--into somebody's home when we could have
gotten them at a local sheriff's or police department, yes, it
does put them at risk.
Mr. Mulvaney. So you don't want us to take steps to lower
the risk for your own people?
Ms. Saldana. I'm saying give me an opportunity to get this
done with--PEP has only been in effect since last July. It's
not even been a year. So give me some time to work with State
and local jurisdictions. I have made tremendous headway. Of the
top 25 jurisdictions that did not honor detainers, we've got 17
back at the table. I ----
Mr. Mulvaney. It has been a year since you were here last
time. Let me ask you this. Does the sanctuary city program put
the public at risk?
Ms. Saldana. I don't know what the sanctuary city program
is, sir.
Mr. Mulvaney. Well, no, then let's use the terminology we
have been using for the last couple of minutes, which is the
programs whereby cities say, you know what, we are not going to
cooperate with ICE. ICE calls us and says detain that person
that you just picked up, and the city says, you know what, no,
we don't want to do that. Does that put the public at more
risk?
Ms. Saldana. I want every jurisdiction to cooperate with
ICE.
Mr. Mulvaney. Good. We could help you with that. Would you
like us to help you?
Ms. Saldana. I need all the help I can get.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay.
Ms. Saldana. And I will work with you to try to come up
with a rational system by which we can improve that situation.
Mr. Mulvaney. Which is the third answer you have given, so
I thank you for that.
And I will yield back the balance of my time to the chair,
and I will recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, you know, all over this country people have read
headlines and stories similar to the ones, some that I have
here, and this one story has been mentioned a few times already
today, but I was presiding over that House earlier and I didn't
get in on all of this. And I know there are some people
watching now who probably didn't hear some of these things
earlier.
But the Washington Examiner had a headline that said ``ICE
releases 19,723 criminal aliens, 208 convicted of murder, 900
of sex crimes.'' And before that, there was a story from the
Washington Times which the headline says ``3,700 illegal
immigrant threat level 1 criminals were released into the U.S.
by the Department of Homeland Security,'' and that story said
most of the illegal immigrant criminals Homeland Security
officials released from custody last year were discretionary,
meaning the Department could have kept them in detention but
chose instead to let them onto the streets. Some of those
released where the worst of the worst. More than 3,700 threat
level 1 criminals who are deemed the top priority for
deportation were still released out into the community. That is
why people are so upset. That is why people are so angry about
all of this.
And then earlier, we had testimony in this committee from
Jessica Vaughan from the Center for Immigration Studies, and
she testified that ICE officials have told her that, since the
administration's policies on prosecutorial discretion were
expanded, they are processing a small fraction of the number of
aliens that they used to process, and one recently told me that
his office used to process as many as 100 aliens per day, but
since the President's executive actions when into effect, now
they are processing closer to 5 aliens per day with the same
staff and budget.
And it seems to me that this is a shameful record, and the
people at the top should be embarrassed about this. As Mr.
Carter pointed out about how the funds have gone up so much and
yet the prosecutions have gone way down, and I doubt that there
is another agency in the entire Federal Government that has
gotten the percentage increases, Director Saldana, that your
agency has percentagewise. I mean, we just keep pouring more
and more and more money into your agency, and we are getting
less and less and less for that money. And I can tell you that
people all over this country are angry about that and upset
about that.
Are you embarrassed about this in any way? Are you ashamed,
disappointed? Surely, you are not happy about all this that we
talked about here this morning.
Ms. Saldana. No, sir. And I will tell you, I think you may
have missed when I spoke earlier about the fact that I would
like not to see one person injured or one person certainly
killed at the hands of someone who's in the country illegally.
Mr. Duncan. That is a ----
Ms. Saldana. But when people say ----
Mr. Duncan. That feeling is ----
Ms. Saldana. But, Congressman, when people say that we have
released 19,723 people, it failed to point out the fact that
two-thirds of that were by court order or an instruction of the
Supreme Court of the United States. And that is a
misrepresentation of the picture. That is what I have to have
to.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I tell you, it is a terrible thing. I
mean, I have got stories up here from the Texas Tribune, and
they tell about one man who was passed through Webb County four
times on more than a half a dozen charges before allegedly
beating his wife to death with a hammer. Another man spent 3
months in the Hidalgo County jail, 4 months in State custody,
and 6 years in Federal prison for multiple felony offenses at
the time he went on a random shooting spree in Houston, killing
two people and injuring three more. And then of course you have
the famous case of this man in San Francisco who shot Kate
Steinle to death after he had racked up a criminal record,
including seven felonies, mostly drug-related.
People are really angry about these sanctuary cities that
the administration has gone along with. The American people are
the kindest, most generous, most sympathetic people in this
world, and we have allowed far more immigration, many, many
millions more than any other country, and the American people
have gone along with that. But they are sick and tired and
angered about reading about all of these criminals being
released, and you or somebody is going to have to do a lot
better job on this.
I yield back.
Mr. Mulvaney. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Mulvaney.
And I want to thank the committee, both majority and
minority, for waiving my appearance here today and having the
opportunity to participate in this hearing.
To Chief Martin and Mr. Root, thank you for your presence
here. Again, your stories are incredibly powerful and really
demonstrate that this discussion today is not academic. It has
profound, real-life impact, and it takes a lot of persistence
on your part to really be here to remind us of that fact.
I am here because one of my constituents is here, Ms. Wendy
Hartling. She is joined by attorney Chester Fairlie, whose
story has been mentioned by other members here this morning.
Again, just a little less than a year ago just a horrific
crime took her child Casey Chadwick from her, and I can
personally attest to the fact that southeastern Connecticut and
the whole State, you know, has, you know, been just part of the
grief and pain that followed. And the admiration that folks
have for Ms. Hartling, as Mr. Lynch said, trying to get some
good to come out of this horrific event, it just has drawn
admiration from all quarters. So thank you for being here, Ms.
Hartling.
And I think I am the last one here, so all your patience is
going to be paid off shortly and give you an opportunity to
talk.
Director Saldana, you know, the one thing about the Casey
Chadwick case is that, you know, really, there is just no
ambiguity in this instance in terms of, you know, whether or
not some charges were pending or whether or not the individual
was convicted of an aggravated versus, you know, serious
offense.
Jean Jacques, you know, came into the country without
documentation, he was convicted by the State of Connecticut of
the homicide, he served over 15 years in prison. At the
completion of his sentence, the Department of Corrections
surrendered him to the custody of ICE, again, the government
had run the traps in terms of getting a deportation order
completed at that point. Any appeal that he tried to pose had
been exhausted. So there was just, you know, again, no sort of
glitches that anyone could point to that would interfere with
that process going to the next step, which is obviously removal
from the country.
As we heard from Mrs. Maloney, the Government of Haiti,
again, played this very frustrating exercise in terms of
verbally granting and then refusing on a number of occasions.
So a year ago you were before this committee and this
question of uncooperative other nations was raised with you,
and at the time, your testimony stated that ``Bolstering ICE's
ability to obtain travel documents from recalcitrant countries
is an important priority, and I will continue to work closely
with the Department of State to achieve better cooperation from
countries in accepting the return of their nationals.''
Again, this morning, you have talked about your efforts
within the PEP program in the last year or so. Can you just
tell us with some specificity what is going on between ICE and
State in the intervening time since you testified to fix this,
you know, glaring problem?
Ms. Saldana. I think I said earlier I've met with the
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Ms. Bond, and
actually, I'm going to see her this afternoon about Guinea in
particular. So we meet periodically, and we made a commitment
to continue to do that because I want to keep her posted on the
countries we're having trouble with.
So this Memorandum of Understanding we have, we make--we
give her--we meet to discuss what can be done with a particular
country, and right now, you know, countries like Syria and Iraq
and Afghanistan, we're just having tremendous difficulties
with.
So she has listened, she has promised to follow up. She
sent a cable out to our ambassadors across the world last March
to say please be mindful of this. Help ICE and other agencies
that are seeking to get cooperation from the jurisdiction and
assist them in their efforts to remove people that ----
Mr. Courtney. But what levers--I mean, we have levers.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Courtney. Members have mentioned it, you know, that
visas that we grant to citizens from these nations coming into
the U.S., foreign aid, I mean what ----
Ms. Saldana. Sanctions, there are sanctions that we can
impose ----
Mr. Courtney. But give me an example of where they have
actually, you know, done more than just meet to discuss this?
Ms. Saldana. Where Department of State has? I'm not
familiar with the specifics of what they've done.
Mr. Courtney. Okay. And I guess, you know, Mr. Chairman,
you know, that is sort of the crux of the frustration that
myself and Senator Blumenthal and Murphy have experience, which
is that, you know, this just screams out for the fact that we
know, the agencies in the U.S., ICE and the State Department
are not getting this done, and that is why we requested an
inspector general's report. That process is underway right now.
We are going to be receiving the results of that.
But frankly, I would just say, Director, you know, that
response is just really not acceptable given the fact that, you
know, we have instances where somebody--again, there was just
no question about their status in terms of being deported, and
to have other countries stonewall our efforts and to say that
the State Department's best efforts right now is just simply to
meet with ICE and to send out warning telegrams ----
Ms. Saldana. I ----
Mr. Courtney.--to embassies, there are other options that
we have available to us, and we need to exercise those.
Ms. Saldana. Withholding aid and the sanctions, I
mentioned, but I just want to be sure, sir, I am doing the best
I can to try to persuade State. State is the most appropriate
witness to explain to you why they make the decisions they do
because ----
Mr. Courtney. Well ----
Ms. Saldana.--I can't speak for the Department of State.
Mr. Courtney. If I could just have another 30 seconds,
again, we experienced in this case where the Government of
Haiti, again, for paperwork reasons, stonewalled Mr. Jacques'
deportation. ICE can do more in terms of creating a record of
country of origin in terms of interviewing witnesses in the
U.S. I mean, this guy had been here for over 20 years. There
were other ways that verification of country of origin could
have taken place stateside, in addition to having the State
Department apply levers of pressure, which, again, I think
should have been exercised at the greatest and highest level.
So this discussion, Mr. Chairman, again, I want to continue
with you and the members here about the fact that, you know,
the response so far just, frankly, has not been satisfactory. I
would ask that my letter to you and Mr. Cummings setting forth
the IG request ----
Chairman Chaffetz. It has already been submitted to the
record.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Okay.
Chairman Chaffetz. And, Mr. Courtney ----
Mr. Courtney. Yes.
Chairman Chaffetz.--I appreciate your commitment on this
issue. The director has agreed within a week's time to give us
all the letters of correspondence that she has had with State
Department making these requests because the statute is clear.
Once the Secretary receives that, it says the Secretary
``shall.'' And I would be fascinated, and I think you are
right, I think another hearing would be most appropriate, and I
hope you can join us for that.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time is expired.
Director, we thank you for your being with us here today.
The committee is going to stand in recess until 12:30, and then
we will convene the second panel. We stand in recess. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order, and we will continue with
the second panel of the hearing today.
I would ask unanimous consent that Congressman Young of
Iowa be allowed to participate and fully participate in today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I am glad that you can join us, as well as Mr. Courtney of
Connecticut, who can also come join us.
The second panel is probably the most important people that
we can hear from, and we are pleased to welcome Mr. Ralph
Martin, who is the chief of police at the Santa Maria,
California, Police Department, has an important perspective for
us. And, Chief, we are pleased and honored that you would join
with us here today.
I would also like to allow Mr. Courtney to help introduce
Ms. Wendy Hartling.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking
Member Cummings.
Again, we are honored today to have Ms. Wendy Hartling from
Gales Ferry, Connecticut, join us here today. Gales Ferry is
sort of the quintessential sort of small-town America, and she
was, again, the devoted mother of Casey Chadwick, who has been
mentioned many times this morning, lost her life almost a year
ago in Norwich, Connecticut, to a brutal homicide, which
roughly a couple weeks ago came to a legal conclusion with a
conviction of Jean Jacques.
And all I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that Wendy Hartling
was leading a very private life and, you know, with strong
family connections in the community. That changed radically.
She has been thrust into the public eye as someone who has,
again, faithfully attended all the court proceedings and has
spoken out about really what was, I think, just a horrendous
flaw and wonder by the government in terms of really following
through on what, as I said earlier, was just a totally
unambiguous deportation case.
She is joined here today by attorney Chester Fairlie from
New London, Connecticut, who participates in the Survivors of
Homicide group in the State of Connecticut; and Crysta Wydra,
who was Casey's best friend, who is also from Gales Ferry that
is here. Again, I think all the members will be, again, deeply
moved by Ms. Hartley's testimony here today. And again, it is
an honor to have the opportunity to introduce her.
And I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
So, again, Ms. Wendy Hartling is the mother of Casey
Chadwick, who was killed by an illegal immigrant on June 15 of
2015. And we are beyond sad for your loss. And you woke up one
morning and your life changed, and I am sure you never expected
this. You certainly didn't ever ask for this, but we appreciate
your bravery for stepping forward and sharing your candid
thoughts and perspective. It is important that we all hear
that, see it, and feel it, and so thank you for being here
today.
We also are pleased to have Mr. Scott Root, who is here
with us today, but I would like to have Congressman Young of
Iowa help introduce him and give a little background and
perspective.
Congressman Young, you are recognized.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Cummings and the colleagues here that share this room
today for this hearing, which is very important obviously.
Thanks for allowing me to participate in today's hearing to
introduce Scott Root, a fellow Iowan. He is from Council
Bluffs, which is on the western end of the 3rd District nestled
up against the Missouri River. And our mantra there is just to
work hard and treat others right, a lot of patriotism there,
fear and love of the Lord. Thank you for being here today.
Earlier this year, Scott lost his daughter Sarah, a
beautiful girl, to a drunk driver, a criminal who took
advantage of this administration's immigration policies, jumped
bail, and may never be brought to justice for his crime.
Scott, thank you for being here today to share your story.
And, Ms. Hartling, thank you for coming as well.
As I am sure Scott and my colleagues from Iowa can attest
to Iowans have a unique sense of community, as well do other
members and the folks from their district and State, a unique
sense of community. We are all in this together. When something
happens to one of us or our neighbors, it really gives levity
to the situation. It hits us hard. It puts an impact on us
personally because it is like it is happening to all of us.
Though we cannot fathom his grief, Mr. Root, we are left with a
deep sense of loss, and we want to see justice.
What happened to Sarah was a tragedy and a horrible crime,
and now the Root family and the community are left waiting to
see if Eswin Mejia will ever be found, will ever stand trial
because of failures of the court and failures of the Federal
Government to enforce our laws.
I had the chance to question Director Saldana early this
year and she shared when I failed to follow through on a
detainer that kept Eswin Mejia from facing justice. She also
said ICE will be looking at this case to make sure this doesn't
happen again. As the chairman knows, this is something we hear
too often without seeing actual results.
From ICE, not accurately reviewing the request of the local
police to the Department of Health and Human Services, placing
Eswin Mejia as an unaccompanied minor with his brother, who was
also here illegally, I am astounded this administration not
only continues to restrict the enforcement of our immigration
laws, but they don't seem to understand them at all in the
first place.
Nothing can bring Sarah back, but we can honor her and
preserve Sarah's memory with justice in making sure this never
happens again.
Scott, thank you for being here today. May God give you
courage, wisdom, peace, and strength in your fight for Sarah
and her memory and for justice. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Root, we appreciate your strength in being here today
and offering your perspective and look forward to hearing your
testimony and grieve for your loss as well. So thank you.
We are also pleased to have Mr. Chris Burbank. He is the
director of law enforcement engagement at the Center for
Policing Equity. He is also the former chief of police, I
believe 9 years in Salt Lake City. I have had the pleasure of
interacting with him on a number of occasions. And, Mr.
Burbank, we are pleased to have you here and participating and
giving a perspective as well. So thank you for being here.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn
before they testify. So if you will please each rise and raise
your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the
record reflect that the witnesses all answered in the
affirmative.
We would appreciate your limiting your verbal comments to 5
minutes, but your entire written statement will be entered into
the record.
Chief Martin, we will start with you. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes. And please know in advance, you need
to bring that microphone up close and just make sure it is on.
And thank you. That will help us all.
Chief Martin.
STATEMENT OF RALPH MARTIN
Chief Martin. Mr. Chairman and committee members, good
afternoon. My name is Ralph Martin and I am the police chief
for the city of Santa Maria, California. Santa Maria is the
largest city in Santa Barbara County and one of the largest
cities on California's Central Coast. It has a population of
over 100,000, is a few minutes from the coastline, and is
surrounded by agriculture. We are about halfway between Los
Angeles and San Francisco.
I am here today to share with you an event that occurred
just 9 months ago. It's about the brutal and vicious attack of
64-year-old Santa Maria resident, Marilyn Pharis. At the time
of this attack, Ms. Pharis was gainfully employed at nearby
Vandenberg Air Force Base, where she worked the night shift as
a satellite tracker civilian contractor. She's been doing this
since 1974. Prior to that, she spent 4 years in the United
States Air Force.
On the morning of July 24, 2015, at approximately 9:45 in
the morning, while Ms. Pharis was sleeping, two suspects broke
into her home, sexually assaulted her, strangled her, and beat
her about her head and face with a hammer. But despite the
incredible beating, Marilyn would not give up. She fought back
with all the strength she could muster, even while receiving
repeated blows. The suspects left her for dead. But somehow,
with her eye socket shattered and her broken--neck bone broken,
she dialed 911.
As the suspects made their escape, one of them, identified
as Victor Martinez-Ramirez, broke into another home on West
Donovan Street, entering through a sliding door. There, he
encountered three young children and their mother. However, she
managed to dial 911 and the suspect fled again.
As officers were responding to Ms. Pharis's home,
additional officers were now responding to the West Donovan
home. Suspect Martinez starts jumping backyard fences, but the
patrol officers set up a solid perimeter around him. And within
minutes, one of our K-9 officers finds Martinez hiding
underneath a tarp on a patio of a nearby home on Cox Street.
Now, that's three blocks from Ms. Pharis's home and one block
from the Donovan Street home.
He was arrested for burglary, sexual assault, and attempted
murder. During the fourth day of the investigation, detectives
identified and arrested a second suspect, Jose Villagomez. He
was subsequently charged with the same crimes.
Eight days after Ms. Pharis was attacked, she died in her
hospital bed, unable to recover from her brutal injuries.
Victor Martinez is an illegal alien from Mexico. He had
been arrested by the Santa Maria Police Department six times in
the previous 15 months. He was released from the Santa Barbara
County Jail 96 hours before he attacked Ms. Pharis. Villagomez
is a U.S. citizen, although he spent much of his life in
Mexico. He had one previous arrest. Both are currently in
custody awaiting trial.
I believe that when the Federal and the State government
fails to do its job, it falls on the shoulders of local
government, and we are not equipped to deal with these issues
financially or with personnel.
The arrest sheet on Martinez is a glaring example of
Federal and State failures. On one occasion in 2014, ICE filed
a form I-247 immigration detainer. However, the Santa Barbara
County Sheriff's Department does not recognize the hold--the
lawful hold based on the Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County
decision, which is a Federal court ruling. Two weeks before the
attack, Martinez was cited as opposed to arrested for
possession of methamphetamine, because recently, California
passed prop 47, which I'll address in just a moment.
On July 16, 2015, eight days before assaulting Ms. Pharis,
Martinez was arrested again for felony possession of a dirk or
dagger, as well as possession of drug paraphernalia. He was
additionally charged at that time with two additional
misdemeanors because he had two outstanding warrants for
$10,000 a piece, one for failure to appear, and the other was--
failure to appear in court, and the other one was a probation
violation. He was released that day. Four days later, he
attacks Ms. Pharis.
Now, the State of California passed prop 47 in November of
'14. It was a complete con job pulled on the people. It was
titled ``Safe Schools and Safe Neighborhoods,'' but in reality
it was just nothing more than a title. What it did was in the
fine print reduce felony drug possession like possession of
heroin, possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine to
a misdemeanor citable offense.
So now thousands of arrestees are petitioning the courts to
reduce their convictions, as did Martinez. And the reason I
bring this up is that if the convictions are then reduced to
misdemeanors, ICE will look at those later on and see the
felonies are now misdemeanors.
The city of Santa Maria, as well as other cities throughout
California, are seeing an increase in homeless persons that
been high--with high drug dependency. And many of these persons
would have been removed from our streets, been required to
appear in court, and referred to drug rehabilitation and
treatment programs. But the numbers have substantially
decreased because of prop 47, so it's a combination of Federal
issues and State issues.
You know, I can't help but think our U.S. marine makes a
wrong turn at the border and he's locked up for months and
months at a time, and yet we in the U.S. seem to be running a
catch-and-release program for criminal aliens.
And I've been in this business for 40 years, and when I
hear of incidents, whether it's the Root case or others and
people say it's a tragedy or some kind of senseless tragedy,
you know, I just shake my head and say no because when we do
not enforce our Federal and our State laws, all we truly have
is predicable consequences.
Thank you for your time.
[Prepared statement of Chief Martin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.013
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Ms. Hartling, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF WENDY HARTLING
Ms. Hartling. Hi. Hi. My name is Wendy Hartling, and my
life will never be the same after June 15, 2015.
I am here on behalf of my daughter Casey who was stabbed to
death over 15 times and stuffed into a closet by a criminal
alien, Jean Jacques. He was found guilty of attempted murder in
1996 and served 16 years in Connecticut Prison. He should have
automatically deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
when he was released from prison. Instead, he killed Casey on
June 15, 2015, and was found guilty of her murder after a
trial. My hope is that he never gets out of prison.
According to laws passed by Congress, Jacques should have
been deported. ICE had him in custody and detention three
times. Tragically, ICE released him three times, and he killed
my--killed Casey just a few months after his last release by
ICE.
From defensive wounds, we know that Casey fought
courageously and that she suffered greatly before her death. If
ICE and Homeland Security had done their job, Casey would not
have died, and I would not be here as part of the club of
Homicide Survivors, which no parent ever wants to join.
My Attorney Chester Fairlie has written an article on the
failure of deportation of criminal aliens. I would like to
submit a copy of deportations process contributed to the--oh,
wait a minute. No. I've got to go back.
Mr. Fairlie states ``This miscarriage of the deportation
process contributed to the death of Casey Chadwick and caused
grief and suffering to her parents and friends.''
I understand that the Inspector General of Homeland
Security has undertaken a full investigation of the Jacques
failed deportation case, and we are awaiting the report.
My daughter was loved so many family and friends. Over 300
came to her wake. Casey and I were very close. She called or
texted me every day. I can no longer talk to my daughter, hold
her, hug her, or simply just hang out with her or go out to
eat, which was one of her favorite things to do. This breaks my
heart of every second of every day
Her best friend Crysta of 13 years plus, who came with me
on this trip in support, is devastated, as is Casey's
boyfriend.
This is what I have lost. I can't watch her walk down the
aisle on the arm of her father. She will never have the chance
of becoming a mom, something she was thinking of before her
death. She will never see her two nephews grow up or go to her
siblings' weddings. She will never again be at our family
functions and holidays.
The tragedy of Casey's death is not an isolated case and is
occurring frighteningly around the country. Something has to be
done to fix this horrible problem. I would never want any
family to have to go through this. The pain is always with me.
My heart is broken.
I go to a Survivors of Homicide group, which is very
helpful. An important thing I learned was that the pain will
never go away. I have to learn to live with it. I am trying,
but it is the hardest thing for me in my entire life. Still, I
must find the courage and strength to advocate for Casey, who
cannot speak for herself.
Thank you for listening.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Hartling follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.018
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. And of course we will include
that letter into the record.
[The information follows:]
Chairman Chaffetz. And you did great. Thank you.
Mr. Root, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT ROOT
Mr. Root. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and
respected members of House Committee on Oversight and
Government. My name is Scott Root, and I thank you for the
opportunity to be the voice of my murdered daughter, Sarah Rae-
Ann Root, murdered on Sunday, January 31, at approximately 2:00
a.m. by a drunk driver and illegal immigrant, Edwin G. Mejia.
Less than 24 hours, Sarah walked with a 4.0 grade point
average at--bachelor's in criminal investigations from Bellevue
University.
I would also like to take this to thank Officer Bowes,
Rizzo, Adam and Dawn Turnbull and Swanson of the Omaha Police
Department. We would also like to thank Congressmen and staff
of Steve King, Robert Goodlatte, also take Senators Ernst,
Fischer, Grassley, Sasse, Sessions, and the doctors and nurses
at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
As a 30-year member of Steamfitters Local 464, it is ironic
that I find myself thanking a Republican House and a Senate
member who reached out to us within weeks of Sarah's death. My
ex-wife were not contacted by any Democrats or ICE until April
22, after I learned I would testify and the days--and 82 days
after my daughter was murdered. They were told ICE had a
victim's unit and they would be reaching out.
I am an Army veteran. I served with the 1st Cav. My father
was a World War II medic and was a recipient of the Purple
Heart, Silver Star, and a French medal, Croix de Guerre. I
don't share this to talk about ourselves, rather to point out
that the Root family has served their country when called upon.
Now, they're asking for your help in getting answers and
justice.
My mother and sister legally immigrated to the United
States after World War II and--to become American citizens. In
my opinion, the Obama administration with open-borders policy
has changed us. We no longer ask for immigrants to assimilate
to our way of life; rather, schools, governments are required
to accommodate to their needs of their country.
My mother and sister took pride in becoming Americans and
learning the language and culture. By allowing illegal
immigrants to take custody of illegal immigrants with no
controls in place for a person like Edwin Mejia, the man who
killed my daughter, were to break our laws.
Sarah was a daughter, sister, granddaughter, cousin, niece,
and friend. She was bright, smart, loving, caring, respectful,
and strong. Like her brother and mom, she stood up for her
beliefs. My son Scott lost his best friend, confidante, when
I--when Sarah died. Her mother lost her best friend, daughter,
and fellow Kansas City Chief.
I would like to take this opportunity to walk my daughter
down the aisle on her wedding day and spoil her grandchildren
she wanted. She loved to fish and her--and this year, she
wanted to try deer hunting.
In the early morning of January 31, I received no call a
parent should ever have to change. My family was summoned to
the hospital at approximately 4:00 a.m. I thought we had a deal
with a broken leg or a broken arm. I didn't get--dare think the
worst. I was awaiting something that no father should have to
go through. That was identify their child. Her spinal cord was
snapped, her skull fractured in two places, her face was
swollen beyond recognition. We identified her by her tattoo on
her ribcage, ``Live, Laugh, Love'' and a crucifix.
The neurosurgeon said on a scale from 1 to 10 that her
chance of recovery was zero. No parent should have to deal with
that, especially when the situation could have been prevented
if the laws had been followed and enforced.
Sarah was an organ donor. Her mother and I kept her on life
support 3 days to allow the organ recipients and their doctors
to prepare themselves for harvesting. Sarah, through her
unselfish act, was able to save six individuals. She also
helped five--four to five dozen more through donation of tissue
and tendons, bones.
Since the accident, I learned Edwin had been apprehended in
Arizona at 16-year-old minor, yet our government allowed him to
be turned over to his brother, another illegal immigrant. Due
to pressure being applied to the mentioned Congressman and
Senators, Edwin is now on the ICE's top-10 most-wanted list.
This is ironic, on the Web page it says ``unlawful,''
``illegal.'' When apprehended in Arizona, he was released to
another illegal.
When the Omaha police approached ICE five times requesting
a detainer we were reached each time with unlawful illegal.
Edwin was released 4 days in jail and his brother posted 10
percent of $50,000, which is $5,000. It cost more to bury my
daughter than--and her family and friends have been given a
death sentence and a denial of her love, companionship.
My family understands that our questions have not been
answered, but I would like to go on for record with the
following:
At a local level, my friends are collecting signatures
against Jeffrey Marcuzzo to remove him from the bench. He
failed to for minor traffic infractions and presented a flight
risk. Our question at the Federal level, who is accountable?
Sarah Saldana? Jeh Johnson? Barack Obama? Harry Truman used to
say, ``The buck stops here.'' This is not only a case of
administration.
Marcuzzo recently set bail for another illegal immigrant
accused of vehicle homicide in Omaha, $2 million for--the local
ICE set a detainer on him.
Congressman Goodlatte, Senator Grassley, in a joint letter
to Jeh Johnson demanding answers for our case. The Senator
has--Senator Sasse has demanded answers from Sarah Saldana. If
they cannot get answers from a family from Iowa--Iowa--sorry--
accountable. Yes. Sorry. Has anyone been held accountable for
the local level? It's been 2-1/2 months since the Senators and
Congressman have asked answers from ICE. When can we expect to
get the answers?
The Omaha Police Department did their jobs. How is it that
his illegal brother was able to bail him out and disappeared?
Do I get a choice which laws to follow? If now, which does an
unlawful or illegal immigrant mean? Sarah's family and friends
are punished.
When officials of ICE Edwin's crime in the criteria for
level. I would like--would someone please explain to me how a
daughter had a spinal cord and a skull fractured in 2,000
places by a 6,000 pound pickup with 1,000 of roofing equipment
traveling at 70 to 80 miles per hour and an underage person
three times over the legal limit drag racing from Honduras not
violent? Explain that to me.
What information do we have on Edwin's family and friends?
Who owned the vehicle that Edwin was driving that killed my
daughter? I understand it's another illegal from Wichita,
Kansas. He was driving the streets of Omaha with no driver's
license, no registration, no insurance. He did not show up for
obligations for minor traffic violations. It was assumed he
would show up for motor vehicular homicide?
On intentional level, has a red pool notice been issued?
Are those steps in place? Does he have a cellular card? What is
being done as the country of Honduras? Edwin was apprehended in
Arizona. Was a file created? If so, what information has been
communicated?
If the Obama administration position on this is not to
enforce immigration law, what is the purpose of ICE and our tax
dollars being wasted? The only incentive to capture him is
$5,000 reward through the Omaha Crime Stoppers. What other
tools and means are available to the national law enforcement
and people in Honduras, Mexico, or United States to turn Edwin
into the authorities?
In my closing, my family and friends will not stop until
people at the local and Federal level are held accountable to
her killer and brought to justice. When Edwin is caught, he
will face a 20-year prison sentence and 8 to 10 years with good
behavior, but my family is facing a sentence without her. Her
sentence is avoidable and would not--occurred if the failed
policies of the Obama administration and the laws that allowed
be ignored and an incompetent local judicial system.
This was--the last time I saw Sarah was January 31. She
graduated from Bellevue University. Now, I carry a cross on my
heart with a crucifix around my neck.
I want to leave you with a personal story. When Sarah was
young, she had a patch of hair on her back. I would tease her
by calling her Monkey Girl. She hated it, but she knew it came
from a father's love. I love you forever, Monkey Girl.
Thank you for this opportunity to share Sarah's story and
my family's story. Scott Root.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Root follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.022
Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Root, thank you. Thank you for your
personal service to this country ----
Mr. Root. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz.--and for the strength to be able to
offer that statement and be here today. And God bless you.
Between yourself and Ms. Hartling ----
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz.--thank you for sharing your stories.
We will now recognize Chief Burbank for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS BURBANK
Mr. Burbank. To begin, I would like to say to the Hartling
family and the Root family that I am sincerely sorry for your
loss. You deserve much better, the tireless effort of law
enforcement and the love of your communities.
Committee members, we are experiencing a modern
transformation of our world and especially of our nation.
Demographics, cultures, economies, and public expectation are
evolving rapidly. Interconnection of the globe through
technology and the migration of people is a dynamic driver of
change.
Modern immigration has introduced cultural, religious, and
intellectual diversity creating avenues for multicultural
competitiveness. Robust scientific evidence indicates that
immigrants contribute economically, improve the local tax base,
stabilize the economy, and drive down crime whether they move
lawfully or unlawfully into new communities.
Some of the highest immigrant-populated cities have
experienced the steepest declines in crime. Coincidentally,
this dramatic change has also marked an increase in bias,
inequality, vitriol, and fear. Immigrants are ever-increasingly
stereotyped and demonized inappropriately for their involvement
in criminal activity.
Research conducted over the past 30 years has consistently
shown that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes
or to be incarcerated. This holds true whether documented or
undocumented and regardless of their country of origin. It is a
fact, as undocumented immigration has increased, crime has
decreased dramatically. There's no demonstrable correlation
between immigrants and crime. Additionally, there is no
documented relationship between enhanced immigration
enforcement and reduced crime. Public policy must be driven by
evidence and not anecdotes.
We have demonstrated that enforcement, arrest,
incarceration, and force are not the most effective tools to
prevent crime. A case in point, as incarceration rates soared
in the 1990s, so did police officers, search warrants, and
other enforcement activities. We were at war against drugs,
against gangs, and yet violent crime increased.
The lasting legacy of this period was not crime reduction,
but rather historically high national incarceration rates,
zero-tolerance approaches, stop-and-frisk practices, and the
over-incarceration of individuals of color for misdemeanor
violations, harming our communities far more than helping.
In fact, the mistrust in communities of color that we face
today is a result of hard-on-crime, indifferent enforcement
tactics perpetrated on neighborhoods labeled ``high crime.''
People experience their lives within neighborhoods, rarely
at a national, State, or even city level. This is especially
evident in socioeconomically depressed communities. Effective
and appropriate policy and practices must understand and
address life issues, education, health, housing, safety, and
transportation. Public safety, as exercised through community
policing, is best accomplished at a local level capable of a
nimble, small-government approach to addressing these life
issues.
Immigration enforcement has created a double standard
wrought with constitutional concerns. Immigrants not only face
potential criminal penalty but excessive detention without due
process and ultimately deportation. Immigration enforcement can
only be accomplished through racial profiling. Immigrants have
been stopped for pretext traffic violations, questioned about
their status, detained for numerous days without probable
cause, transferred to the custody of ICE and deported without
notification to their families. This most certainly does not
represent equal treatment under the law.
Recidivism rates hover around 67 percent for individuals
incarcerated. Conversely, persons adjudicated within a
restorative justice model, designed to be an alternative to
incarceration, reoffend at a rate less than 40 percent.
Education or knowledge about society, social norms, laws and
traffic codes gained through participation and inclusion is the
way out of addiction, substance abuse, and misdemeanor crime.
When communities or groups of people are afraid to
participate, we systematically isolate them, creating a
negative environment where success is difficult, if not
impossible. Studies have shown that immigration enforcement is
not viewed as a legitimate public safety tool. It does not
serve to enhance community well-being but further divides
communities and undermines the already-difficult job law
enforcement has of maintaining public trust.
Throughout history, law enforcement has been an efficient
tool of social oppression directed to protect certain races
against the symbolic threats of others. We are still working to
repair the mistrust, resentment, and rage that many in our
communities continue to feel.
It is not surprising that law enforcement officials across
the Nation are troubled at the proposition of mandatory
immigration enforcement practices that appear motivated by
prejudice and are likely to result in increased crime.
The time has come to accomplish comprehensive immigration
reform. We must bring millions of people residing in our
neighborhoods, contributing to our economy, adding value to our
lives out of the shadows and into mainstream. Crime prevention
is best accomplished when we are partners in the effort with
all members of society. Just as we have been unable to
incarcerate our way out of crime, we will never solve
immigration issues through deportation.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Burbank follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3480.025
Chairman Chaffetz. We have got a lot to talk about, Mr.
Burbank, because I think you are in totally the wrong planet.
But we are going to get after that. There is a vote on the
Floor, and so our apologies for this, panel, but the committee
is going to recess. We have three votes, and then we will come
back and resume the questioning portion of this.
So the committee will stand in recess and we will reconvene
no sooner than 1:30. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will return to order, and we will start the
questioning portion. We have excused Ms. Hartling, but we will
continue now with the questioning part, and we will start with
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
each of you for being here. And your stories are extremely
moving, and our hearts go out to you.
I spoke yesterday with the sheriff of Gwinnett County,
which is number two in terms of criminal aliens being dropped
off, second only to Harris County, Texas. And he heads law
enforcement, of course, in the country. In fact, he informed me
that, as I just mentioned, that it is number two.
Chief Martin, as a 40-year veteran of law enforcement, I am
hoping you might be able to shed some light on some of the
questions from your own experience, your knowledge. When an
illegal alien is released, are you notified?
Chief Martin. No, sir.
Mr. Hice. By anyone?
Chief Martin. We are not notified by anyone.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So we heard testimony this morning that ICE
notifies the States of all those who are released, and then
that information filters down. And you are saying that that is
not the case?
Chief Martin. We do not receive any direct communication
from ICE. The only way we would know if somebody was released
is if--what they talked about earlier, the victim would be
notified, and if they filled out a form, then the local
sheriff's department is supposed to notify us if they're
released so that we can talk to the victim.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So the law enforcement notification system,
is it working?
Chief Martin. No, sir.
Mr. Hice. What is it doing? If it is not working, what is
the value, if any?
Chief Martin. Well, I have to take you back years ago when
INS or ICE used to have their agents in all the county jails. I
think by reason--I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that
most municipal police departments don't hold their prisoners at
the police departments. They book them into the county jails so
the sheriffs would have the authority to keep them.
Now, Santa Maria, we arrested 6,000 people last year, and
we'd keep them, we would book them into our custody, and then
within about 6 to 8 hours we would transfer them to the
sheriff's department. And what we do at that point is we do
fill out a pretrial service, and about three-quarters of the
bottom of the page it says ``Does the police officer request an
immigration review?'' And in the case of Victor Martinez, we
checked yes. So that's about the only time that we have the
ability to communicate with ICE to have a review done.
Now, that the ICE doesn't have officers in the county jails
full time, they just show up in the morning, they'll look at
the scrolls or the gate book if you will. But that really
doesn't serve any purpose because many times they'll bail out
the night before. So it's not working.
Mr. Hice. Is it true that when a criminal alien is released
from prison on parole that local law enforcement have to be
assigned to check on them?
Chief Martin. No. We're not assigned to check on them at
all. In fact, when they're released from either the county jail
or, say, a State prison, they're taken by ICE to a processing
center and then down to Los Angeles where they're supposed to
be released. They never release them from the prisons. They
always do it down in Los Angeles.
Mr. Hice. So how does the parole work? I mean, does the
State assign someone to watch over them?
Chief Martin. Well, pretty much the State of California has
gotten rid of almost all of their parole. It's all become
localized for the probation department, which is really not
equipped to deal with it. So the State has gotten rid of their
funding for parole and pushed it down to the local level much
like ----
Mr. Hice. But you are saying local level is not handling
it?
Chief Martin. No, we're not being notified of any of it.
Mr. Hice. So what is happening to these people? There is no
parole, no accountability? They are not watched at all?
Chief Martin. I think if they're watched, it's--in our
county, in Santa Barbara County, it'd be by the local probation
department.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So how do they get involved? In other
words, when these people are released and put on parole, who is
looking after them and how does that process work?
Chief Martin. It would just be a county probation officer
who is assigned the case, and he may or she may see them once a
month or maybe never.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Well, then who is paying for it? The local
parole officers--who is paying?
Chief Martin. Yes, Congressman, in the county it's actually
the probation departments, county probation.
Mr. Hice. So the taxpayers are paying this?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. All right. So we have ICE that is responsible for
releasing these people that should be deported, but in many
cases no one is looking out for them. But when there are cases
that a parole officer--in other words, your local county is
having to pick up the tab for the lack of work being done by
ICE? Is that a fair assessment?
Chief Martin. That would be a fair assessment. And not only
that, we're having to pay for all of the investigations that
result of us arresting these people. And the local district
attorney's office is also having to pay to prosecute. And then
once they are found guilty, they have to go to a State prison
if it's a State crime. So either the local, the county, or the
State is paying for all of that.
Mr. Hice. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this, but I am shocked we have a
conflict in testimony from what we heard earlier from Ms.
Saldana saying that all the States are being notified, and it
is filtering down, and that obviously is not taking place, at
least in your case. And I think this needs some further
research and investigation.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
holding this hearing. I thank the ranking member as well.
Like all of the other members before me, I just want to say
to the victims' families, thank you for your courage and your
willingness to come forward and try to make sure that this does
not happen again. And Mr. Martin and Mr. Burbank, thank you as
well for your participation.
Ms. Hartling, can I ask you, the contact that you have had
with any Federal law enforcement or--can you tell me if they
have been--I am trying to explore the communication between
Federal agencies and victims such as yourself and families.
Could you tell me a little bit about that? Has any of that gone
on?
Ms. Hartling. No. My--I have not heard from the Federal
Government or Homeland Security or ----
Mr. Lynch. ICE?
Ms. Hartling. ICE, nothing, no.
Mr. Lynch. No.
Ms. Hartling. But--no, not Congressman--Blumenthal, he had
got things rolling pretty good for Casey's case when I saw him
in Hartford last year that--so I know for a fact that Homeland
Security is investigating Jean Jacques' case, my daughter's
case.
Mr. Lynch. Right. Right.
Ms. Hartling. And we're just waiting for the report.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Mr. Martin, could you tell me about the
contact that your department has on a regular basis with ICE?
Do they inform you when there could be somebody in your
jurisdiction that is, you know, under a deportation order or is
there any communication going on between your department?
Chief Martin. We do have some limited communication with
ICE. Recently, Homeland Security did build an ICE facility in
Santa Maria, and it was ----
Mr. Lynch. And you are north of L.A., between L.A. and ----
Chief Martin. Yes, we're between Los Angeles and San
Francisco.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Yes.
Chief Martin. However, it is not a detention center. It is
simply a processing center. So when they go--and I'm referring
to ICE--when they pick up people maybe who have done their time
in a State prison or a county jail, they will take them to that
processing center for a few hours and then by van take them
down to either Oxnard or to Los Angeles. So the center is
there, but it's only open during the day, and it's just simply
a processing center.
Mr. Lynch. That is it?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. And tell me a little bit--I know in some of your
testimony, you know, there is a description of
decriminalization of possession of heroin ----
Chief Martin. Yes.
Mr. Lynch.--meth, others. How has that played into your
ability to do your job in this respect?
Chief Martin. All across California it has increased
property crimes over 20 percent, so we're seeing an increase
there. We're seeing an increase in homelessness. So--and many
of these--some of these people are illegal aliens who are
living on the streets. So when they passed that law, prop 47,
it really took our ability away to force them into a court or
to force them even into rehabilitation or probation.
Mr. Lynch. I see. All right. Well, again, Ms. Hartling, Mr.
Root, very sorry for you--Mr. Root, do you have anything else
you want to add to that in terms of any contact with ICE or
Federal authorities or their inability or unwillingness to do
so?
Mr. Root. I had one gentleman from ICE when we were dealing
with the Omaha Fugitive Task Force by the name of Jake, and he
was 100 percent great, you know, trying to give me some
information. He had--if they catch this killer of my daughter,
the sheet where they--if they tell where he has hearings, that
type of stuff. And he was going to hand-carry it out and have
me fill it out, and whoever his superior is did not that want
to happen and it came in the mail. And I just asked him, I
said, are--doesn't he want to deal with me? You know, they
dropped the ball again.
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Mr. Root. And then probably about a month later I'm trying
to get some answers. I had some contact numbers from Jake up to
the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and a couple of his supervisors
called back, and basically it was just general information
about the same thing as Sarah Saldana. And then 2 days before I
came here, Sarah's advisor had called, said she wanted to reach
out to me. I told them I wasn't interested, you know, and a day
or two later wanted to know after the testimony, and I said no.
I mean, what part of no don't you get? No means no.
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Mr. Root. That's it. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. I see my
time is expired. Again, I thank the witnesses.
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. We will go to the gentleman
now from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Security. I will recognize him for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to
the witnesses. You have my sympathies. This is just a terrible
thing. And the thing is, is what really gets me, it was
preventable. Had our government simply done its job, its core
duties, you guys would have your loved ones here today.
And I appreciated, Ms. Hartling, in your testimony pointing
out that this is happening across our country. And I was in law
enforcement a time as a prosecutor, and if it is just some
random American commits a crime, we want to prevent it, but
when you have somebody in custody and you release them, whether
they are early release as a criminal in the normal justice
system or here, in this case people were here illegally and
don't have a right to be here and have committed crimes, you
are putting the public at risk. And so it is just very, very
frustrating.
And I was disappointed in Director Saldana trying to say
this is just political banter. It is not political banter.
These are lives that are at stake, and this is a government
that is not fulfilling its duty.
What was your view, Ms. Hartling? I mean, when you hear
that being dismissed as political banter, how did that make you
feel?
Ms. Hartling. I couldn't believe it, let's put it that way.
I found it hard to believe that that came up.
Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Root, how did you feel about that?
Mr. Root. I don't know how you can be so incompetent and
still keep your job.
Mr. DeSantis. What about the excuses that you hear, well,
we got a lot of factors to consider or this or that, how does
that make you feel?
Ms. Hartling. That's the worst part because I know in my
heart and my family and everybody that loved Casey that--I
forgot where I was going with this. What was your question
again?
Mr. DeSantis. Well, just when you hear the different
excuses about why we can't do this or ----
Ms. Hartling. Oh, yes, that ----
Mr. DeSantis.--we have to release people, how does that
make you feel?
Ms. Hartling. That's the first time I said she was--Casey
was killed last June. When I heard that he was an illegal alien
and he was supposed to be deported three times, I said to
myself, I said out loud, I want to make it to Washington, D.C.
one day. And I did, and I'm very happy about that because it--I
don't see anything happening, any changes happening, you know,
with our deportation rules and enforcement of them, you know,
so this doesn't happen. I mean, he got--he was supposed to be
deported three times, and he got let go the same day the last
time, the--when he--before he killed Casey. He was let go the
day he got out of prison and ICE had him and let him go that
exact same day. So it's very frustrating.
Mr. DeSantis. How about you, Mr. Root?
Mr. Root. Well, several times I saw her hold the book up. I
think, you know, it comes down to common sense, you know? I
mean, in my case you got a homicide, you're going to let that
person go with priors? Are you nuts? Just common sense.
Mr. DeSantis. Yes, I agree. I think that showing a statute
book that says these are mandatory removals does not then mean
anything not in there means you should let them. You still have
the authority to hold people, and when the public safety is at
risk--and the frustrating thing is is that maybe we do need to
do some reform in the Congress, but a lot of this, there are
tools available right now that the executive branch isn't
using. I mean, if some of these countries aren't taking these
folks who have committed crimes, we have things that we can do
through the State Department. They have never attempted that
one time.
Ms. Hartling. Right.
Mr. DeSantis. Not once.
Ms. Hartling. Right.
Mr. DeSantis. And so basically, we are going to continue to
see--and the list of criminal offenses that you see--and this
is what ICE gives us--and it is really startling to see the
type of things--so these are all, in every instance people that
are not here lawfully, and you have sex assault, kidnapping,
homicide, arson. I mean, it is a terrible, terrible list, and I
feel for you. We on the committee on the subcommittee, on the
full, we think it is a very important issue. We are going to
continue to do what we can do. If that means legislative
changes, we need to do it, but the executive branch has got to
take this seriously.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Cartwright, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Root,
thank you for your testimony and ----
Mr. Root. You bet.
Mr. Cartwright.--I did want to follow up with you because
we were talking about your daughter's case earlier. And I
didn't realize that you are passing a petition against the
judge who set the bail so low ----
Mr. Root. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright.--for the killer, and what I read from news
reports, and I want to get your take on it because ----
Mr. Root. Sure.
Mr. Cartwright.--you can't always trust the news, it said
that the prosecuting attorney, the Douglas County attorney
admitted that it could have been handled better, and that
basically we were dealing with an offender who had committed
previous offenses and who had skipped out on court appearances
on previous occasions. Am I getting that right?
Mr. Root. That is correct. I believe he had a--he was going
the wrong direction on a street before, I think he didn't have
a child seat-belted in and a couple other--he had two other
times where he was supposed to show up for court and he did
not.
Mr. Cartwright. So my colleague ----
Mr. Root. Prior to my daughter's death.
Mr. Cartwright. Right. Right. And my colleague Mr. Gowdy
pointed out--and he was a prosecutor for many years--is there
is really only two issues in front of a judge when you are
setting bail is danger to the community and probability of a
flight risk. But here is a guy that had exhibited not the
probability but the certainty that he would be a flight risk,
and then add to that that he was an undocumented illegal
immigrant. That is like walking into court with a stamp on your
forehead that says I am a flight risk. Incarcerate me at a
very, very high bail.
And so, you know, I can see being mad at the judge, but it
sounded like the prosecution didn't lay that out, according to
the news reports. Were you there for that?
Mr. Root. I was not. I mean, I don't know what was
communicated. You know, when he got his bond, we were actually
burying my daughter, you know, so we didn't go the pretrial. I
spoke with Officer Swanson. Both of them--a lot of them
officers I dealt with day and night shift daily, and they took
it real personal. I mean, they all did their job. To me and my
family, you know, whatever you do for your job, whether you're
a judge, ICE, whatever, you should be accountable for what you
do, you know. If I--I'm a pipefitter. If I put in pipe that
falls down and kills somebody or leaks, I don't have a job.
Mr. Cartwright. Right.
Mr. Root. So from my understanding is they're saying he
didn't have all the information but he didn't ask for it
either. But with a name Eswin Mejia and having a homicide,
maybe--wouldn't you want to do some leg work? He was in jail
for 4 days. You wouldn't do some research on him before you
just hurry up and set the bond instead of just running him
through?
Mr. Cartwright. Right. Do you fault the county attorney for
not putting that information in front of the judge?
Mr. Root. I would say yes, too. Yes. I mean, it's at all
levels, you know, city level, Federal level, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, again, thank you for being here and
----
Mr. Root. You bet.
Mr. Cartwright.--hopefully, we do learn something ----
Mr. Root. You bet.
Mr. Cartwright.--from all this.
Mr. Root. I'm sorry. The same judge had a bond of $2
million, too. It was just last week when my ex-wife Michelle
was there, same judge.
Mr. Cartwright. Ms. Hartling, again, thank you as well for
being here.
The man who killed your daughter unquestionably should have
been deported. That is why ICE put him on the deportation list,
but as we know, that didn't happen. And you deserve an answer
as to why ----
Ms. Hartling. Yes, yes ----
Mr. Cartwright.--it didn't happen.
Ms. Hartling.--I do.
Mr. Cartwright. November 24 last year Senator Blumenthal,
Senator Murphy, and Representative Courtney, who you heard from
here today, wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland
Security inspector general--there are inspectors general that
serve as watchdogs over Federal agencies--asking for an
investigation. And in that letter the members wrote, ``It
appears that ICE could and should have taken simple additional
steps that might have resulted in Jacques being repatriated and
therefore never given the opportunity to murder Casey
Chadwick.'' Ms. Hartling, I assume that you support that
letter?
Ms. Hartling. Oh, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. And on January 12 the inspector
general sent a memo to ICE announcing that they had agreed to
this request and were initiating the investigation. Were you
aware of that?
Ms. Hartling. I knew that the investigation is still
ongoing.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So since then, we on the committee
have obtained some additional details about your case, and the
information indicates that Haitian officials repeatedly,
repeatedly said they would accept Mr. Jacques, and then they
reversed their decisions over and over again at the last
minute. In fact, in one instance, these Haitian officials even
approved a manifest that had Mr. Jacques listed to board a
flight to Haiti, but they pulled it back at the last minute.
And that happened October 10, 2012.
Ms. Hartling. Right.
Mr. Cartwright. And you were familiar with that?
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So the letter from Senator
Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, and Representative Courtney also
asks the inspector general to examine what could be done ``to
overcome the objections of the Haitian Government to the
removal of this individual.'' And I assume you support this
part of the investigation ----
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright.--as well?
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, again, thank you all for being here.
And my time is up so I have to ----
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.--yield back.
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding] The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Walker, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today is about six names, what it boils down to, the name
of Marilyn Pharis, Sarah Rae-Ann Root, Casey Chadwick, and the
people who took their lives: Victor Ramirez, Eswin Mejia, and
Jean Jacques.
Now, what I am impressed with is, Ms. Hartling, Mr. Root,
you are willing to relive this situation over and over again,
many questions, and I am sure you don't want politicized or
exploited. Yet at the same time, Mr. Root, Ms. Hartling, I have
got the same question. What is it that drives you to keep
fighting for you lost loved one? Why are you doing this?
Mr. Root. Well, if it changes the life of one person, it's
worth it. You know, I know if you don't say nothing and do
nothing, nothing gets done. You got to be vocal on what you
want to do and how you feel. I was brought that--brought up
that way, and that's how I feel. My whole family's that way.
Mr. Walker. So whatever the sacrifice is ----
Mr. Root. It doesn't make a different ----
Mr. Walker.--you're willing to take on.
Mr. Root. What do you live for, your kids, don't you?
Mr. Walker. Absolutely.
Mr. Root. I have one kid left.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Root.
Mr. Root. It's my only daughter.
Mr. Walker. Ms. Hartling?
Ms. Hartling. Yes, I agree with--exactly with what he said.
Casey should still be here. There's no doubt about that. She
should still be here. I shouldn't be here. I shouldn't belong
to a group that nobody wants to join. And I'm glad he--that
he's guilty, he was convicted.
Mr. Walker. Sure.
Ms. Hartling. So that's a big relief. But having to go over
and over it in your head ----
Mr. Walker. I want to compliment the strength that you guys
are exhibiting. And Chief Martin, for you to take up the cause,
and of course, congratulations, December, as far as being
appointed full-time chief there. And a lot of that is due to
your many years of experience. I have done a little reading on
your background, very impressed with the background for what
you did with the sheriff's department and the gang-related
stuff, that you have been fighting this fight for a long time,
so you have seen it firsthand.
I was very impressed that you are willing to call it out
what it is. I believe that you made a quote, said I think this
is a national issue. I think it starts in Washington, D.C.,
with this administration that we see and their policies. I
think you can draw a direct line over to Sacramento with the
policies. And you talk about AB 109, prop 47, and you made this
quote. You said, ``And I am not remiss to say that from
Washington, D.C., to Sacramento there is a blood trail into the
bedroom of Marilyn Pharis.'' Do you still believe that?
Chief Martin. I do, sir.
Mr. Walker. Can you expound just for a moment why, why you
feel that way. Why are you that passionate about it?
Chief Martin. Well, you know, we on the local level are
really feeling the total brunt of all this. You know, we talk
about the national, we talk about the State, but, you know,
it's every police officer that goes to all these crime scenes.
And it just sunk in that this was so, as I stated earlier,
preventable. He was arrested six times ----
Mr. Walker. Yes, over ----
Chief Martin.--in 15 months.
Mr. Walker.--15 months, yes.
Chief Martin. In 15 months.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Chief Martin. And it's catch and release, catch and
release. All right. Now, if they're misdemeanors and--there--
two of those were felonies and they're dumbed down to a
misdemeanor, I still think ICE ought to look at those cases and
say, okay, he might have, you know, went and said I'll go ahead
and take the misdemeanor plea bargain ----
Mr. Walker. Right.
Chief Martin.--but I think we ought to look at the original
case and what it is if it's a felony.
Mr. Walker. Of course. Yes.
Chief Martin. Yes.
Mr. Walker. What does it do the morale of the good men and
woman that you lead when they see this kind of situation where
they're working, putting themselves in danger, six times out of
15 months? Speak to that if you would, please?
Chief Martin. Well, the Santa Maria Police Department is a
great police department, and hired 40 new police officers in
the last 3-1/2 years. They're dedicated, they come to work
every day, and I just think they realize that something needs
to be done at a higher level. They all need that.
Mr. Walker. And you know that by sticking your neck out
like this, you're going to get all kinds of innuendos and name-
calling and everything else. I commend you for being willing to
fight this fight because I think it is going to make a
difference in the future, all of you.
I had several questions. I may have time for one I at least
want to get to for Mr. Burbank.
Mr. Burbank, do you agree with the job Director Saldana is
doing at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department?
Mr. Burbank. The system is broken on both ends.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Does she have a responsibility for some
of the decisions that she is making?
Mr. Burbank. Absolutely.
Mr. Walker. Okay. I have got a specific question for you.
As you previously testified before the House Judiciary
Committee in opposition to a bill that would make criminal
alien drunk drivers deportable. How do you explain that? And I
am not trying to add histrionics to this case today, but how do
you explain this to families that that shouldn't be to that
level of criminal offense?
Mr. Burbank. The criminal offense should be equal under the
law. So if you are a citizen, if you are a visitor to the
country, or if you are undocumented in the country, they should
have the same due process that anyone is entitled to the in the
United States. And that's what I firmly believe in my job.
Mr. Walker. But see, that is a flawed argument. I heard
that today. You said, listen, aliens don't have as many
criminal background or acts as the normal population. My point
is if they weren't here to begin with, there would be no
criminal acts from them. Is that not true?
Mr. Burbank. You have a point.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. I yield back. I see I am over my
time. Thank you for your time. I appreciate that.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Cummings, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. What were you going to say?
Mr. Burbank. I was just going to say we've identified many
flaws within the criminal justice system that are not
necessarily directly related to immigration status.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. As I said to you, Ms. Hartling, and to
you, Mr. Root, I really do thank you for being here.
Mr. Root. You bet.
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. And, you know, the Government Printing Office
prints the records of these hearings, and you know, one of the
things that I noticed about myself--sometimes you can learn
stuff about yourself when you go through stuff--is that I never
wanted anybody to forget my nephew. You know, I didn't want him
to be like a flash and then it is like he didn't exist.
And since a record is being made here that is a permanent
record, I wanted to give you an opportunity to say anything
special about your loved ones. Ms. Hartling?
Ms. Hartling. Oh, now?
Mr. Cummings. Yes, you.
Ms. Hartling. Oh. Casey was a spitfire. Everybody loved
her. She was a tiny little thing and ----
Mr. Cummings. Was she like you?
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hartling. She was like me except she ----
Mr. Cummings. How did I guess?
Ms. Hartling. She is not as tall, though. She was very
short, right. My--I have two daughters that are 5'1''. That's
Casey and my oldest, and my other daughter is 17. She's as tall
as me. But all my other--my other two daughters are short so--
but she was--Casey wouldn't put up with any wrongdoings or
anything. Casey was--she was a fighter, and that's why she had
so many defensive wounds on her and everything because she
fought. She fought back.
And--but she was great. She was--we talked every single
day. I talked or texted--she talked or texted me every single
day. If there was a car accident on the highway, because I'm a
lousy driver, she'd call me on the phone and--to make sure that
it wasn't me in the accident every time. And I would--sometimes
I'd just answer the phone, I'm home, Casey. It wasn't me.
So she just--she was just a very caring, loving 25-year-old
beautiful girl with her whole life ahead of her, and now she's
gone.
Mr. Cummings. You know, you said something that kind of
caught my ear, and you said after it happened you wanted to
come to Washington.
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. And you said these words, you said it made me
happy to be able to come.
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Sometimes I think we who sit in these chairs
don't realize the significance of these kinds of moments. Can
you explain to me why you said that?
Ms. Hartling. Because I felt that I could contribute my
story about my daughter and how he was supposed to be deported
three times, and you know, so ICE and the Federal Government
need to--I wanted to just say what I wanted to say, that it was
wrong and they need to have more steps to take or whatever they
do to detain an illegal alien who may--did a heinous crime.
So he obviously had already done that before Casey. He had
already--he was acquitted of killing one guy and he attempted
murder the guy's girlfriend. So he was already a--you know, he
was already a criminal. And when he got out of jail and I
just--when I found out that ICE let him go the same exact day,
I was like that doesn't make any sense to me.
Mr. Cummings. Yes. You know, one of my favorite sayings is
that out of pain comes one's passion to do their purpose.
Ms. Hartling. Exactly.
Mr. Cummings. Pain, passion, purpose. Mr. Root, can you
tell us about your daughter?
Mr. Root. Well, my daughter, she's just a lot like Mrs.
Hartling's daughter. She was small but she was a little
spitfire. You know, you always knew where you stood with her,
just like my whole family being vocal. But, you know, she was
very loving, very smart, very beautiful, very caring. She was
passionate and willing to help people all the time. She was--
like I said, she just graduated with a 4.0 at--and then she
worked at Walgreen's, too, while she wanted to continue her
master's. And then people, you know, need something, she was
always willing to help somebody, you know, at the drop of a
dime, just a good-hearted person, you know?
Enjoyed doing a lot of family things, you know, hunting and
fishing. She was going to hunt this year with me. She goes,
Dad, you know, you're going to be pissed when I shoot on bigger
than you. So I bought her a shotgun and, you know, them aren't
in the cards. But, you know, she just was--she was real active
in soccer when she was younger, she used to go fishing with me,
be on the boat. If we're not catching no fish, she'd want to
steer. And just a real joy, you know. We never had problems
with either one of our kids. It's just--it's a lot to swallow
in, you know, but I'll see her again.
And, you know, you don't want your kids to die in vain.
You've got to speak up for you believe in. And it's hard to do
but, you know, myself and my family, like I said, feels from
a--from the local to the Federal level, you know, it's--the
ball's been dropped everywhere, and everybody should be held
accountable. Until my baby girl gets justice, I'll be here.
Mr. Cummings. You know, there is a song that I love so
much. It says the time we shared will always be. The time we
shared will always be. And, you know, as I listen to you, you
know, I think it is very important that we put faces. That was
one of the reasons I wanted you to talk about them ----
Mr. Root. That's fine.
Mr. Cummings.--to put faces. I mean, people--you know, we
get to a point in our nation and in our world where things
happen to people and it is just collateral damage. It is like
it is not a human being, a family behind, the people mourning,
feeling sorrow, you know, and as I say mourning for things that
could have been.
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. And so I just wanted to--I appreciate you all
sharing.
And, again, there are definitely some problems here that we
are going to try to solve. And I agree with the other side. I
don't think--to use the word political banter, I thought that
was not appropriate. It is about trying to solve problems and
trying to make it so. And I think this would be--your aim of
being here, trying to make sure that this doesn't happen to
somebody else's daughter ----
Mr. Root. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings.--or somebody else's cousin or sister or
friend or fiance. So, again, I want to thank you all for being
here.
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. And when you talk about your daughters, I can
tell you, when you put the personal side to it, I think it
helps us when we are trying to resolve these problems to just
keep in mind, you know, this is for two wonderful, awesome
spitfire--as you have said--young people.
Ms. Hartling. They probably would have been friends.
Mr. Cummings. Yes. Thank you all. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Root. You bet.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I now recognize myself.
Again, I love how Elijah Cummings puts his heart into it
and cares, and I think we all do. I don't think this is a
partisan issue. But there are public policy issues that we have
to deal with.
And, Mr. Root, I wanted to put up a picture, if it is all
right with you, of Sarah. This is your daughter there. How long
ago was that picture?
Mr. Root. She graduated the 30th of January. She died
January 31. That night, her--after graduation during the day
she went out with her mom and her mom's side of the family and
they had something to eat, and I was helping a friend do some
work and I asked if she wanted to have steak and crab legs with
us, but no, she wanted to go celebrate her graduation with a
friend. And I had her in the driveway blocked in with my
vehicle, and she moved her vehicle--or, I'm sorry, I moved my
vehicle. I was parked behind her. And she parked her vehicle on
the street, and she walked back up after parking her vehicle
and hugged me and gave me a big old hug, and it was like a
death hug. You know, she said I can't go nowhere without
telling you I love you, Dad, and that's the last time I seen
her alive before I identified her.
Chairman Chaffetz. Well, you know, the strength that you
exemplify here is just amazing to me. I have long said that it
is ordinary people doing extraordinary things that I think I am
most impressed with. And people wake up and something happens
and they don't think they are going to be sitting in this
situation, and here you are testifying before Congress.
And I want you to know in your heart it does make a
difference and that it is incumbent upon all of us to learn
those lessons. As clearly and succinctly as you can, the person
that is suspected of committing this--or that committed this
murder, what had this person done previously ----
Mr. Root. Well ----
Chairman Chaffetz.--that you in your mind justifies
deportation?
Mr. Root. Well, first of all, he was 16 or 17 when he was--
15 or 16 was he identified in Arizona, I believe, and he was
released to his brother, who was another illegal. You know,
they--to me, they should have been both deported at that time.
You're both entering the country illegally, you know, that's--
there's two. If he would have been deported, we wouldn't be in
this boat right now. And then the traffic offenses he committed
where he was going the wrong way and didn't--failure to show up
for that, I think, and he might have had a couple other--I know
he had one where he didn't seatbelt a child in. I mean, I don't
have the information right in front of me. I know ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Root.--he had two or three other times where he was
supposed to be in court, and he didn't show up. This was prior
to the incident with my daughter. And that--you know, with the
judge deal, that should have been all public record. I mean, in
this day and age, you know, you should be able to push that
computer and it should show everything.
And prior to releasing him, he was in jail for 4 days, 4 to
5 days. So, you know, they were claiming they didn't know his
immigration status and the county prosecutor didn't, you know,
give us this information. And to me, you know, that's--you
know, if a guy's in jail for 4 days, it gives you plenty of
time to figure it out. You know, you should have known 15
minutes pretty much all of it. I mean, I don't do legal work,
but it's just commonsense issue, you know. And the way his name
is spelled--and I'm not trying to be prejudiced because, like I
said, my mother was an immigrant--that would probably tell you
that he's, probably, you know, not, you know, just like Bob
Smith or something. You know, you might want to do a background
check, just common sense, you know.
And not to the point where--even where you're a judge and
you're supposed to be highly educated, to protect the public,
to me, you've failed.
Chairman Chaffetz. And, Mr. Burbank, look, you served the
people of Utah for a long period of time. And I may not be able
to convince you or change your mind, but I do want to offer
another perspective. I want you to be able to offer another
perspective, and I want to offer one as well because I believe
in the principle of restitution. You steal a candy bar, you put
it back or you pay for it. You break a window, you pay for it.
You are here illegally, you go home.
And so I think you do--for me personally, I think you do
see need for some immigration reform--which I agree with. I
think we need to fix legal immigration. I think it is broken. I
think we are failing those people who are trying to do it
legally and lawfully, but we doing it to the advantage of the
people who do break the laws and just blow past the laws of the
land. And I think we need to stand more firm as a nation and
say we are a nation of laws. And if you break them, there is a
consequence to that.
And right now, that is what I don't see happening, and that
is what I see time and time again just being dismissed as,
well, that wouldn't have really helped.
And there are a couple things that you said that I would
like to ask you about. You said we couldn't deport our way out
of this, but for somebody who has committed a serious crime who
is here illegally--remember, they are here illegally--they
committed a crime, they are convicted of that crime, why
shouldn't they all be deported? Why should we stand for that?
Mr. Burbank. If they have committed a serious crime, I
don't think there's a police chief in the nation that's not
going to tell you they shouldn't be deported or dealt with
appropriately. But we should not move outside the laws or the
Constitution in order to obtain that. Now, we have unfortunate
circumstances where people fall in a category, but our criminal
justice system adjudicates this.
Now, if part of that is they are adjudicated and then we
fail, I mean there's no question we've identified today that
there's failures in the system.
Chairman Chaffetz. So would you agree that--see,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is required by law to have
a minimum of 34,000 beds, but they are only in the 30,000
range. That means there is a good at any time 2 to 4,000 people
that should be detained, could be detained, that the Congress
funded to be detained, and they don't do that.
Now, you don't work for ICE, you don't work for Homeland
Security, but can you see the frustration, that there are
literally thousands of people that are here illegally as
criminal aliens and they are not being detained? Not because
they haven't been funded, not because it is not the law, just
because the Homeland Security folks and the Obama
administration decide, no, that is probably not in our best
interest. But why is that not in the best interest of the
United States of America?
Mr. Burbank. If we have identified individuals--
interestingly enough, I did work with ICE in order to come up
with those people and to try and make the major city chiefs of
the United States say, yes, we should deport those people
who've committed serious criminal acts.
Chairman Chaffetz. Do you think driving under the influence
falls to that level?
Mr. Burbank. I think laws such as that fall into the
category that they should be adjudicated as they do with
someone else. We've identified a shortcoming. Do you realize
there are people driving around in this country now that are
citizens that have four and five DUI arrests in the past that
we haven't dealt with appropriately either? And so we're
looking at a flawed ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Now, but I am asking you, for somebody
who is here illegally and convicted, convicted of a DUI, do you
believe they should be immediately deported?
Mr. Burbank. A DUI is a class B misdemeanor in the State of
Utah ----
Chairman Chaffetz. I am asking you ----
Mr. Burbank.--and so ----
Chairman Chaffetz.--do you ----
Mr. Burbank. No, I do not.
Chairman Chaffetz. So you think somebody who is here
illegally, drives under the influence, it is in the best
interest of this country to leave them in the United States?
Mr. Burbank. I think it's in the best interest of this
country to follow the standards set forth so that you have
equal ----
Chairman Chaffetz. I am asking you what ----
Mr. Burbank.--protections under the law.
Chairman Chaffetz. I am asking you what you think the
standard should be. I would deport all of them. You commit a
crime in this country, you are out of here. Guess what, you did
jump to the front of the line. That is the deportation line. So
why shouldn't we deport that person?
Mr. Burbank. Well, this is where you and I absolutely
disagree because I think that we have a practice in place and
how we adjudicates things, and I think there needs to be some
fairness and equity in that system. And when there's not, when
we identify people and they have harsher penalties because of
the color of their skin or the language that they speak ----
Chairman Chaffetz. No, wait, wait, wait. I never said
anything about the color of their skin. Those are your words,
not mine. I never said that. I said they are here illegally.
And that knows no bounds, right? Name a country that doesn't
have somebody here illegally. It happens from the entire world.
Why shouldn't we deport that person?
Mr. Burbank. One, I don't think we have the capacity to
reach that, and then two, this is the same ----
Chairman Chaffetz. So you think that saving money is more
important?
Mr. Burbank. No, but what I'm telling you is this is no
different than tax code. This is a civil penalty. It's not a
criminal penalty enforceable in the State of Utah as a crime.
Chairman Chaffetz. This is where ----
Mr. Burbank. You can only be detained and deported for
this, you cannot be jailed or fined for being in the country
undocumented.
Chairman Chaffetz. And you should be deported. That would
solve all the problems. That would solve all the problems right
there.
My time is expired.
I will now recognize Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
I am not going to follow with Mr. Burbank, but my goodness,
it is kind of incredible how we have people who don't want to
enforce our immigration laws.
I will go with Mr. Martin, Chief Martin. Could you just in
general--you have been involved in law enforcement for quite a
while. When were you first involved in law enforcement in
California?
Chief Martin. Nineteen seventy-three.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So you have seen a lot. Could you
describe the difference in the way the immigration laws of this
country, say, have been enforced, say, in 1975 and the way it
is today?
Chief Martin. Well, I can tell you from a perspective in
Los Angeles when I worked in the Los Angeles County Jail, we
used to have INS agents at the time working inside our jail, so
every person that was booked in to the Los Angeles County Jail,
they were screened by, at that time, INS, has now become ICE.
So there's a change there.
Then, I've seen changes--just through administrations you
see the differences, you know, '70s into the '80s, and now we
see it to the point where it's--like I testified earlier, it's
like catch and release. It's at the point now where we've--at
the local level it's saturation, and we're having a very
difficult time dealing with it in Santa Maria and other places,
too.
Mr. Grothman. Are you seeing that people who would have
been deported 40 years ago, today either for the lack of
resources or maybe kind of Mr. Burbank's attitude of, you know,
we don't care who comes in this country very much--do you see a
difference in whether somebody would be deported or not 40
years ago compared to today?
Chief Martin. Yes, I do. And what we saw in the '70s and
'80s was when you would have one or two convictions, you would
normally be deported. Victor Martinez was arrested six times in
15 months, and he was never deported, not even on the list to
be deported, so therein lies the actual evidence.
Mr. Grothman. Do you get any feeling--it is to a certain
extent a mystery of mine because in my mind, we are ruining our
country. And we have had witnesses appear not just in this
example but people who represent the border patrol the degree
to which--not just this administration but other
administrations as well--don't want to enforce our immigration
laws at all, which is I think, I as a Republican, we are going
to get Donald Trump as our nominee because we have a lot of bad
candidates who wouldn't say they would enforce the immigration
laws. Did you ever hear why we don't care to enforce our
immigration laws anymore? Is there any speculation you have?
Chief Martin. Well, the only thing I hear in California is
that we need illegal immigration to work the agriculture area,
but that does not--that doesn't ring true in Santa Maria. We
have many people there who come from different countries under
the H-2A laws, and they work there for 6, 7, 8, 9 months and
then return. So that argument doesn't seem to really hold water
for us.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Do you feel we ought to do a better job
enforcing our immigration laws?
Chief Martin. I'm sorry, sir, say ----
Mr. Grothman. Do you think we ought to do a better job
enforcing our immigration laws?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Do you care to comment on Chief
Burbank's comments before?
Chief Martin. Well, the only thing I would say, I would
like to share with the committee what happened in Santa Maria
just 8 weeks ago. We had an increase in homicides for the past
year-and-a-half in Santa Maria. Normally, we only have about
three homicides a year. Last year, in 21 months--or in 15
months we had about 21 homicides.
Eight weeks ago this day, we undertook an operation that
had an impact in these homicides. Along with the FBI, along
with ATF, we undertook and we led the investigation. We served
search warrants at 12 locations, eight in Santa Maria, some in
Bakersfield, some in Ohio and other areas, culminating in the
arrest of approximately 16 people. All 16 people are illegal
aliens from either El Salvador or Honduras, and they were all
booked for multiple counts of conspiracy to commit murder, and
there are other murders that we believe we will be able to
prosecute them for later on. So that was just 8 weeks ago on
March 3.
So, yes, I am seeing a huge increase in some of the
problems we're having.
Mr. Grothman. It would seem to me common sense that if you
have somebody breaking the law to come here, while there may be
wonderful people doing that, proportionately they would be more
likely to break other laws, including maybe the laws against
murder. Based on your experience in the last 20 months, do you
believe that illegal immigrants in Santa Maria are less likely
to commit crimes than the native-born?
Chief Martin. Are they less likely?
Mr. Grothman. Right. Right.
Chief Martin. No, I don't believe that. I think it's
proportional. We have a lot of people--Santa Maria has got a 70
percent Hispanic population. Half of my police force is
Hispanic or African-American, right, so they're seeing it on
all levels also. But I don't think that, you know, they're--the
illegals are--that when they are here, many of them, the only
way to support themselves--they're not working the fields--
they're committing crimes just like Victor Martinez was doing.
He didn't have a job. You know, he's hooked on methamphetamines
so he makes his living--or he makes his money by stealing.
Mr. Grothman. That, to me, makes sense. So you would say in
general--and there is this myth out there. I think I saw it in
some of the stuff that Chief Burbank said--that the illegal
immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. I mean, my
experience just talking to people in law enforcement, common
sense would tell you, you are here illegally, more likely to
commit crimes. Is that your experience, more likely to commit
crimes, you think, people who are here illegally?
Chief Martin. No, I don't think--well, let me give you an
example. We had--we arrested 500 people for drunk driving, I
think it was last year in Santa Maria. Of the 6,000, 500 were
drunk-driving cases. I would estimate that about 40 percent
were illegal aliens, and I think they only make up about 20
percent of our population.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, that is kind of shocking.
Mr. Palmer. [Presiding] The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you for giving me the extra
minute.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes Mr. Connolly, the
gentleman from Virginia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burbank, I just heard that last statistic, and that is
awful misleading. I mean, if you want to go down that road,
what percentage of black American men as a total population--
part of the U.S. population and what percentage do they
constitute in terms of incarcerated adults?
Mr. Burbank. They are incarcerated at a much higher rate.
Mr. Connolly. Much higher rate. What are we to conclude
from that? Don't answer. I would suggest, respectfully, tread
very lightly on what you conclude about that.
So the fact that you have got a higher percentage of people
who are undocumented who are arrested in a community that has a
lot of undocumented people, I don't know what to conclude from
that. There could be good and bad things to be concluded from
that, including about policing. And I can tell you this. If my
police chief were at this table, he would testify that we don't
want to essentially federalize our police forces and make them
the equivalent of immigration police because we want the
cooperation of the immigrant community, including the
undocumented immigrant community, in terms of law enforcement.
I can tell you in my community right across the river it
was because of an undocumented individual we were able to solve
a murder by an undocumented individual. We would never have
gotten the cooperation of the day laborer community, in this
case undocumented, with our police if we had not had a
different kind of policy where we differentiated our local law
enforcement function from that of immigration and customs and
so forth.
So just a word of caution about that, and Chief, you are
more than welcome to comment on that if you wish.
Chief Martin. Thank you, Congressman. I have an excellent
relationship with the Hispanic community. We have outreach
officers that go out into the fields and speak with them all
the time. We do have many undocumented people come forward to
report crimes.
But the question was do I see an increase or decrease, I'm
not sure the exact numbers, but I think it's proportionate, as
I said. So ----
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Chief Martin.--we have B coordinators, we have--like I
said, 40, 45 percent of my officers speak Spanish. So I go to
every meeting that I'm invited to. So I agree. We're not
supposed to be immigration officers, that's not our job ----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Chief Martin. But at the same time, we are feeling the
impact ----
Mr. Connolly. Sure.
Chief Martin.--of the lack of enforcement at the Federal
and State level.
Mr. Connolly. I understand that, too.
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. Thank you very much.
Chief Martin. Sure.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Burbank, is deportation just sort of the
answer to all of our immigration problems here? Let's really up
the game on deportation and that will solve everything?
Mr. Burbank. I do not believe it's the answer personally,
no.
Mr. Connolly. Really? Why not?
Mr. Burbank. I do not believe it's realistic, and in fact,
it's an unfair system in which we don't treat people equally
across the board. Then the other thing is border issues and
everything else. People come back. We need a system that
reforms immigration so individuals can come into the country
and work, can come into the country and visit, return home, can
come out of the shadows and participate in society.
This is not a question of legalization of everybody. This
is a question of allowing them to participate so that
understand traffic laws, so that they understand the rules,
that they can get the treatment that everyone in society--for
drug, alcohol, and mental health issues that everyone in
society experiences regardless of what their race is or where
they may be from.
Mr. Connolly. What is the recidivism rate of deported
individuals? I mean, we sometimes act as if deportation is the
ultimate answer to a set of problems. But the fact of the
matter is, depending on who you are and where you come from,
you may illegally enter the United States multiple times even
after having been deported, is that not correct?
Mr. Burbank. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And that is because of why?
Mr. Burbank. I think there is a desire to be in this
country. And there are family members, there's many issues, but
they do not--studies have shown, conducted by research
institutes and universities across the Nation that show that
individuals even in multiple returns are committing crime at a
lesser rate.
Mr. Connolly. But even where we have got criminal activity,
for example, in northern Virginia where I live, we have had
gang leadership that has been deported back to Central America
only to have them show up again, you know, 4 to 5 months later,
and we had to go through the process all over again.
So sometimes when we are dealing with criminals, they have
a criminal network that also serves to re-inject them
unfortunately back in this community. And that is a different
kind of challenge than simply addressing somebody's status.
Would you agree?
Mr. Burbank. Absolutely. And you've just identified the
frustration of police chiefs across the Nation. The system is
broken, and until we reform immigration as a whole, we will not
be able to get past some of these loopholes that criminals are
finding.
Mr. Connolly. I would just say this in my final comment,
but I think you just put your--I spent 14 years in local
government before coming here and was chairman of my county,
was the equivalent of being a mayor, 1.2 million people. And
that is my feeling that the Federal Government in some ways, by
overseeing a broken system, has forced localities and local
communities to deal with the consequences of this broken
system. And sometimes, certainly as our two grieving parents
here give witness to, it leads to tragedy. We have got to fix
this system.
Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes Mr. Carter, the
gentleman from Georgia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you
for being here. I can only imagine the feelings that you have.
And please know that you are in our prayers, and we appreciate
your courage for being here.
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Root. You're welcome.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Martin, if I can ask you specifically,
Victor Martinez-Ramirez, he was the illegal alien who cared Air
Force veteran Marilyn Pharis. He had been arrested by your
police department six times in the previous 15 months, is that
correct?
Chief Martin. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Carter. Six times in the previous 15 months?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. And it is my understanding he had been released
by the Santa Barbara County Jail only 96 hours prior to doing
this?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. Had ICE issued a detainer for this guy?
Chief Martin. Not in this particular case. They did provide
a detainer in 2014, but that was the only one we knew.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Martin, is your city or Santa Barbara
County a sanctuary jurisdiction?
Chief Martin. No, sir. The city of Santa Maria is not a
sanctuary city, never has been. In fact, I have letters from
our State manager, which was authored by our city council
stating specifically they have never voted for at any time in
the past or in the present to be a sanctuary city.
Mr. Carter. Have you ever contacted ICE previously to
request a detainer on someone or on a suspected illegal alien?
Have you ever had that experience?
Chief Martin. No, sir. What we do is when we arrest
someone, the Santa Maria Police Department makes an arrest, we
fill out a form that goes with the prisoner to the county jail.
The Santa Maria Police Department, we don't have a jail for
people to put in. We just have a booking/processing area. And
in this form we do check--the officer does--the officer
requests an immigration review, and in this particular case for
Victor Martinez, we checked yes. So then it would be in the
hands of the sheriff's department and ICE for them to go down
and make the review.
Mr. Carter. Okay. And you are not sure what happened after
that in that particular case?
Chief Martin. No, sir.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Wouldn't you agree, Chief, that increased
communication between local law enforcement and Federal law
enforcement would--and Federal law enforcement especially
because obviously they are the ones who are responsible for the
immigration enforcement, wouldn't you agree that better
communication would obviously benefit everyone in this case?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir, I would.
Mr. Carter. And hopefully keep a tragedy like this from
happening again? I mean, this is obviously not our best work
and could qualify as being our worst work.
Mr. Chairman, obviously, I am appalled, as we all are, at
what has happened in this particular case and what has happened
in many cases like this. And, you know, especially when you had
a veteran who was murdered at the hands of an illegal alien who
was in police custody only hours before, only hours before this
person was in police custody.
So I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman and
other members of the committee, a bill that I have. It is H.R.
4007, the ALERTED Act, and it helps to increase communication
at all levels of law enforcement, and it ensures that DHS and
that ICE are responsive to those inquiries just like Mr. Martin
just indicated. And that is that they will work to make sure
that these illegal aliens are indeed checked on and that our
immigration laws are enforced.
Again, it is H.R. 4007. That is a bill that I am
sponsoring. It is called the ALERTED Act. Hopefully, it will
improve communication between local law enforcement and between
the Federal Government. That is what we need more of.
Again, thank you for being here, and again, our
condolences. Thank you so much. We appreciate your courage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
And first of all, I want to thank the ranking member for
asking you to tell us about Casey and Sarah, and you can, Mr.
Martin, tell us a little bit about Marilyn Pharis. We don't
want these people to just be statistics. And I watched as
people wiped tears. As the dad of two daughters, I can't
imagine what you have been through. We all of us are very, very
grateful for you coming. This has been very helpful.
Mr. Root, is it true that Mr. Mejia's bail was less than
the cost of Sarah's funeral?
Mr. Root. Yes, it is.
Mr. Palmer. Do you know whether or not Mr. Mejia had a
driver's license?
Mr. Root. He did not.
Mr. Palmer. Do you know whether or not he ever had one?
Mr. Root. I do not know that fact. I know there's no
insurance. The vehicle that killed my daughter, I'm not even
sure the true owner of that vehicle. It's in the Omaha impound
lot right now. I heard it was from another illegal roofing
contractor from Wichita, Kansas, but, you know, I--they won't
let me take it out of there to get it tested for prints or
whatever you want to say. So ----
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Mr. Martin, I listened to Mr. Burbank's
response to Chairman Chaffetz about deporting drunk drivers,
and frankly, that didn't go over well with me. But I'm going to
ask you, do you think we have enough legal citizens that drive
drunk without adding illegal immigrant drunk drivers to that
number?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think it makes sense when we know that
they have record of drunk driving--and I would like for you to
answer that again. You didn't have your microphone on. I ask
you if you think we have enough without adding illegal drug
drivers to that ----
Chief Martin. Yes, sir, we have enough.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think it makes sense when they are
picked up for drunk driving since they are here illegally,
regardless of race, national origin, sex, gender, does it
matter--or since they are here illegally and they are breaking
our laws, does it make sense for them to stay here?
Chief Martin. No, sir, it does not. I view the vehicle just
as I would a pistol.
Mr. Palmer. And in Sarah Root's case it was just as deadly
as a pistol, wasn't it?
Chief Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Burbank, in your last comments, you seemed
to imply that the American taxpayers should pay for substance
abuse treatment for people who are here illegally. Is that what
you are saying that we need to do as a nation?
Mr. Burbank. I don't believe I said that as regards to that
----
Mr. Palmer. I believe you did.
Mr. Burbank.--and the taxpayers. I said that we have
demonstrated through restorative justice programs in which
substance abuse treatment--that is the direction that we bring
people out and they do not reoffend. We are more effective than
we are with incarceration.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. But ----
Mr. Burbank. What I said.
Mr. Palmer.--you said that in the context of illegals, and
if they are here illegally and they are in these substance
abuse programs, you are pretty much saying that we need to
invest American taxpayer dollars in providing substance abuse
for people who are here illegally. Does that not create another
incentive for them to come here illegally?
Mr. Burbank. We have people who exist in this country in
all different forms and stats ----
Mr. Palmer. Listen, you are trying to ----
Mr. Burbank.--so I ----
Mr. Palmer.--turn this into something it is not, and I am
not going to let you do it. And the chairman would probably
pull me out of the chair, but we are sick of this. You have got
three people here representing families who have lost loved
ones. We know that there were 124 people who are here illegally
who have committed murders. Just this month in my home State of
Alabama they have arrested three illegals, two Hondurans and a
Mexican, who were here to do a home invasion, and one of them
said had the family been there with a firearm, he would have
shot them.
They were arrested, Mr. Martin, by local police in Oxford,
Alabama, who were alert enough to see that they were carrying
weapons and arrested them. They had prior convictions as well.
One of them was carrying a pistol stolen from Arlington, Texas.
One of them had a felony that goes back to 2008. It is insane.
It is criminal. And you are sitting next to people who have
lost two of the most precious things they will ever lose in
their lives. And frankly, I find it offensive.
Mr. Burbank. May I respond?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, you may.
Mr. Burbank. So I sympathize with these individuals. In
fact, in the year 2000, my friend and colleague lost his life
at the hands of an undocumented immigrant. I would not want
that person caught who has never been found--he was held in
custody and released, but I would not want that person found at
the expense of someone else's constitutional rights or civil
rights.
Mr. Palmer. We are not talking about constitutional rights,
and I think you have crossed a line in trying to imply that
people who are here illegally have the same rights as people
who are here legally, who are citizens of the country. And we
are not denying people due process. We are not denying them
access to the justice system. We are trying to treat people as
humanely as we possibly can, but the fact of the matter is I
don't care if it was just one in the last 10 years, it would
have been one too many if it were my daughter or my son.
I yield back and recognize Mr. Grothman for 2 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. I don't even need 2 minutes. I just wanted to
do a follow-up with Chief Martin. I would like to thank you for
being here today. I see Congressman Connolly had left. I just
did want to respond a little to his comment. I thought it was
completely out of line. I think the implication was completely
unwarranted without anything to back it up.
I appreciate what you are saying, and I think we see, both
from Representative Connelly and former Chief Burbank, kind of
the mentality that we have got to get over in this country if
we are going to save our country because we are going to lose
our country unless we begin to take these immigration laws
seriously. We have too many people thinking of any ridiculous
pretext under the world not to do the obvious. And we have seen
that here today.
But I just would like to thank Chief Martin and thank all
the other law enforcement officers around the country who, I
think, are doing a tremendous job. I think it is unfortunate
that so many people want to disparage them. That is all.
Mr. Palmer. I now recognize the ranking member for a
closing statement.
Mr. Cummings. Again, I want to thank all of you for being
here.
And I think when we look at this total problem, we have to
understand that there is a lot of pain, and rightfully so. And
at the same time, when our nation was put together, the
Founding Fathers tried to create all kinds of balances so that
we keep our people safe, make sure that there is equal
protection under the law, and a true sense of justice. And
sometimes, these things seem to kind of collide, but I am
convinced that we can do better. I mean, as I heard Director
Saldana talk, she was clear that there are some things that we
need to do, we as Members of Congress need to do perhaps in
looking at the code and figuring out ways we can help them be
more effective and efficient in what they do.
No system, unfortunately, is perfect. I practiced law for
many years, and I saw a lot of things that will go with me in a
negative way until I die. But I think what we have to do as
Americans is constantly reach for that more perfect union.
Whether we will ever get there, I don't know, but we need to be
striving for it every day.
And there are so many people who--and I want us to always
be careful, though, and I go back to my opening statement, that
we don't just label a group of people because I think that is
very dangerous, too, because when we turn against each other,
then I think it is almost impossible for us to truly pursue
that more perfect union. So that means we have got to try to
address the issues that come out of this. We have got to look
at ICE and make sure that ICE is doing what it is supposed to
do, and all the other agencies. And where there are places that
need to be strengthened, we need to do that.
But in the end, we want to try to make sure, to all of you,
that these kind of things don't happen again. And again, we may
only be able to minimize the possibility because, Chief, as you
know, things happen. Even when you have the laws, people find a
way to get around them. You know that because I know you have
been in this business long enough.
But again, your testimony has been very helpful to all of
us. And I really--from the depths of my heart, I thank you. I
really do. And I think somebody said it a little bit earlier,
you know, you never get over the loss. You don't. You just
learn to live with it. You learn to live with it. And you have
learned--you are learning to live with it because it is still
new. And the idea that you are able to do what you are doing,
to come here and speak for, for your loved ones, and, like you
said, Ms. Hartling, I think you said something to the effect
that I don't want to see her having died in vain. You want to
see something come out of this ----
Ms. Hartling. Yes.
Mr. Cummings.--to help somebody else, and that is one of
the greatest ways you can deal with it. And we really
appreciate it. And you came to the right place.
Ms. Hartling. This is where I wanted to be.
Mr. Cummings. Well, we are glad you came, all of you. Thank
you very much.
Ms. Hartling. Thank you.
Mr. Root. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. We thank all of our witnesses for their
appearance here today. If there is no further business, without
objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]