[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE REAL VICTIMS OF A RECKLESS AND
LAWLESS IMMIGRATION POLICY: FAMILIES AND
SURVIVORS SPEAK OUT ON THE REAL
COST OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 19, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-838 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________
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 THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
KEN BUCK, Colorado SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Gary Merson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 19, 2016
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 4
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 7
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 8
WITNESSES
The Honorable Charles A. Jenkins, Sheriff, Frederick County, MD
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Michelle Root, Mother of Sarah Root, Modale, IA
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Laura Wilkerson, Mother of Joshua Wilkerson, Pearland, TX
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
Minerva G. Carcano, Bishop, The United Methodist Church
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (56
deg.OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. This material is
available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803
THE REAL VICTIMS OF A RECKLESS AND LAWLESS IMMIGRATION POLICY: FAMILIES
AND SURVIVORS SPEAK OUT ON THE REAL COST OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S
POLICIES
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey
Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Labrador, Smith,
King, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Lofgren, and Conyers.
Staff Present: (Majority) Tracey Short, Counsel; Tanner
Black, Clerk; and (Minority) Micah Bump, Counsel.
Mr. Gowdy. The Committee will come to order.
This is a Subcommittee hearing on immigration and border
security. I want to welcome all of our witnesses and our
guests.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
I also want to say this too, because I always say it: We're
delighted to have guests, but the witnesses deserve to be heard
and the Members need to hear what the witnesses have to say. So
this will be the one and only warning that anyone gets with
respect to decorum. If there is a disturbance, you'll be
removed.
With that, welcome again to our witnesses. The way that we
will conduct it is we will give opening statements, and then
I'll recognize each of you individually for opening statements,
and then the Members will be recognized for questioning.
With that, I would recognize myself for an opening
statement.
I want to begin again by thanking the witnesses for being
here today. I cannot imagine the pain that you have endured,
and still endure, or the courage it takes to talk about the
loss of a child. Well-meaning people can talk about closure,
but when it comes to the loss of a child or loved ones to an
act of violence or recklessness, there is no closure and there
is no moving on. There is an omnipresent void and a daily
reminder that impacts every facet of life. Losing a child is a
life sentence in and of itself.
The loved ones of those killed by acts of violence or
recklessness have to reconcile the finality of death with the
certainty of separation and, in some instances, the reality
that many of these tragedies could have been avoided. And
that's what I want to talk about today, how imminently
avoidable some of these tragedies are.
Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. Either the
current state of the law or the refusal to enforce certain
aspects of our law allow for the release of tens of thousands
of criminal aliens into American communities. This has and will
continue to have real and tragic consequences. So it's
imperative that we understand this, regardless of your
political ideation and, frankly, regardless of your views on
immigration reform. Surely, we can all agree that protecting
the public from violence and lawlessness is the preeminent
function of government.
Whatever else you may think government can or should be
doing, national security and public safety have to make the
list somewhere. For me, they make the top of the list, and I
think that's true for most people, which is why it is
unconscionable that between October of 2011 and December of
2014, ICE released criminal aliens over 100,000 times.
According to ICE, those released have been convicted of
more than 10,000 assaults, more than 800 sexual assaults, more
than 400 homicide-related offenses, and more than 300
kidnappings. Today, there are over 350,000 known criminal
aliens in the United States who are not detained by ICE,
350,000.
That number may not get your attention. Statistics rarely
do. So I want you to think about it this way: The number of
criminal aliens living in the United States, not in custody,
not separated from society, is larger than the city of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; larger than the city of Lexington,
Kentucky; larger than the city of Anaheim, California.
Can you imagine a city the size of Pittsburgh comprised
solely of people who are here unlawfully, who have also
committed another crime? You would be outraged. You would not
stand for it. You would demand immediate action. So why do we
allow that same city to be dispersed among the broader country?
These are not merely statistics. These are tragic, real
stories of human suffering. Fathers and mothers, and sisters
and brothers, and friends and neighbors across the United
States have lost loved ones at the hands of criminal aliens.
Some of them are sitting in the very room today.
In May of 2010, Hermilo Moralez was arrested for stalking
his girlfriend. He was in the United States illegally. But he
wasn't deported. He wasn't detained. Six months later, Hermilo
Moralez got a ride from Joshua Wilkerson, an 18-year-old high
school senior from Pearland, Texas. Joshua thought he and
Moralez were friends. Joshua wound up beaten, strangled,
tortured, and ultimately killed. He was bound and his body
burned and dumped in a field. Moralez was in the country
illegally then too. After his arrest, Moralez was leading
investigators to Joshua's dead body when he attempted to take
possession of a detective's gun.
So I've met the so-called DREAMers and valedictorians. I've
listened to witnesses, some of whom sat in this very room, and
argued for full, unmitigated citizenship for all 12 million
aspiring U.S. citizens. That was what we were asked to do: a
path to citizenship for all 12 million. And when those
witnesses were pressed on background checks on whether all 12
million really were aspiring citizens, the silence was
deafening.
It is just as inaccurate to categorize all 12 million as
DREAMers and valedictorians as it is to characterize all 12
million as criminals. But once this government is on notice
that, in addition to breaking immigration laws, some insist on
breaking other laws, there is no justification for inaction.
Sarah Root was a 21-year-old with a beautiful, full life
ahead of her. She graduated college with a 4.0. She aspired to
work in forensics. That caught my attention. She wanted to
dedicate her life to solving crimes so victims could have
justice, so perpetrators would be punished, and to clear the
innocent. That is the purpose of our justice system. It's a
shame she never got a chance to work in it.
She was struck from behind and killed by Edwin Mejia. Edwin
Mejia was a Honduran national who illegally entered the United
States as an unaccompanied minor in 2013. He was then placed in
the custody of his brother, who is also an illegal alien. Mr.
Mejia is accused of drag racing in Omaha, Nebraska, with a
blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit when
he killed Sarah.
After being charged with felony motor vehicle homicide, he
was given a $50,000 bond by a State judge. This allowed him to
be released after posting just 10 percent, $5,000. The purpose
of bond is to protect the public and to ensure the defendant
appears at scheduled court appearances. Risk of flight is
really one of only two factors the judge has to be bothered
with considering, risk of flight and danger to the community.
Check and check.
But a paltry bond was set nonetheless. State authorities
say they contacted ICE numerous times to notify the agency of
Mejia's elevated flight risk. In fact, State authorities say
they requested ICE take custody of Mr. Mejia, but ICE denied
the request and he walked right out of jail.
Now, ICE spokesman claimed Mr. Mejia would not be detained
because his arrest did not meet ICE's enforcement priorities.
How in the hell somebody here illegally who operates a vehicle
at a high rate of speed and three times the legal rate of
impairment and kills a 21-year-old girl doesn't meet priorities
of ICE is precisely why so little people have confidence in
this Administration's policies and priorities, and precisely
why so many people are angry and fed up with the current state
of immigration enforcement. If killing a young woman while
racing in an impaired state and being here illegally in the
first place does not meet priorities, then perhaps your
priorities are wrong.
This Administration loves to talk about families being
separated. Politicians love to talk about families being
separated. Preachers love to talk about families being
separated. That's the common mantra when discussing immigration
and why they refuse to enforce current law.
But I want to make sure my fellow citizens are clear about
this: This Administration and the politicians and the preachers
are not talking about the families sitting at the table this
morning. They're not talking about the separation that comes
from burying your child. They're not talking about the
separation of whatever you told your daughter being the last
thing you will ever tell your daughter because she was shot
walking beside you, walking on a pier in San Francisco, or
because she was killed by somebody driving three times the
legal rate of impairment.
Separation is a mother living with the reality that her son
left for school in the morning and was killed with his body set
on fire before nightfall. That is separation. That is
permanent. I wish this Administration talked a little more
about it, but mainly I wish they did a little more about it.
Just yesterday, the lawyer for the President was at it
again, this time at the United States Supreme Court, arguing
for the nonenforcement of the law, arguing for the wholesale
failure to enforce the law. And he said this: ``The damage that
would be reaped by tearing apart families.''
If you want to see that damage, Mr. Solicitor General, if
you want to see what tearing apart looks like, I hope you're
watching this morning.
With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I welcome today's witnesses.
And I want to extend my condolences to the Root and
Wilkerson families. As a mother and a grandmother, I shudder to
think of the anguish that a parent experiences when they lose a
child. While there may be sharp disagreements among Members of
Congress on immigration policy, all of our thoughts and prayers
are with you.
Now, public safety is critically important, and there are
important questions about criminal justice reform that this
Committee is addressing with bipartisan legislation. Similar
issues, including detention policy and release standards, also
come up in the context of immigration law.
Hearings should offer Members of the Committee and the
public the opportunity to learn more about an issue so that we
can work, hopefully, together to address problems that we were
sent to Washington to solve. However, today's hearing comes
amidst a political season in which the Republican frontrunner
for President has essentially called all Mexican immigrants
rapists. These vile comments vilify an entire community.
They're inaccurate and unfair and lead to bad policy proposals
that would make us less safe.
Now, I've been an immigration attorney and an elected
official working on immigration issues for a long time. I have
the privilege of representing a socially and economically
vibrant district in the heart of Silicon Valley. I know
firsthand that immigrants enrich our culture and are engines
for growth and innovation in science, technology, and the arts.
Stereotyping and profiling are wrong when it comes to race,
religion, and national origin. We should not let the bad acts
of some define or malign an entire community.
The vast majority of immigrants are hardworking, law-
abiding members of society. We know that natives commit crimes
at a higher rate than immigrants. As The Wall Street Journal
reported in July of 2015, numerous studies going back more than
a century have shown that immigrants, regardless of nationality
or legal status, are less likely than the native population to
commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated.
Now, while the foreign-born share of the U.S. population
grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent between 1990 and 2013,
FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate during this same
period declined 48 percent, which included fallen rates of
aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Similarly, the
property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates
of motor vehicle theft, larceny, robbery, and burglary.
Immigrants between the ages of 18 and 39 are incarcerated at
half the rate of native-born populations.
And as the late, great New York Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan said, ``Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but
not his own facts.'' Vilifying entire communities undermines
public safety and makes law enforcement's jobs harder.
I'm particularly concerned that one of our witnesses today,
Sheriff Jenkins, was found by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals to have engaged in racial profiling. In a 2013
decision, the court unequivocally held that Sheriff Jenkins'
deputies had no legal authority to arrest or even briefly
detain a woman of Hispanic origin, who was simply eating her
lunch in a public area outside her workplace, on the basis of a
suspected civil immigration status violation.
Racial profiling raises fundamental constitutional
concerns. It has no place in law enforcement and certainly not
in the Judiciary Committee. Smart, effective community policing
that engenders trust in immigrant communities leads to crimes
being reported, victims getting the assistance they need, and
this in turn makes us all safer.
As Richard Biehl, the police chief of Dayton, Ohio, who
testified before this Committee last year, wrote, ``These
policies allows us to focus on limited resources, on our
primary mission, crime solving, and community safety. They also
send a message that victims of violent crime, human
trafficking, and other crimes should never be afraid to reach
out for help due to fear of immigration consequences.''
Today's hearing also comes 1 day after the Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Texas. Under DAPA and expanded
DACA, the Secretary of Homeland Security proposed to establish
a process that would allow Federal officials to consider, on a
case-by-case basis, whether to defer deportation of certain
unauthorized immigrants who live in the United States for 5
years and either came here as children or who have children who
are U.S. citizens.
These policies create a mechanism and an incentive for low-
priority immigrants to come forward and submit to a background
check. This promotes public safety and national security, while
strengthening communities. Yet the Republicans just last month
passed a resolution against these policies. What is not in
dispute, thankfully, in this case is the authority of the
executive to set immigration enforcement priorities.
Every year, Congress appropriates enough money to remove
less than 4 percent of the unauthorized immigrants now in the
country. Should we use these resources on women and children
fleeing violence, or should we use it to apprehend and deport
those who commit violent crimes? This is a matter of common
sense that we should all agree on and should not be the subject
of bitter partisan dispute.
I also want to address one specific point made by the
Chairman in his opening statement regarding the release from
detention of foreign nationals. According to ICE, in 2015, two-
thirds of all releases were mandatory, either based on the
Supreme Court case that precludes indefinite detention or a
determination made by an immigration judge. This is up from 40
percent in fiscal year 2013.
I would note that the Zadvydas decision, which requires--
the Supreme Court case that requires release of individuals who
face indefinite detention relates to countries unwilling to
take the return of their nationals. And with the reopening--
most of those individuals are from Cuba. And with the opening
of relations with Cuba, I fully expect that the number of
mandatory releases under Zadvydas will fall substantially,
which I think is a good thing. A determination has been made
that they should be deported.
Now, when ICE makes discretionary determination to release
an individual from immigration detention, it's based on risk
evaluation. Consideration is given to special vulnerabilities,
mental health, risk of harm to public safety, flight risk. And
it's just not correct that immigrants are routinely and
recklessly released from custody.
It's also correct to say that sometimes mistakes are made.
And in the case of the bond mentioned by the Chairman, it's my
understanding that bond was a local bond. But I would point out
that DUI is an enforcement priority under the November 20th
resolution. Domestic violence is an enforcement priority. So
I'm not here to say that ICE has never made a mistake, but to
say that the policy is not to deport people who--in the DUI
area is simply inaccurate.
And, of course, let's not forget that our immigration
system is broken and badly in need of reform. There are 11
million undocumented people in this country. Contrary to what
Donald Trump may think, the majority of these people are not
drug dealers and rapists; they are hardworking people, parents
of U.S. citizens, DREAMers, small-business owners, who want an
opportunity to come forward, submit to background checks, get
into the system and onto the books.
The bill passed in 2013 by a bipartisan group of 68
Senators would have not only grown our economy and helped
shrink our budget deficit, but would have made our community
safer. And the same is true for DAPA and DACA programs that
were discussed in the Supreme Court yesterday. But DACA and
DAPA are no replacement for comprehensive reform. That's
Congress' job, and I hope we can get to it.
And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to place
into the record a news article entitled, ``Court Finds
Frederick County, Maryland, Sheriff Chuck Jenkins Illegally
Detained Latina Immigrant.''*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Subcommittee. Also, see Lofgren
submissions for the record at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate your holding this hearing.
And I want to especially thank our witnesses for appearing
today and for your willingness to testify before this
Subcommittee on this very important issue.
I also want to express my deepest sympathy to the family
members of Sarah Root and Joshua Wilkerson, who were tragically
killed by criminal aliens illegally present in the United
States. Their mothers, Michelle Root and Laura Wilkerson, are
here to share their stories under heartbreaking circumstances
that no parent could be prepared for or should have to bear.
Sarah Root was killed by an unlawful alien drunk driver
less than 3 months ago. Only hours before her death, she
graduated from college with a 4.0 average and a degree in
investigations. Tragically, the Department of Homeland Security
did not consider her killer an enforcement priority and did not
issue a detainer for his arrest. As a result, he posted a State
bail bond and fled.
Joshua Wilkerson was tortured and murdered in 2010 by an
alien who had overstayed his visa for 8 years. The killer was
arrested on a harassment charge only months before, but ICE did
not seek to take custody of him. The district attorney who
prosecuted the murder case couldn't explain why ICE did not
have an interest in him, despite the fact that ICE regularly
reviewed the county jail roster.
Though these two young victims had unique life stories,
their tragic deaths are linked by a common thread: They are two
of the many innocent victims of the irresponsible policies of
the Obama administration that promote the presence of dangerous
criminal aliens in American communities.
The American public has been misled by the enforcement
priorities, deferred action, and executive action policies of
this Administration which categorize only certain, quote/
unquote, serious criminal aliens as worthy of immigration
enforcement. However, this Administration's actions demonstrate
that it finds it acceptable to permit even serious criminal
aliens to prey on our communities.
The fact remains that illegal immigration has consequences.
It is not a victimless crime. And for the families and friends
of victims killed, maimed, or otherwise hurt by aliens,
especially those who are illegally present, the consequence can
be devastating.
The White House website proclaims the President's highest
priority is to keep the American people safe. The President
echoed that sentiment in his recent State of the Union Address.
Americans wonder how that reassuring statement can be true if
this Administration's current policies require criminal aliens
apprehended at the border and in our neighborhoods to simply be
released to victimize others.
Americans deserve to know why this Administration would
release thousands upon thousands of criminal aliens from DHS
custody despite convictions that included a total of 473
homicide-related offenses, 375 kidnappings, 890 sexual
assaults, and 10,731 assaults before their release. And after
their release from DHS custody, criminal aliens went on to
commit 124 homicide-related offenses between 2010 and 2014.
Those released in 2014 alone committed 1,423 additional crimes
after their release from custody, including vehicular homicide,
sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and driving
under the influence of alcohol.
At least 95 percent of convicted criminal aliens known to
DHS are not detained. How does that policy protect the American
people? The harm is real and the risk is great, yet the
consequences are largely avoidable if this Administration were
to simply enforce the law.
That is why last year, the Judiciary Committee passed H.R.
1148, the Michael Davis, Jr., and Danny Oliver in Honor of
State and Local Law Enforcement Act, legislation introduced by
Chairman Gowdy, which provides much-needed enforcement tools
for Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to
enforce immigration law and protect the public from criminal
aliens.
The Administration's irresponsible policies have led to an
increase in organized crime by aliens. Violent crime by Central
American street gangs, such as MS-13, has become endemic in our
communities. Sheriff Charles Jenkins of Frederick County,
Maryland, will testify today. He is all too familiar with the
increase in alien gang violence. His rural county, just 50
miles from this building, has seen a significant increase in
major crimes by MS-13 gang members.
Alien gang crime in Frederick County increased sharply
beginning in 2014, and nearly three-quarters of the offenses
were for violent felonies. It is no coincidence that the spike
in gang crime occurred during the same time that thousands of
Central American minors were illegally entering at the
southwest border.
Sixty-four percent of validated gang members arrested in
Frederick County in 2015 entered illegally through the
southwest border as unaccompanied minors. By releasing known
criminal aliens and refusing to secure our border, the
Administration has sent a clear message to the American people
that their safety and security are far less important than
ensuring that illegally present and criminal aliens will remain
here.
Today, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses whose
compelling and insightful testimony will provide this
Subcommittee with a greater understanding of the public safety
threat posed by criminal aliens and the tragic consequences of
refusing to enforce our immigration laws.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Virginia and
now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member
of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Members of the
Committee and our distinguished witnesses that are with us
today.
I want to begin by also offering sincere condolences to Ms.
Root and Ms. Wilkerson. Ms. Root, I know your daughter's death
is recent, and the wounds have probably not even begun to heal
yet. And to both of you, I'm sorry of your loss, and I thank
you for your testimony that will be coming up.
Hearings offer this Committee the opportunity to consider
solutions, real solutions to our Nation's problems. And I think
we can all agree that our immigration system is sorely in need
of reform. Comprehensive immigration reform would allow law-
abiding immigrants to come out of the shadows and get right
with the law. It would help address the concerns raised by some
on this Subcommittee by requiring immigrants to undergo
background checks. And it would enable Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to focus its resources on deporting the worst
elements.
An immigration reform bill, such as the measure that passed
the Senate in 2013 or the bill that had 201 House cosponsors in
the last Congress, would enhance public safety and ensure that
our entire community, citizens and immigrants alike, are
protected from harm. Comprehensive reform is a concrete
solution to a real but not an intractable problem.
It's important to emphasize that the efforts the President
has and is undertaking to enforce immigration laws in a
rational, tailored, and effective way. And in November of 2014,
the Secretary of Homeland Security announced new enforcement
priorities. The President said at the time that Immigration and
Customs Enforcement should focus on felons, not families; on
criminals, not children; gang members, not a mom who's working
hard to provide for her kids. This is a commonsense approach
that prioritizes limited enforcement resources, and it should
be a policy that most of us can agree on.
I'd also note that Congress has funded immigration
enforcement at just under $20 billion for this fiscal year, an
unprecedented level. And under this Administration, more than
2.5 million individuals have been removed from the United
States. Many in the immigration advocacy community believe that
this is too many and have been critical of the Administration.
On the other hand, some of my more conservative colleagues
make it seem as if there's no immigration enforcement, but the
facts plainly do not bear this out. I believe we should expend
far fewer resources incarcerating people and instead focus on
efforts that actually make our community safer.
As I mentioned at the outset, two of today's witnesses have
suffered terrible tragedies. But we must not let the tragic
acts of a few result in all immigrants being treated as
criminals. The Republican Presidential frontrunner labeled
entire communities of people as rapists, criminals, and drug
dealers, and calls for a ban on all Muslims from America.
Some Governors have tried unsuccessfully to bar
resettlement of Syrians fleeing the civil war, which largely
consists of women and children caught between the barbarism of
ISIS on the one hand and Assad's brutal attacks on his own
people on the other. I say to my colleagues, nothing could be
more un-American. Immigration makes us stronger as a country.
Pluralism will help us defeat ISIS. Exploiting fear and
scapegoating an entire community based on race or ethnicity are
the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not America.
And so I thank you all for being here and look forward to
hearing from you and your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Michigan yields back.
Again, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses
today.
And I want to begin by swearing you in, as we swear in all
witnesses. So if I could please ask you all to rise.
Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you
God?
May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
You may sit down. I will introduce you en banc and then
recognize you individually for your opening statement.
We are pleased to have Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, who is
currently in his third term as sheriff of Frederick County,
Maryland, and served in law enforcement for 26 years with the
office of the sheriff. Prior to becoming a sheriff, he was a
very successful and a well-known criminal investigator
specializing in crimes against persons, including homicide
death investigations, rape and sex crimes, child sex abuse, and
other violent crimes. He currently serves the National
Sheriffs' Association, is an active member on both homeland
security and immigration/border security committees.
After Sheriff Jenkins, we will hear from Ms. Michelle Root.
She is the mother of Sarah Root, her only daughter. On January
31st, 2016, Sarah was killed by a vehicle driven by an alien
unlawfully present in this country who rear ended her vehicle,
while accused of not only racing but also being three times the
legal rate of impairment.
Then we are pleased to have Ms. Laura Wilkerson, who
resides with her family in Texas. She is the mother of Joshua
Wilkerson, who was her youngest son. He was tortured and
murdered by someone not lawfully present in this country in
November of 2010.
And then lastly, we will be pleased to hear from Bishop
Minerva Carcano.
And if I mispronounced your name, I apologize.
In 2004, the bishop was the first Hispanic woman to be
elected to the episcopacy of the United Methodist Church. She
serves as the official spokesperson for the United Methodist
Council of Bishops and was assigned to the Western
Jurisdictional Conference in 2012 to be the resident bishop to
the California Pacific Annual Conference, which includes
southern California, Hawaii, and other Pacific islands.
Welcome to you all.
Sheriff, I will recognize you for your 5-minute opening
statement. The lights mean what they traditionally mean in
light. Green is go; yellow, begin to wind up; and red, if you
could draw that thought to a conclusion. With that, Sheriff.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. JENKINS, SHERIFF,
FREDERICK COUNTY, MD
Sheriff Jenkins. Good morning, Chairman Gowdy and
distinguished Committee Members. My name is Charles Jenkins,
sheriff of Frederick County, Maryland. Thank you for allowing
me to be here today to talk about alien crime and criminal
alien gangs in America, including my county.
We all know that open border policies and failure to
enforce the laws have impacted public safety in every community
in America and cities are becoming war zones. Every single day
more and more Americans are becoming victims of avoidable
crimes.
The Frederick County Sheriff's Office has partnered in the
ICE 287(g) program since 2008 to ensure public safety. This
program has been very effective in the identification,
detention, and removal of criminal aliens. Through our
partnership with ICE, we've effectively built an enforcement
wall around Frederick County.
The criminal alien gang members are growing across the
Nation, and the serious crimes are increasing. There is also a
direct nexus between the action on unaccompanied minors of 2
years ago and the increases we are seeing now in gang crimes.
Local stats offer what will definitely show the impact on
public safety. There are now over 75 active, validated
transnational criminal gang members in Frederick County, many
more suspected. We also know that MS-13 and 18th Street alien
gangs are recruiting.
Of the 52 validated gang members identified since inception
of the program, 48 percent have been identified since 2014.
Seventy-two percent of the gang members encountered since 2014
have been charged with felonies. Sixty-four percent of the gang
members encountered in 2015 were unaccompanied juveniles when
they entered the U.S. They're now adults committing more
serious crimes. Those crimes include attempted murder, armed
robbery, aggravated assault, home invasion, armed carjacking,
kidnapping, and use of firearms in felonies.
In 2014, eight criminal aliens were charged with rape and
sexual assault of children between the ages of 5 and 14. One of
my deputies was a victim of an unprovoked attack by an MS-13
member while simply doing a report in his car. Recently, a
known alien gang member was indicted in a 2013 MS-13 murder-
for-hire. The victim fled El Salvador to Frederick. The hit
carried over to a local set in Frederick. The victim was
lowered to a wooded area where he was shot in the head and
stabbed to death. The growing alien gang problem has spread
into our area high schools, where fights in one particular
school has become almost a daily occurrence between rival
gangs.
Since 2008, this Administration has weakened immigration
enforcement by dismissing deportation cases, rescinding 287(g)
agreements, encouraging sanctuary policies, and weakening
detainer policies. ICE directives have limited enforcement
priorities, suspended many thousands of removals, granted
deferred actions, and suspended removals for aliens who falsely
claim to be victims.
A 2014 DHS OIG report actually points out the problems and
failures within ICE. The enforcement and removal operations,
they have to be allowed to do their jobs to keep the criminals
off the streets. ICE executive leadership does not communicate
effectively with the ERO, creating systemic breakdowns.
ERO in the field offices and on the street want to do their
jobs but simply aren't allowed to do their jobs. ICE is broken,
but it's not on the street; it's a couple blocks down here in
Washington, D.C. It's actually at its highest levels. I think
it's almost incapable of doing the job and carrying out the
mission.
Case-by-case amnesty, backdoor amnesty, DACA programs, and
the DREAM Act by Executive order were pushed through. Policy
shifts by this President weakened and ended secure communities
and did not allow action to be taken with police departments
and sheriffs who did not honor detainers. This allowed
criminals to be released back on the streets. In effect,
criminal aliens that should have been deported have been
allowed to remain and commit more heinous crimes to our
citizens.
The effectiveness and value of local enforcement by simply
cooperating with ICE is invaluable. Failure to cooperate and
detain known criminal aliens for ICE has led American citizens,
such as are sitting here today, to be victimized in every
conceivable way. It is my belief that this Congress--if this
Congress and the next President do not take an action to secure
this border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws, every
county in America will become a border county.
In Frederick, Maryland, our partnership with ICE is
effective, having placed 1,400 criminal aliens into removal
proceedings since 2008. We honor ICE detainers so that
criminals are not released back on the streets, assuring the
safety of my citizens in Frederick County. Criminal aliens are
deported. It's imperative that local law enforcement cooperate
and honor ICE detainers and is allowed, if not mandated, to
work with ICE as an enforcement tool.
As stated, this Committee passed the Michael Davis, Jr.,
and Danny Oliver In Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement
Act. I certainly hope Congress passes that bill. That act is
going to strengthen local and State law enforcement. Every
sheriff and police chief in this country ought to embrace that
law, ought to embrace that mission, and help with ICE as a
force multiplier.
In 2009, I testified before Congress, ``The cost of doing
nothing is enormous.'' Now in 2016, I'm back here to say we've
seen doing nothing has jeopardized every American in this
country. The Americans that you and I represent deserve our
best. And you're absolutely right, this is all avoidable.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Jenkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Sheriff.
Ms. Root.
TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE ROOT, MOTHER OF SARAH ROOT, MODALE, IA
Ms. Root. Thank you. I would just like to thank Chairman
Gowdy, Chairman Goodlatte, and the respected Members of this
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak of Sarah.
On behalf of my family and myself, we'd also like to thank
the Omaha Police Department for doing the job that they did in
catching Sarah's murderer; but, unfortunately, they were unable
to detain him.
Sarah was my only daughter. She was 21. She had just
graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0. She inspired to
go on to get her master's in criminal investigations; however,
that was cut short for her.
The night of January 31st, 2016, as she was coming home,
she was rear ended by Edwin Mejia, who was 19 years old, here
illegally, drunk driving, street racing. My daughter died
instantly. However, she was an organ donor, so she was kept
alive until February--I believe it was the 4th. Days run
together.
My daughter was a productive child. She did not deserve to
end this tragically. I'm sorry. It's just devastating that the
laws that we have in place weren't carried out. The local law
enforcement did their job. They detained him, went to ICE,
tried to get a hold on him. ICE refused. I don't know why that
was, with everything that happened, but he is on the loose now.
So our family does not have closure. We probably never will
have closure, even if he is found. I just hope that he will be
some day found to pay for the crime that he did against my
daughter.
We are not against immigration. Sarah's grandmother was an
immigrant from Vienna, Austria. She did it legally. She did it
the right way. That's all we're asking. It's the illegal
immigrants that are already breaking the law once they come
over here, and they continue to break our laws in not following
them. This is not isolated incidents; this is happening all the
time.
Since we've been in D.C., we have gotten a report that
another Honduran illegal immigrant has hit and killed somebody
else in Omaha, Nebraska. Her stories, there are thousands of
our stories out there. Something needs to be done.
The arrest and conviction of Edwin will not bring Sarah
back, but it will give our family some closure and knowledge
that justice has prevailed. Despite all the tragedy, Sarah
still is the hero in this story. She was, again, an organ
donor.
We are a Nation of legal immigrants. My family, like many
other Americans, hold no ill will to people who desire the
American Dream. Sarah, an American citizen, desired that same
dream, but it was taken from her.
We urge the Members of Congress to support meaningful
immigration reform through the support and passing of
legislation such as Kate's Law, the Refugee Program Integrity
Restoration Act, and the Davis-Oliver Act that empowers local
governments and law enforcement and forces ICE to take an
illegal immigrant into custody when requested by local law
enforcement.
Edwin spent 4 days in jail and is believed to have fled the
country. He posted $5,000 bond, which was less than the cost it
was to bury my daughter Sarah. Because of the lack of controls,
the police, immigration, U.S. Marshals, and law enforcement
have little or no information on his whereabouts or on him or
his families has been found.
Edwin was not a stranger to the law enforcement and failed
to honor his legal obligation for minor traffic infractions
prior to killing my daughter. Now a failed local judicial
system that set his bond too low, coupled with the flawed Obama
administration policies, have rewarded the illegal and punished
my family and hampered law enforcement in their investigations.
I just want to thank you again for letting me speak on my
daughter's behalf and let Sarah's voice be heard. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Root follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Ms. Wilkerson.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA WILKERSON, MOTHER OF
JOSHUA WILKERSON, PEARLAND, TX
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you for allowing me to share my story
today. Thank you for everyone that invited me here.
My name is Laura Wilkerson, and my family became a victim
of illegal alien crime on November 16th, 2010. This was our
family's attack by a foreign invader, whom is in this country
illegally. At best guess, his family are still enjoying the
fruits of America at the hands of taxpayers. I don't know this
as fact because the United States Government does not know as
fact. You don't know.
My youngest son, Joshua, was a senior in high school and
had his whole life ahead of him. He went to school and never
returned. As Josh walked up to the doors of the school that
morning, Hermilo Moralez walked up as well. There's a video
that I saw in trial. This is the last picture of Josh alive.
This killer asked Josh for a ride home, and in the video
you can see Josh shaking his head, yeah. And then Josh went
inside the building, turned around and held the door open for
Mr. Moralez to walk in. He said something to Josh, and Josh
went--which we later found out, he wasn't going to school. So
Josh just closed the door, allowed the door to close, and walks
out of the frame headed to class. Last time I'll ever see my
son walk, talk, anything about him.
At trial, the killer testified on his behalf and gave exact
testimony on how he systematically killed Joshua. He first--and
this is from the killer on the witness stand. He first threw a
punch in the face so that Joshua's vision was messed up and he
could not fight back. He next kneed Joshua in the abdomen so
that he would go to the ground. Josh went to the ground as his
spleen was sliced in half.
The killer was aggravated that it was not over yet. He was
a black-belt mixed martial arts and thought he could do this
without any blood. He was aggravated it was not over. He said
he grew tired of watching bloody bubbles come from Joshua's
nose as he was trying to breathe.
Next, he took a closet rod and beat Josh over the head
again and again until the rod broke in four pieces. Joshua
still breathing. Next he strangled him, let him go to see if it
was over. No, it's not over, so he continued until there were
no more bloody bubbles. He must have said it six times from the
stand. As a mom, I realize that my kid was grasping for air. He
waited and he watched him die.
He tied Josh's body up, stuffed him in the backseat of our
truck, bought gas, dumped Josh in a field, and set his body on
fire. The killer went home, took a shower, and went to see a
movie, had popcorn and Coke.
I testified before the Senate last July in 2015 and told
this story. Nothing has been done about it. We can have hearing
after hearing after hearing. Until there is action, we're just
talking.
The 11 million figure that you spoke about a while ago, it
just saddens me, because that figure was thrown around from the
very beginning of Joshua. Well, I know that her child has died
so that's one more. Kate Steinle has died. There were two this
weekend that died from street racing from an illegal in Houston
this weekend, a pastor and his wife, married 30 years.
So you need to keep that number--you don't know that
number. Nobody knows that number. I've been to the border. I've
watched them walk across, and you're not counting them. So that
number is from maybe people who are seeking welfare or who are
getting benefits from the government. Otherwise, you don't know
how many people are here. That number just, it aggravates me.
Because this government has no clue who is here or what
their intent is in being here, I see this American Government
scrambling over themselves to pretend to care about American
families. And instead, you give away every bit of America to
people whom have broken our laws on how to enter this country,
then on to break other laws, now to having sanctuary cities,
teaching them how to grab a piece of America unlawfully, and at
the expense of American families.
I'm stunned, I'm shocked, I'm saddened that we're even
having this discussion. When are you going to act on it? When
are you going to do something about it, rather than let's just
talk about it and put a video up on your next election--on your
Web site as if you're doing something about it? It's time to
move. Her kid wouldn't be gone if we had moved last year when I
testified before the Senate. Sarah would still be here. You
have to enforce the laws.
I watched the Sunday morning news this weekend. And over
and over and over, follow the rules, follow the rules. And
we're talking about the election and some of the way it went in
Colorado. Follow the rules. Follow the laws. You know, as this
sweet lady who is an immigration attorney, I would think she
would have to follow the laws legally. This has nothing to do
with people in this country that came here through the front
door. This has everything to do with people who snuck in this
country and continue to take from America, including our
children.
You know, when they mentioned the bad acts of some, the bad
acts of some, if they took your child, you would think of it
totally different. I realize you don't hear this every day, but
it happens every day, whether you want to know it or not, and
the media doesn't report it. I know it. You know it. Everybody
in this room knows it. They report what they want to report.
And you talked about fear, you know, that illegals are
afraid to come out of the shadows. You know, do you want to
know what fear is? You know, when somebody reaches in your
house and grabs your littlest kid and tortures them, you're
afraid of everything for a long time.
I could care less about the fear that they put themselves
in here. I didn't bring my kid across a border. If I would have
told my daughter, I'm going to Mexico, and had a man, you know,
he'll bring you over here in a year or 2, I would be charged
with neglect, as well as I should be.
I did not put my kid in harm's way when he went to school
that day; you did. Every one of you is elected by an American,
and it is time for you to stand in the gap for Americans. I'm
so tired of being up here and going over the same thing. You're
elected by Americans. Do something. It is your job. Every one
of you are in a position to do something that we are not. If
you've been in bed with somebody who is giving you too much
money and you think their own way, get out of the way and let
someone get in here that can care about Americans and their
families.
This is not about love. I do not have any hate. Two days
after Christmas, after he killed Josh, I went and forgave this
kid at the jail. Totally forgiven. He's off my mind. It is
now--they asked me at the trial, you know, what did I want to
give him, and all I could say was it's not my call to decide
his life. It's not. They couldn't believe I said it. The jury,
you know, it's the jury's call. I didn't want to be anything
like him and hurt another person.
It is time to do something. I did not--we did not put our
kids in jeopardy. We did not decide to, you know, traipse them
across the desert. There is no--there are no minors that came
here by themselves. I know it and you know it. There are no
minors, unless they're 16-year-old guys or girls that come
here. The minors can't come here by themselves. I have seen the
border. People die every day trying to get here.
America has invited them, and you've got to do something.
It is just time to do something about this. The thing that you
can do is enforce laws. How do you pick and choose a law? I
don't understand it, how you pick and choose a law. You know,
the laws are here to be enforced by who? By you. And they're
not being enforced. And my kid suffered terribly for it.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkerson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Wilkerson.
Bishop Carcano.
TESTIMONY OF MINERVA G. CARCANO, BISHOP,
THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Bishop Carcano. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, other
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I want to thank you
for the privilege of serving on this panel.
To Ms. Root and Ms. Wilkerson, I want to say that I am
praying for you and that United Methodists across this country
and around the world, many of them immigrant families, are also
praying for you. No parent should ever have to endure the death
of a child, and certainly not because of the irresponsible
actions of an individual or the violent actions of an
individual. We know that Sarah and Joshua are now in the
eternal care of God, and I pray that that would bring you some
comfort.
Today, as we discuss these devastating tragedies, it
appears that they will be utilized as an argument for deporting
more immigrants and forcing local police to serve as
immigration enforcement officers. I would strongly suggest that
most tragedies cannot be solved by offering simplistic
solutions that cast blame on entire communities and fail to
take into account the intersection of multiple issues and the
complexities of both individual and societal challenges.
It is unjust, totally unjust, to take isolated, certainly
very tragic incidents, and implicate millions of our
undocumented community members. To implicate innocent men,
women, and children in actions they did not commit is not
justice and goes against our best values as Americans. I
implore you to reject blind vengeance, which is never
restorative and it's not practical. We must not allow our grief
to divide our communities and engender hate and fear against
immigrant brothers and sisters.
Immigrants have built this country, and they continue to
sustain it. They work for the benefit of us all, whether by
picking our crops, putting food on our tables, building our
roads and homes, tending to the needs of our children and
elderly parents, and inspiring our many congregations.
However, every day, hundreds of our immigrant brothers and
sisters are deported. Children live in the constant fear that
at the end of the school day they're going to come home and
their parents will be gone, having been deported. Immigrants
are daily subject to arbitrary detention. They are denied due
process and they're spit out on the other side of our southern
border as if they were trash.
It is critical that we work toward community wholeness. We
hold true that God loves all of us, including the immigrant. We
should care deeply for each and every child of God, no matter
where they are from or what language they speak. The Obama
administration has deported more than 2.5 million immigrants,
more than any other President. Despite memorandums attempting
to reform deportation priorities, longstanding community
members and leaders, even pastors, parents of children, elderly
persons, and victims of crime continue to be deported.
In 2013 alone, this country spent more than $18 billion on
immigration enforcement, more than all other Federal law
enforcement agencies combined. Workplace and home invasion
raids and the failure to legislate true--true immigration
reform have only served to exacerbate the damage caused by
enforcement-only policies.
Policies that strengthen trust and cooperation between
local law enforcement and all community members are essential
for public safety. On the other hand, policies that would force
local police to serve as immigration enforcement officers have
very drastic consequences of reducing communities' safety as
immigrants, family members of immigrants, and individuals
perceived to be immigrants fear interacting with police. In
these situations, community members become reluctant to report
a crime that they have witnessed or even been a victim of
because they fear police officers will inquire about their
immigration status, the immigration status of their family, of
their friends, of their neighbors.
Local policies that foster safe and welcoming communities
are in no way a free pass. For any immigrant who violates the
law, everyone, including immigrants, remain accountable to our
legal system. However, policies that build trust between local
law enforcement officials and community members are essential
to the public safety. When all individuals can report dangerous
situations and seek protection from violence without the fear
of being deported and separated from their families, police can
best protect everyone in the communities they serve.
As this Committee considers policy proposals, it is
critical to not end up hurting intentional community-based
policing efforts that are vital to communities across this
country. Trust policies and sanctuary policies promote the
safety of all community members and encourage all victims and
witnesses to report crimes. I urge members of this Committee to
recognize the beneficial reasons behind these policies and the
values that inspired them.
We know firsthand that immigrants contribute economically
to this country and are interwoven into the fabric of our
communities. They are our friends. They are our family, our
congregation, our neighbors, our doctors, our librarians,
cashiers at the stores where we shop, friendly faces, helping
hands. Current deportation policies have destroyed many of
their lives.
Why would our political leaders seek to separate more
families, deport more of these community members, and make more
people afraid to interact with the police? I know that such
proposals are not worthy of the spirit of welcome of this
country and the American people, the resilience of the
immigrant community, the wisdom of our political leaders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren,
and all the Members of this Subcommittee for your time and your
attention.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Carcano follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Bishop.
Ms. Root, I want to let you know that Senator Sasse is here
in support of you and your family.
With that, I would recognize the Chairman of the full
Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, for his--all right.
Well, then, I will go to the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
I am deeply concerned and disheartened that immigration
enforcement has been relegated to almost nonenforcement, that
the Obama administration has on numerous occasions taken
unilateral action to strip Immigration and Customs Enforcement
of the authority and discretion needed for it to serve its
critical mission.
I was shocked, frankly, today by the contrast between Ms.
Wilkerson's testimony--thank you for being here today--and
Bishop Carcano's testimony.
I can't even put into words the pain that you must be going
through. And to hear the testimony, with all due respect, of
Bishop Carcano that just really took no consideration of the
pain and suffering that you are going through and to put the
needs and benefit of people that are here illegally ahead of
people that are born in the United States, that are U.S.
citizens, that have suffered like you have suffered, I can't
even put into words how disgusting it was, in my opinion.
And I say that with all due respect, but I just--if you saw
the contrast that I saw, I think you would revise your remarks
before this Committee.
I truly appreciate you both for being here today and
applaud your courage for sharing your stories.
Sheriff Jenkins, thank you for being here today. The
numbers you presented on criminal gang activity are pretty
staggering. I have been reading recently about MS-13 and some
of the things that they are going through, and it is horrible
what is happening to our Nation.
What is the current status of gang activity in Frederick
County schools today?
Sheriff Jenkins. Well, actually, it is growing. Some of the
problems that have started in the communities with the gang
presence has now spread into our high schools, some of it into
our middle schools. And, again, one of the local high schools,
routinely fights between rival gangs. So that problem is
bleeding into our school system.
Mr. Labrador. In your opinion, is the 287(g) program in
Frederick County making a positive impact in your community?
Sheriff Jenkins. Sir, absolutely. I can't tell you--again,
looking back--it is not about the numbers. Forget the numbers,
although we have placed 1,400 individuals who are in this
country illegally and committed crimes in our county have been
placed into removal proceedings.
It is a solid program. It works. There is no status of
immigration checks on the street. Everything is done within our
detention center. It has been a wonderful program.
And I can't say enough about the oversight of the ICE field
office and the agents that work with us day to day, and we
basically serve them as a force multiplier. So it has been a
great program.
Mr. Labrador. Your testimony alluded to other jurisdictions
not being as cooperative with Federal immigration authorities.
What do you believe is the impact in these counties and
communities when no relationship exists between ICE and the
local police or sheriff's department?
Sheriff Jenkins. I truly believe and I know for a fact--
again, I have regular conversations with the ICE field offices
and ICE agents who oversee our program. And by the very virtue,
I know that the counties that surround us--and I won't name the
counties--but that alien criminal presence is increasing, the
gang presence is increasing.
And, listen, the word is out. They are in neighboring
counties, but they will not come to Frederick County for the
fact they know if they commit a crime there is a very good
chance that if they are caught they are going to be removed.
So, in effect, it has built a virtual wall. But the gang
problem is growing in surrounding counties.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Bishop Carcano, is immigration enforcement a part of our
legal system?
Bishop Carcano. Yes, it is.
Mr. Labrador. You state that everyone, including
immigrants, remain accountable to our legal system, yet you
oppose deportation policies, detainer policies, and local
cooperation with the Federal immigration officials. So you
don't actually believe that everyone should be accountable to
our legal system, do you?
Bishop Carcano. I believe everyone should be accountable to
our legal system. Local police departments are there for the
safety of communities, and that should be their focus.
Mr. Labrador. I believe that Mr. Jenkins is making his
community safer. Do you believe that ICE serves any legitimate
public safety purposes at all?
Bishop Carcano. I believe that they have a specific
responsibility to inform immigration policies in ways that are
just and fair, not arbitrary.
Mr. Labrador. But you decide what ``just and fair'' means;
is that what you are saying?
Bishop Carcano. No, the law does. The law does.
Mr. Labrador. I think it wasn't just when Ms. Root and Ms.
Wilkerson lost their children because of our poor immigration
policies.
Bishop Carcano. I agree that it was not just. It was
violent and it was terrible. But we cannot scapegoat a whole
community because of the actions of individuals.
Mr. Labrador. But you know what? I keep hearing that, and
the problem is that law-abiding immigrants do not need to come
out of the shadows. If you come here legally to the United
States, you don't need to be in the shadows. We have the best
immigration system in the world. We welcome more immigrants
than any country in the world. And, frankly, because of you and
people like you, we are not fixing this problem and we are
allowing this to happen, and I think it is shameful.
And I think if you really care about your community you are
going to help us fix this immigration system, not try to use
excuses and call people who are trying to do this racists and
scapegoating.
Bishop Carcano. Across this country----
Mr. Labrador. And, with that, I yield back my time.
Bishop Carcano. Across this country and around the world,
it is clear that our immigration policies are broken. I agree
with you. We need to cooperate on fixing those broken
immigration policies.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Idaho yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Before my questions, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to put in the record statements from the
B1 deg.National Immigration Forum, the
B2 deg.American Immigration Council,
B3 deg.Church World Services, the
B4 deg.Friends Committee on National Legislation, the
B5 deg.Fair Immigration Reform Movement, the
B6 deg.National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence Against Women, B7 deg.and the American Civil
Liberties Union.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Subcommittee. Also, see Lofgren
submissions for the record at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren. It was impossible to listen to the mothers
talk about their lost children and not just feel the anguish
here. I mean, it is just heartbreaking to listen to your
stories. And what happened was wrong, it was unjust, and there
is no way to make it un-happen. I am very moved by your
comments.
I am also struck by what I believe is an unfortunate
statement by the gentleman from Idaho expressing disgust at a
Methodist bishop. I think that your prayers for these two
mothers and their families and your straightforward statement
was very helpful.
Because in law school they teach us bad cases make bad law.
And to have a tragedy but then assume that the policy answers
flow is sometimes a mistake.
And, you know, I was going to put in the record a newspaper
article about a high school senior who came--fled from El
Salvador when he was a little boy, who was just admitted to
Stanford, Yale, and Harvard in science. I mean, he was a little
kid.
I remember when the children fled from Honduras, El
Salvador, and Guatemala, I went down with along with other
Members of the Committee to visit the border and to see what
was going on firsthand. And I will never forget going to the
border stations one evening, and the oldest child there was
about 14. Most of the kids were 7, 8, 9 years old--little kids.
And to listen to them--you know, there was a 3-year-old there,
who--the only thing the 3-year-old could say was ``Miami.'' No
one knew where her mother was. And she, I think, ended up in a
foster family.
So, obviously, our hearts go out to those little kids. You
know, they haven't suffered the way these mothers have,
obviously, but those little kids had nothing to do with the
murderers who devastated these families.
And so I think it is important that we get the policy
prescriptions right, informed by these very important stories.
And I do not kid myself that it is easy to come in front of a
Congressional Committee and open your heart about what has
happened to you and your family.
Nevertheless, we've got to figure out what to do. We're
still appropriating about 4 percent of the amount that would be
required to remove every person without their documents in the
U.S. And there are plenty of people who are here who are not
harmful to anyone. The question is we need to sort out the bad
guys from the good and make sure that our country's interests
are well-served.
And I am wondering, Bishop, if you have taken a look at
some of the policy prescriptions that have come out of this
Committee. I think it might have been the Chairman of the
Committee who mentioned H.R. 1148, the Michael Davis-Danny
Oliver law, or H.R. 3009, the Sanctuary Cities Act--whether
you've taken a look at those bills and whether you think that
they would make our communities safer.
Bishop Carcano. I have taken a look at them.
In fact, H.R. 1148 came out of some of the work from the
office of Congressman Goodlatte. And I sat with a staff member
of yours, Congressman Goodlatte, who described the work, some
of the foundational work. And having at that point been, and
still, in Arizona, serving as the bishop in Arizona, I was
suddenly struck by the similarities with S.B. 1070. And I said
to him, ``It sounds just like S.B. 1070,'' and he said to me,
``It is. We've just closed all the loopholes.''
Well, S.B. 1070 and now H.R. 1148 is just--it's just a
nationalization of 1070. It does racial profiling on megawatts.
It gets police officers and local communities doing the work of
ICE. It undermines the safety of communities in a national and
big way.
H.R. 3009, to keep State and Federal funding from
communities that are trying to live together in peace, that are
trying to provide safety for everyone, just does not help. It
is a perpetuation of those kinds of things that have been
happening for decades.
Ms. Lofgren. Bishop, I see my time has expired, so I thank
all the witnesses.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the Chairman of the full
Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Bishop, this is a perfect segue for me to pick up
where you just left off. So, in your testimony, you talked
about the irresponsible actions that led to the deaths of the
son and daughter of Ms. Wilkerson and Ms. Root, right?
Irresponsible actions.
But isn't the violation of the law by illegally entering
the United States or overstaying the amount of time that the
United States Government has granted permission to an
individual to stay in the United States an irresponsible action
as well?
Bishop Carcano. I wish it were that simple, Congressman.
Mr. Goodlatte. It is a yes-or-no question.
Bishop Carcano. No, it's not. I'm sorry that it's not.
People who flee----
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, then tell me why it's not an
irresponsible action----
Bishop Carcano. People who----
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. To violate the law and cross
the border into this country illegally, or knowing in your
passport you have a document that allows you to stay here for a
specified period of time and overstay that, why that is not an
irresponsible action? Can't you at least concede that?
Bishop Carcano. It's a difference between moral and just
laws. When families are having----
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. To flee their places of
residence because they can't----
Mr. Goodlatte. So do people get to choose which law they
get to abide by? Is that what your philosophy is?
Bishop Carcano. That's not my philosophy, but it is my
philosophy that----
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, then please tell me why it's not an
irresponsible action to violate the law.
Bishop Carcano. Because a parent has a responsibility to
feed his or her children so that they don't die, as well.
Mr. Goodlatte. But they can do that anywhere in the world
that they're lawfully allowed to be, can they not?
Bishop Carcano. I've looked at Germany and the wonderful
things that they've done to allow immigrants to come there who
are fleeing from persecution and----
Mr. Goodlatte. Then that's just fine for the people of
Germany, but the people of the United States have a set of laws
on the books, and it's irresponsible for people to not abide by
those laws.
And the consequence of that irresponsibility is the death
of people. And it is not possible for anyone in this country to
know which unaccompanied minor or which individual who comes
across that border illegally or overstays their visa is going
to be the person who results in the death of people who are
simply going about their lives. They're in the wrong place at
the wrong time. And it's irresponsible for them to not abide by
our laws.
Now, let me ask you a question. Do you----
Bishop Carcano. It is irresponsible to allow children to
die. It is irresponsible to have----
Mr. Goodlatte. Of course it's irresponsible to allow
children to die. That's why it's irresponsible to allow them to
come accompanied by gang members, accompanied by drug
smugglers, accompanied by organized criminals, to bring them
all the way from Central America through Mexico through our
border. That's irresponsible.
Do you believe that those who knowingly enter the U.S.
unlawfully and commit crimes--never mind that it's a crime
itself to cross the border illegally. But if they knowingly
commit crimes, should they be removed?
Bishop Carcano. Criminal elements should be removed, but
that's not what's happening here. Families, hardworking
families, who are contributing to this society are----
Mr. Goodlatte. There are over 250,000 people who have been
convicted--convicted--of crimes in the United States who were
already unlawfully present in the United States. Should they be
removed? 250,000 who have been convicted of crimes, should they
be removed by this Administration?
Bishop Carcano. This Administration needs to continue to
focus on reforming broken immigration laws that do not allow
ICE and----
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, a great place to start would be to----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Do not allow local police
officers to do their jobs.
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. Enforce the other laws of this
country. Because the crimes against murder, the crimes against
rape, the crimes against armed robbery, the crimes against
child abuse, those are not crimes that are written on our books
that depend upon whether somebody is here illegally or legally
or whether they are a citizen of the United States or not a
citizen of the United States.
And all I am asking you is, if you are not supposed to be
here in the first place and you commit one of those crimes, why
should you not be removed from the United States?
Bishop Carcano. I would say address the law with the
criminals, but don't undermine the fabric of families who are
simply working, helping this country----
Mr. Goodlatte. What are you doing----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. To do all that it needs to do.
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me ask you this. What is your church
doing to discourage people from coming to the United States
illegally and staying in the United States illegally?
Bishop Carcano. Well, first of all, we are working to
welcome everyone. We are working----
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, that is very concerning to me. So
you're essentially aiding and abetting people who are violating
the laws of our country?
Bishop Carcano. We do not ask people their immigration
status when we----
Mr. Goodlatte. Why not?
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Feed the hungry. Because
that's not our----
Mr. Goodlatte. You could help them in Central America, you
could help them in whatever country they're from just as easily
as you can help them here. But your philosophy goes beyond
that, doesn't it? You think that they should be welcomed in the
United States regardless of their status.
Bishop Carcano. Immigrants want to stay home. They're not
able to stay home because we've undermined their economies. We
have raped their land----
Mr. Goodlatte. The population of the United States is about
5 percent of the world population. Ninety-five percent of the
people in the world do not live in the United States and do not
have a legal right to be in the United States.
Are you suggesting that because the United States is one of
the more successful economies in the world that we should
welcome all of those people to the United States because they
can't take care of themselves at home?
Bishop Carcano. I would restate that most immigrants want
to stay home, but they can't feed their families. We're talking
about Central Americans. Central Americans have come here
because we've been involved in their economies in disastrous
ways. We've been involved in their politics in ways that have
undermined their countries and left their societies in shambles
and in poverty.
You asked me----
Mr. Goodlatte. And so we should bring them here?
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. If our church is doing
anything. We are indeed working very hard in Honduras
particularly to set up job training, to provide counsel for----
Mr. Goodlatte. While you're there, are you telling people,
don't make the dangerous, arduous journey to the United States
because it's the wrong thing to do and you could harm yourself
or your children?
Bishop Carcano. We tell them how cruel the road is and how
cruel immigration policies in the United States are as well.
Mr. Goodlatte. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan,
the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman.
This has been a deeply painful hearing for others in
addition to our two mothers that are here before us.
And what I want to get to directly, Bishop Carcano, is,
what kind of immigration policies would you like to see changed
in this country?
Bishop Carcano. I believe that we need laws that reunify
families. We've got families that are divided and separated
because of our present immigration policies. Documented and
undocumented families are separated.
Secondly, we do need to address giving some status to the
12 million who are here already working hard in our
communities, contributing to this country.
I believe that we also need to bring to bear labor laws so
that immigrants, documented and undocumented, are also treated
with justice, with dignity, and with respect.
We need to look at laws that consider the economic needs of
this country. Many of these immigrants are here because they've
been drawn and recruited by companies who need them--planters
in Yuma who are growing cabbage and need the workers to come
and help them, the tourist industry in Nevada, the crops in
California, the dairies in Wisconsin. They are recruiting these
workers because they don't have enough workers.
Policies, laws that take into consideration our economic
needs and fairly treats workers that are brought here or
encouraged to come here as immigrants, those are the kinds of
things that are needed.
Mr. Conyers. Now, the Committee recognizes the complexity
of this issue before us, and we are going to have a hearing
continuing this subject where the Director of ICE will be
present. So if anybody thinks that this is just a little
passage that will be ended after this hearing, I want to make
it clear that there is agreement on both sides of the aisle on
this Committee that we have Director Saldana come before the
Committee, and we are going to go into many of the questions.
I'm sure they're getting ready for them now.
And so I want to ask everybody else on the Committee the
same question: Is there anything in particular we want to see?
Because my impression now is that we've got--the laws are--
there isn't anything wrong with the laws, but they're not being
enforced properly. Is that your impression, as well?
Ms. Root. That's my impression.
Mr. Conyers. Yes. Mine, as well.
Does everybody----
Sheriff Jenkins. Well, my opinion is it's not really that
complex. The very simple laws are on the book. The funding is
there for the laws to be enforced. I think to the extent that
local law enforcement can support and cooperate with ICE,
again, I think it would be helpful to every community out
there.
Again, when you look at the alien crimes from coast to
coast, you look at the increasing criminal gang activity in
this country, absolutely, it's not a very complex problem. It's
enforce the laws that are on the books.
Mr. Conyers. All right. I appreciate that.
Would you care to comment?
Ms. Wilkerson. I would agree, enforce the laws that are
here. We talk about making new ones. It's regardless, if you're
not going to enforce them, why do we have them?
If I can expand just a little bit, you know, or respond to
you just a little bit. If this is about God, you know, God's
the creator of boundaries. And when you have no boundaries in
your own families, in your own city, in your own State, in your
own country, you have chaos. It's mass chaos.
You know, close the border, assess what's here, and then
decide what to do. What I'm hearing from you is that we have
messed up other country's laws and we owe them something so
we're allowing them to come here. That's what I hear from you,
and I just couldn't disagree more.
I don't know why I was born here and someone else, you
know--but if you're going to include God in this, you know,
bloom where you're planted. Put the energy into where you are.
I just have such a disagreement with you about that.
This is not about loving or hating anyone. I don't want to
hurt anyone. I don't want anyone to hurt. But, also, I'm not
going to put my kid in harm's way so that they can have more
money. I'm sorry, I won't do it. I would beg and borrow to feed
my kids. I would not steal, cheat to feed my kids. That's what
I would do.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. My last question in a few seconds is this.
Have we fallen into the feeling or viewpoint that the immigrant
community is primarily comprised of criminals, rapists, and
other undesirable elements? Because it's very easy for that
attitude to grow.
Bishop, I'd like you to start off with that, and anybody
else that would want to weigh in that, I'd love to hear----
Sheriff Jenkins. I would love to address that. That is a--
--
Mr. Conyers. Well, wait a minute. I want to start off with
the Bishop, and we'll go down this way.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman is out of time, but I will allow
you to answer the question.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Bishop Carcano. That kind of language just fosters racism,
hatred, division in our communities. It's not accurate.
Immigrants aren't any more of a criminal mind than native-born.
And we divide our communities and undermine any possibility of
being fruitful communities and safe communities.
Mr. Conyers. Yes, ma'am, would you care to respond?
Ms. Wilkerson. I think the majority of people that are here
are not rapists and murderers. I believe there's a lot of good-
meaning, hardworking people in this country.
You cannot let go of the fact that if they have not come in
the front door, they are illegal already, period. There is no
discussion. Period. They need to adhere to the law about that.
There's just no discussion. You can't pick and choose that.
I agree there's probably more hardworking people here than
there are criminals. I don't believe all immigrants are
criminals by any means. I don't believe it's because of where
they're from, their race, or such.
And I don't even think that's what Mr. Trump said. I know
that's what everybody wants to go to, but I do believe he was
able to stand up and speak the truth about, you know, there are
rapists here, there are criminals here, and they're here
illegally.
So everyone that's here that didn't come in the front door
has committed a crime. There's no way around it. You can't
backtrack. If you want to change that law, change that law, but
you can't backtrack over it. I can't teach my kids, well, you
need to follow most of the rules, but these two are up for
grabs. It doesn't work like that.
Mr. Conyers. And we don't want to change that law here, I
can assure you.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Michigan yields back.
Before I go to the gentleman from Texas, I just can't help
but note to the former Chairman that the gentleman from
Michigan just rebuked the use of generalities in discussing
groups not 2 minutes after the Democrat witness just advocated
for citizenship for all 12million, as if all 12 million are
homogeneous and can all pass a background check.
So, with all due respect, it works both ways. If you're not
going to overly characterize this group, then, for God's sake,
don't overly characterize this group as all 12 million being
worthy of citizenship.
And, with that, I'll go to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to say that your earlier opening statement is
one of the best I've heard, and I appreciate your comments.
As I understand it, over a recent 3-year period, the
Administration has released back into our communities over
100,000 criminal aliens. These are individuals who have been
arrested and incarcerated for crimes. These individuals
subsequently committed thousands of other crimes. Many
individuals were murdered. Many individuals were injured. Other
individuals lost their property.
In fact, when you look at the statistics, just looking at
murders, for example, illegal immigrants comprise about 3
percent of our population but commit roughly 30 percent of the
murders. So an illegal immigrant in our country is about 10
times more likely to commit that serious crime than other
individuals who reside in the United States.
And, quite frankly, all this makes me wonder if President
Obama might be an accessory to the crimes committed by illegal
immigrants, since he intentionally implemented policies that he
knows are going to result in the murder and loss of life and
injury to innocent Americans.
And I would simply say----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? A parliamentary
inquiry. It is against the Committee rules to----
Mr. Smith. I specifically----
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Charge the President with a
crime.
Mr. Smith. Okay, I specifically chose my language the way I
did, and it was a rhetorical question. I said ``I wonder,'' and
I said ``if he might.'' So I picked those words carefully.
Let me resume my questioning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I'd like to ask Ms. Root and Ms. Wilkerson what they would
say to President Obama if he were in this room today at the
table with them and said, what do you think about my
immigration policies? What would you say to the President?
Ms. Root first.
Ms. Root. I would like to ask him, if this was one of his
children--he only has two, as I do--if he would still agree
with this law.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
And Ms. Wilkerson?
Ms. Wilkerson. I would just have to tell him that what his
agenda was he's accomplished, by opening borders and leaving
them wide open. I think that was his agenda, and it's been
accomplished by not following the laws.
You see, the boundaries that I talked about just a minute
ago, right here, we have boundaries around this meeting about
what you can and cannot say. There are boundaries around
everything. Do you lock your door at home? Do you lock your
car? There are boundaries.
To open the border like it is right now--and it is wide
open--is chaos for this country. It's chaos for it. We need to
know who's here for safety. We do. In this age of terrorism, we
need to know who's here. It's not 50 years ago when people
wandered across the border to work a hard day and then go back
home. It's a different time and period.
Mr. Smith. And, if you will, Sheriff Jenkins, what would
you say to the President about the results of his policies?
And let me thank you, too, for your testimony. It was
forthright, it was honest and candid, and we appreciate that.
Sheriff Jenkins. Thank you, sir.
I would tell the President he is absolutely doing a
disservice to Americans citizens.
He is also doing a disservice to the immigrant community,
because, I can tell you, a large part of the criminal acts that
occur by criminal aliens and gang members occur within those
immigrant communities. So he is creating, if you will, a pool
of victims out there by not enforcing the laws to the extent
that we can.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Sheriff.
Bishop Carcano, a question for you, and that is: These
criminal immigrants who have been apprehended, arrested,
incarcerated, should they be released back into our communities
or should they be deported?
Bishop Carcano. I don't know their individual cases. So the
law----
Mr. Smith. No, no. I'm just talking, as a general matter,
should, again, criminal aliens be released back in our
communities, where a certain percentage will commit additional
crimes, or should they be sent home?
Bishop Carcano. I believe that criminals should be treated
under the fullness of the law, and----
Mr. Smith. And so no distinction?
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. This should determined
according to the law.
Mr. Smith. And so they should be deported?
Bishop Carcano. It's under the law.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I agree with you. The Administration
disagrees with both of us, but I certainly agree with you, they
should be deported.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been one of the more difficult--has been one of
the more difficult hearings I have sat through. And it brings
me back to some of the earlier hearings I heard in this room
and my thoughts about the testimony that I would hear about
those who perished in their attempt to get into America across
the Arizona desert. And as I contemplated their banks of
witnesses we heard testify to that human tragedy, it began to
occur to me, how many Americans died at the hands of those who
did make it across the desert?
And, Bishop, sitting in your chair was a witness who was
former INS named Mike Cutler. As I asked the witnesses that
question, it came to him as the last of the four to answer the
question, and he said, ``I don't know the answer to that, but I
can tell you it will be in multiples of the victims of
September 11th.''
And that sparked something in me that brought about the
request for--it turned into two--GAO studies. And to get apples
to apples out of this Federal Government is a difficult thing
to do, but we learned about the percentage of criminal aliens
in our Federal prisons--27 to 28 percent, some numbers higher
than that. We learned that Mike Cutler was right, that it is in
the multiples of victims of September 11th.
Here we are looking at the tragedy, the tragedy that we're
hearing from two mothers here today that have the strongest
heart to be able to testify to the worst agony that a person
could go through in a lifetime. And when I see these stories--
and I regret we have not yet met, Ms. Root--that hit me very
hard when it finally came to me, there in my backyard was
another tragedy that I've been struggling here in this
Committee for years to try to prevent, right in the backyard.
And you know that I've been across the river to help out in
Omaha when we've had these kind of tragedies, and now I learn
in your testimony that another one took place while you were
here.
And, Laura, this is at least your second time to testify
before the Committee, and I know we did an event in Richmond,
Virginia. I think that's where I first met you. The depth of
your faith, to go to jail and forgive the murderous perpetrator
that killed your son, that's equivalent to the nine families
that stepped up to the pulpit in South Carolina and forgave the
murderer there.
And when you said that God is the creator of boundaries, I
don't know if anybody else in this room or panel knows what
you're referring to, but I believe it was St. Paul's sermon on
Mars Hill in Acts, when he said, ``And God made all the nations
on earth, and He decided when and where each nation would be.''
That's some of the boundaries that you're talking about that
God lays out for us, and we're obligated to follow them.
I listened to the opening statement of the gentlelady from
California. One of the first things she did was to criticize
our witness, Sheriff Jenkins, for profiling. I grew up in a law
enforcement family. If you've got gray hair and you've enforced
the law, you have profiled. And you, by golly, better profile.
There are lives saved by profiling, legitimately--not
discriminating against people, but being wise enough to know
there are certain people you pay attention to and other people
that you don't.
And I'd put into the record, Sheriff Jenkins, you have
likely saved many lives over your career because of good
judgment. Included in that good judgment is profiling. Would
that be correct?
Sheriff Jenkins. I would say that's probably accurate, yes,
sir.
Mr. King. And I would thank you.
And then I'd turn to Ms. Root.
And I want to again express the sympathies of this panel.
But each of you here will know that it takes the President of
the United States to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. And when he tells us he doesn't have the authority to
grant his administrative amnesty 22 times and he sets forth and
does it anyway--and now the Supreme Court is hearing an
argument that somehow the President can create vast groups of
people that include millions of people and then grant them at
least a temporary amnesty until we get a President who will
take his oath of office, that this heartache that we live
under--this Congress hasn't had the will to shut off the
funding to the President's golf cart or Air Force One in order
to ensure that he enforce immigration laws. And I don't know
that we can get this fixed at any time without a new President.
But I'd just ask if there's anything left that you'd like
to say into this record, Ms. Root. I am so sympathetic to what
you're able to do here.
And let the record show the witness declined. And I'd move
to Ms. Wilkerson.
And I'd ask if you could add any more to your testimony
here today.
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you.
I just want to say that it's not about loving or unloving
people. It's not about it at all. It's about following the
laws. We have to have the boundaries. Everyone knows that's
sitting here that if you don't have boundaries it's chaos. You
don't allow your children to run your household, or you'd have
chaos.
I don't understand why people can't understand a country
with no borders is not a country. You might as well just call
us the world. We're the world. Because, you know, if we have no
borders, we're not the United States of America. Who are we? We
don't know. We really don't know.
Mr. King. And I thank you.
And I'd just ask a very quick question from Sheriff
Jenkins.
Fourteen hundred placed into removal proceedings in
cooperation with ICE. How many were actually deported?
Sheriff Jenkins. That, sir, I don't have the number. We
never really know the number because it's on a case-by-case
basis.
Mr. King. That's what I thought. Thank you.
I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Iowa yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the
former United States attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today,
specifically Ms. Wilkerson and Ms. Root. Thank you for being
here. Your testimony really provides living proof that
lawlessness with respect to our immigration laws in this
country is having devastating consequences.
You know, we all trust that we're safe because we have
brave law enforcement, men and women, patrolling our streets
day and night to make sure that people obey the law. But then
when our own government tells law enforcement that certain laws
are not to be enforced, American families suffer--a point that
is all too clearly and painfully illustrated by the
heartbreaking losses that you have both experienced.
Ms. Wilkerson, as I read your testimony last night and then
heard it today, I was frankly embarrassed to be part of a
legislative body that has done so little since 2010, since
Joshua's tragic death. And, you know, while I can tell you that
your testimony today was compelling and motivating, I don't
want to offer you any hollow promises. But what I do hope that
you'll take away, and Ms. Root as well, is that your testimony
and being here does make a difference, can make a difference.
To that point, Ms. Root, I want you--you'd have no reason
to know this, but Sarah's death has been on my mind a lot
recently, because it was a little over 2 weeks ago that a fire
captain in my district, in Nevada, Texas, named Peter Hacking
was driving a car, two children in the car, 4-year-old Ellie
and 22-month-old Grayson, and they were killed. They were
killed when an illegal alien, who had previously been deported,
swerved from a northbound lane into a southbound lane where
they were, struck Mr. Hacking's car, and killed all three of
them.
Now, that individual, Margarito Quintero, had entered the
United States illegally in 2006, had been arrested on criminal
charges, and had been deported, only to return.
And so it was in the course of researching whether I could
do anything to make sure that the Hacking family received
justice I came across Sarah's story. And her story is what
prompted me to personally call the ICE Director, Sarah Saldana,
and ask her to place an immigration detainer on Mr. Quintero.
Her story is what prompted me to call the U.S. attorney and ask
that the Department of Justice prosecute Mr. Quintero for
illegal reentry.
Now, you know, here's someone that had entered the country
illegally and been arrested on criminal charges, been deported,
again entered the country illegally, and yet here I was begging
ICE to intervene, begging it to do its job.
But because of your family's experience, I knew that there
was a chance that ICE might refuse to act. But I also believed
that, because of the attention that Sarah's story has brought
to this issue and the suffering that has been caused by this
Administration's lawless policies, I'm happy to report that ICE
did intervene in Mr. Hacking's case, and he is going to be
prosecuted federally.
You know, the fact that I had to ask ICE to do its job and
the fact that that action, in and of itself, became a news
story in my district really says a lot about the lowly state of
affairs, as does the fact that yesterday our Supreme Court had
to weigh in on this issue. I think it really speaks to the
dysfunctional place where we find ourselves.
You know, Ms. Wilkerson, Ms. Root, you're both right; it
shouldn't take personal pleas from a Member of Congress to make
this Administration enforce laws that are already on the books.
As Chairman Gowdy said so well in his opening, when we talk
about families being torn apart by illegal immigration in this
country, it's families like yours that we should be talking
about. Families like yours shouldn't have to endure the pain
and suffering that you're experiencing. It is unnecessary, and
I'm sorry for it.
The questions that I have for you have been asked by my
colleagues up here already, and so I'd just thank you again for
being here. And I hope, you know, that your testimony and Sarah
and Joshua's story are making a difference.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Colorado,
the former district attorney, Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bishop Jenkins, I spent 25 years as a Federal prosecutor
and then a district attorney and wanted to talk to you about a
disturbing trend that I've seen in the last 7 years in law
enforcement.
I have prosecuted aggravated reentry cases as a Federal
prosecutor. I have also worked with the Feds in local law
enforcement. And we had a program in northern Colorado where an
ICE agent would ride along with a police officer assigned to
the gang unit, and they would go to the scene of crimes and
they would interview people. And the ICE agent would identify
tattoos and other indicators of gang affiliation, and the
Federal Government would intervene and prosecute individuals
who were gang members accused of crimes. That program ended 7
years ago.
Have you had any similar experience with cooperation
between the Feds and your county's sheriff's office or police
departments that has also ended in the recent past?
Sheriff Jenkins. Well, actually, the cooperation between
ICE currently and our agency is excellent. I have no
complaints, no criticisms. Actually, everything works out of
our detention center. We also gain a lot of intelligence off
the street about gang activity, gang affiliations. We don't
have a program where ICE actually rides along with us, but
actual oversight, direct oversight of the program. So, again,
the detention center is a chokepoint for everything.
You know, we ask two simple questions on arrest. And
everybody that's arrested in Frederick County, regardless of
the crime, the ethnicity, the race, the gender, whatever,
everybody is asked two very simple questions: What country are
you a citizen of, and where were you born? Any answer other
than ``the United States of America'' kicks off an
investigation into their immigration status. And we would ask
the same of anybody in this room.
So that's where the program lies. That's where the
effectiveness is. And so you can't say it's unfair, you can't
say it's profiling or discriminatory.
Mr. Buck. You took away my next question. I was going to
ask you about profiling. Those are race-, ethnicity-neutral
questions that are asked in every detention center, to my
knowledge, in the country.
Sheriff Jenkins. Correct. Very honestly, the argument for
those who want nothing done is that we're profiling. It doesn't
happen.
I would even refute the Honorable Ms. Lofgren from
California, when you brought up some supposed facts about the
case of the young lady that was supposedly eating. That arrest
had absolutely nothing to do with our program. Those were two
police officers doing their job, and as they drove up to this
woman, she got up for no apparent reason and just ran. Now,
that throws up a red flag for law enforcement. These guys were
police officers doing their job, simply thought there was a
concern. You know, why are you getting up and running? What
were you doing?
They had the right to ask her name, identity, her date of
birth. Once they did that, they determined there was a warrant
for her arrest. They took her into custody the same as any
other law enforcement officer----
Mr. Buck. Sheriff, I'm going to redirect your attention to
me as opposed to Ms. Lofgren.
Sheriff Jenkins. Okay. I'm sorry, sir.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman allow me just to respond
briefly----
Mr. Buck. Sure.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Since my name was--I was just
quoting the 2012 decision of the U.S. district court in
Maryland. You know, it wasn't my opinion. That's what the court
said.
Sheriff Jenkins. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry if I inferred
that.
Mr. Buck. What happens--after you ask those two neutral
questions that you identified, what happens then in your
detention facility?
Sheriff Jenkins. If we determine that they're in the
country illegally and they have committed a crime----
Mr. Buck. No, no, no, you haven't determined that yet.
You've just determined an answer. They've given you an answer.
Sheriff Jenkins. Yeah, they've given us an answer.
Mr. Buck. ``I was not born in this country,'' for example.
Sheriff Jenkins. That's correct.
Mr. Buck. If that answer--if you get that answer or one of
your deputies gets that answer, what do they do at that point?
Sheriff Jenkins. We launch our check into their immigration
status right there in the detention center.
Mr. Buck. So you notify ICE at that point.
Sheriff Jenkins. We do. Actually, ICE is in our facility
for the most part every day of the week during most day shifts.
And, again, if they're not there to answer the question, they
have immediate direct contact. And I'll tell you, we have
access to all of the ICE databases. So we, in effect, do those
checks, we prepare the detainers and the paperwork and do the
holds for ICE.
Mr. Buck. So you're not saying, based on the color of this
person's skin, we believe we should refer to ICE. You're not
saying, based on the language that this person speaks, that we
should refer to ICE. You're saying, based on an answer to a
question that we ask everybody that is arrested and detained in
our facility, based on that, we are referring this person to
ICE.
Sheriff Jenkins. If they're in fact--we determine they're
in the country illegally, yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. Now, based on the identity theft that we've all
seen in this country because of illegal immigration, does ICE
go by the name that's presented to them, or do they actually
use some indicator like a thumbprint or some biometric measure?
Sheriff Jenkins. They actually also use biometrics, yes,
sir.
Mr. Buck. Okay. And that identifies them for ICE's
database, and ICE can determine whether they're in this country
legally or illegally. You're not the one making that
determination.
Sheriff Jenkins. No, we're not.
Mr. Buck. Okay.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Colorado yields back.
The Chair will now recognize himself for his questioning.
Bishop, you decried the use of generalities in describing
the immigrant population right before you then used a
generality of 12 million. You repeated the same talking points
straight out of the DNC, 12 million aspiring citizens.
I'm assuming that you are not counting the killer of Ms.
Wilkerson's son in that 12 million.
Bishop Carcano. I'm not understanding your question.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, you said there's 12 million aspiring
Americans here. And my point is all 12 million aren't aspiring,
and all 12 million couldn't pass any background check, even one
by the ACLU or a criminal defense attorney.
Surely you're not including the person that killed her son
in the 12 million aspiring Americans.
Bishop Carcano. I'm not sure that I used the term
``aspiring.'' I----
Mr. Gowdy. You said 12 million. You spoke as if the entire
population is deserving of citizenship. That's precisely what
you said.
Bishop Carcano. I do believe that the 12 million who are
here need to be considered for a pathway to citizenship.
Mr. Gowdy. How about the one who killed her son?
Bishop Carcano. He's a criminal. I hope he's been dealt
with as a criminal. But that's not the----
Mr. Gowdy. So it's 12 million minus 1. How about the one
that killed----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. The whole community.
Mr. Gowdy. It's 12 million minus 1. How about the one that
killed Ms. Root's daughter?
Bishop Carcano. That's a criminal case. And we're talking
about----
Mr. Gowdy. All right, so that's 12 million minus 2.
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Immigration policy.
Mr. Gowdy. How about the gang members in Sheriff Jenkins'
jurisdiction?
Bishop Carcano. If we're talking about safety in our
communities, then let's----
Mr. Gowdy. How about the----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Talk about safety in our
communities.
Mr. Gowdy [continuing]. Gang members in Sheriff Jenkins'
jurisdiction? Are those part of the 12 million with which you
made reference?
Bishop Carcano. I do not know. What I do know----
Mr. Gowdy. You don't know whether or not a gang member
should be included on a path to citizenship?
Bishop Carcano. What I do know is that our communities
deserve greater safety. And it's----
Mr. Gowdy. No, ma'am. I----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Not going to happen when we
pit----
Mr. Gowdy [continuing]. Just respectfully----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Victims against victims.
Mr. Gowdy [continuing]. Disagree with you, Bishop.
Americans citizens should not be victimized by crime. I think
we can agree with that. An American citizen should not have to
wait until someone who is not here legally commits another
crime before we decide to get serious about enforcing our
immigration laws.
So my question to you is this. Of the 12 million, if that
number is right, minusing the 1 that killed Ms. Wilkerson's
son, minus the 1 that killed Ms. Root's daughter, minus the
gang members, minus the 300,000 that have already been
adjudicated who have committed another criminal offense, how
would you go about identifying the goods ones from the bad
ones?
Bishop Carcano. The way we identify good ones from the bad
ones every single day, by looking at their character, by seeing
how they're----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, how are we supposed to do that if we don't
even know who they are, Bishop?
Bishop Carcano. Well, we won't know who they are if we
continue to treat them the way we're treating them now.
Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, no. There's a way to know, but you
just said you don't like the way that we've chosen to do it.
You don't want local law enforcement----
Bishop Carcano. No, I do not think that that is a helpful
way.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, let me ask you this.
Bishop Carcano. Immigrant communities want to help.
Mr. Gowdy. Why don't you----
Bishop Carcano. They want to keep their communities safe.
But they won't come forward if they think that they're going to
be picked up by ICE----
Mr. Gowdy. Oh, no. We----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. If it's going to threaten
their lives, if their----
Mr. Gowdy. No. We saw a perfect example----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. Children are going to be left
behind.
Mr. Gowdy. It's going to be really tough for the court
reporter if you continue to talk while I'm asking questions.
She's got a tough enough job. So how about we just agree to go
one at a time, okay?
How about Kate Steinle's murder in San Francisco? That's a
sanctuary city. You wrote an op-ed on it. Do you remember that?
Bishop Carcano. I did.
Mr. Gowdy. And you advocated for policies that prevent gun
violence. Do you remember writing that?
Bishop Carcano. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. We have some of those policies. In fact, we call
them laws. There's a law against shooting someone on a pier
who's walking beside her father. We already have that law.
We already have a law where convicted felons can't purchase
or possess firearms. Do you know that Kate Steinle's killer was
a convicted felon?
Bishop Carcano. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. We also have a law that if you're not here
legally, either overstayed a visa or crossed the border without
permission, that you cannot legally possess or purchase a
firearm. Did you know that was already a law?
Bishop Carcano. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. So what policies are you advocating for that
would have saved Kate Steinle'slife in addition to the ones we
already have?
Bishop Carcano. That's a very tragic situation, but you
cannot blame all immigrants, documented and undocumented----
Mr. Gowdy. I'm not. I'm just blaming the one that shot her.
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. For the action of one person.
Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, no. No.
Bishop Carcano. And that's what you're doing.
Mr. Gowdy. Your approach is to wait until the murder and
then do the deportation. And my approach is try to have as few
body bags as we can possibly have, try to identify those that
are not aspiring citizens before they kill somebody's son or
daughter or daughter in San Francisco. That's my objective, to
identify them before the crime.
So my question to you is, how are you going to do that?
Bishop Carcano. I would argue that we need trust policies,
where immigrants, documented and undocumented, can come forth
to report crimes and to report when they, too, have been
victims of crimes without the fear of being deported. We need
that kind of trust. Otherwise----
Mr. Gowdy. You know what? I----
Bishop Carcano [continuing]. These families will not come
forward.
Immigrants do not want gangs in this country or in their
communities. Many of them----
Mr. Gowdy. Listen, you don't hear me talking in
generalities, Bishop. That was you that did that. I made a
point in my opening of saying that we shouldn't be talking in
generalities.
I do find it bitterly ironic that you are talking about
trust among the immigrant community and you don't even trust
local law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws. I find
that richly ironic.
Why don't you trust local law enforcement to enforce our
immigration laws?
Bishop Carcano. I do not trust the procedures and policies
under which we are expecting governance and policing to happen
in our communities.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, Bishop, you trust them in murder cases,
you trust them in child sex abuse cases, you trust them in
narcotics cases, you trust them in kidnapping cases, you trust
them in traffic violation cases. You trust them in every
category of crime except you just don't want the sheriff
enforcing immigration laws.
And yet you want to talk about building trust with the law
enforcement community? And you don't trust him to enforce
immigration laws even though you trust him to enforce every
other category? And you want to talk about trust? Did I hear
you right?
Bishop Carcano. I want to talk about trust policies, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I want to talk about the law. I want to
talk about the law. You said we are a Nation of immigrants.
That may be true. We are also a Nation of laws. And the ability
to pick and choose the ones that you want based on political
expediency or your view of is theology is going to undermine
this republic very quickly. And, as a result, we'll have more
panels with more moms.
With that----
Bishop Carcano. The laws of this country change when we
realize that they're immoral or unjust.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, then you can run for Congress and change
the law. But as it stands right now, we're going to enforce it.
If you don't like the law, you can change it. But what you
can't do is just selectively decide which ones you want to
enforce and which ones you don't. Because that's called
anarchy.
Bishop Carcano. Congressman, we have broken immigration
policies. That is what needs to be addressed.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay. But you just sat there and listed all the
laws that we passed to try to address it and you didn't like a
single one of them. You didn't like the law empowering local
law enforcement. You don't like the fact that we would deny
Federal funding to sanctuary cities that harbor people like the
man who killed Kate Steinle.
So it's not a question of passing laws, Bishop, with all
due respect. It's a question of passing laws you like.
Bishop Carcano. It's a question of passing laws that are
just and humane.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. And if there's anything more relative
in the world than the word ``just,'' I don't know what it is.
So, rather than aspire to justice, I'm just going to aspire
that we actually enforce the law, because that is the
community's manifestation of justice. We take what we think
about justice and mercy and then we codify it in something we
call the law.
And, by the way, Bishop, these aspiring citizens that you
talk about, the 12 million minus 1, 2, God knows how many, in
their oath of citizenship, there are a half-dozen references to
the law--a half-dozen references to the law in the oath that we
expect new citizens to take. I think it would be a really neat
idea if we actually enforced the law so that citizenship oath
actually had a little bit of meaning, because right now it
doesn't seem to.
With that, I don't see----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous--speaking of the law, I
would like unanimous consent to place in the record the case of
Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners from the
Fourth Circuit outlining the violation of law committed by the
Frederick County sheriff, Charles Jenkins.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I'm happy to grant unanimous consent. Does
the opinion say that Sheriff Jenkins violated the law, or does
it cite some decision made by an officer in his department?
Ms. Lofgren. It actually, I believe, is the sheriff. But
it's 38 pages long, and you can read it yourself.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I'm a slow reader, and I don't know if I
can do it. But I just want to be fair, and I know the
gentlelady from California is always fair.
Ms. Lofgren. I'm always trying to be fair.
Mr. Gowdy. I know you are. And people can read the opinion
for what it says.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me retract my words and ask unanimous
consent to place the decision in the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Subcommittee. Also, see Lofgren
submissions for the record at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
With that, I want to thank the Members and our witnesses. I
appreciate the perspective that each of you have loaned to the
Committee. Again, not singling out any witnesses, but special
condolences on behalf of everyone, no matter where they sit on
this dais, for the two mothers in the loss of their children.
With that, any Members who have additional statements or
questions are welcome to make them part of the record, and we
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]