    [Senate Hearing 114-907]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-907

                       OVERSIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
                      MISDIRECTED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
                       POLICIES: EXAMINING THE IMPACT ON
                     PUBLIC SAFETY AND HONORING THE VICTIMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 21, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-114-23

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov
                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    53-119                    WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama                   Member
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut

                    Kolan L. Davis, Majority Staff Director
                    Kristine Lucius, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Cornyn, Hon. John
        Prepared statement...........................................    61
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne...........................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Huang, Grace.....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    65
        Responses to written questions...............................   125

    Manger, Chief J. Thomas..........................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    75
        Responses to written questions...............................   127

    McCann, Brian....................................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    80

    Oliver, Susan....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    83

    Rodriguez, Leon..................................................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    86
        Responses to written questions...............................   129

    Ronnebeck, Michael...............................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    94

    Saldana, Sarah R.................................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    96
        Responses to written questions...............................   143

    Salguero, Rev. Gabriel...........................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................   114

    Steinle, Jim.....................................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................   120

    Wilkerson, Laura.................................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................   122

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    57

                       OVERSIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
                      MISDIRECTED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
                       POLICIES: EXAMINING THE IMPACT ON
                     PUBLIC SAFETY AND HONORING THE VICTIMS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2015

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Hatch, Sessions,
    Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Flake, Vitter, Perdue, Tillis, Feinstein,
    Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, and Franken.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. For the benefit of the audience and the
    witnesses, generally, and in this case, too, Senator Feinstein
    is the Ranking Member for this hearing, and she and I will make
    opening comments, then we will go to our first panel.
        This Committee continues to honor its pledge to conduct
    oversight over the implementation of the laws Congress has
    passed as well as the policies and practices of the executive
    branch. Today we will focus on how this Committee's immigration
    policies and practices are hurting American families. The
    Committee will hear powerful testimony from a number of
    relatives who have lost loved ones as a direct result of the
    administration's failure to deport aliens or its tolerance of
    sanctuary policies.
        I will begin by extending a special welcome to our
    witnesses, especially family members of victims. I hope you
    will accept our deepest sympathies for the losses each of you
    have suffered. Thank you very much for your willingness to
    share your stories under difficult circumstances and to pay
    tribute to those who, though no longer with us in body, are
    surely with us in spirit.
        Today we will honor Josh, Kate, Dennis, Danny, Grant, and
    many others whose lives were tragically cut short because of
    the administration's lax immigration policies. We had many
    families and relatives who wanted to testify today, but,
    unfortunately, we had to turn them away because we were limited
    on time and space. However, we welcome all testimony for the
    record and encourage them to commemorate their loved ones with
    stories and written letters to this Committee.
        We will examine the administration's policies from the top
    down. We will look at how Federal benefits are being granted to
    deportable criminals by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services, while criminals are being released by U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and how enforcement of the
    laws can be better achieved.
        We will look at how we can improve cooperation between
    Government agencies, and we will look into how we can improve
    cooperation between the Federal Government and States and local
    law enforcement agencies. After all, we all work for the same
    taxpayers. We ought to be cooperating. We will look at
    sanctuary jurisdictions and try to understand why policies that
    protect criminal aliens are in place.
        In the past few weeks, we have learned that there are
    thousands of detainers placed each year on Federal agents--by
    Federal agents on undocumented immigrants with criminal records
    that are ignored. According to Government data, between January
    and September 2014, there were 8,811 declined detainers in 276
    counties in 43 States, including the Columbia District.
        Of the 8,811 declined detainers, 62 percent were associated
    with over 5,000 individuals who were previously charged or
    convicted of a crime or presented some other public safety
    concern. Nearly 1,900 of the released offenders were arrested
    for another crime after being released by a sanctuary
    jurisdiction.
        This is obviously disturbing--not only to me, but to most
    Americans. There is no good rationale for noncooperation
    between the Federal level and State and local law enforcement.
    Public safety is needlessly and recklessly put at risk when
    State and local officials provide sanctuary to lawbreaking
    immigrants just to make a political point.
        This administration in too many cases has turned a blind
    eye to enforcement, even releasing thousands of criminals at
    its own discretion, many of whom have gone on to commit serious
    crimes, including murder.
        The administration has also granted deferred action to
    criminal aliens who have committed heinous crimes after
    receiving this relief from deportation. I have written to
    Secretary Johnson about four specific cases in which such
    individuals have received President Obama's Deferred Action for
    Childhood Arrivals, and that is referred to as ``DACA'' in this
    town.
        One of these beneficiaries was a known gang member when he
    applied and received DACA, then went on to kill four people in
    North Carolina. Another DACA recipient used his work
    authorization to gain employment at a popular youth camp in
    California, where he was recently arrested for child
    molestation and distribution of child pornography. I am still
    waiting for responses on some of these cases.
        Further, the administration has completely failed to do
    anything about sanctuary cities, all while challenging States
    that took a more aggressive approach to enforcing the
    immigration laws.
        I recently sent a letter to Attorney General Lynch and
    Homeland Security Secretary Johnson about sanctuary cities. I
    urged them to take control of the situation to ensure detainers
    are not ignored and undocumented individuals are safely
    transferred to Federal custody and put into deportation
    proceedings. I implored them to take a more direct role in the
    matter, and on that--those letters I have not received a
    response.
        This is not a new issue for this administration. I wrote to
    then-Secretary Napolitano and then-Attorney General Holder in
    2012 and asked them to intervene in Cook County, Illinois,
    another sanctuary jurisdiction. Nothing happened. In fact,
    since then, administration officials have publicly stated that
    they neither believe detainers have to be honored, nor that
    they even want them to be mandatory.
        Enforcing the immigration laws in this country is not a
    voluntary or trivial matter. Real lives are at stake. Things
    cannot continue this way. We are a Nation--Nation based upon
    the rule of law, and if that rule of law is not respected, only
    chaos will succeed.
        That is why I am introducing legislation today that will
    hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable. It will require the
    executive branch to withhold certain Federal funding if States
    or local law enforcement refuse to cooperate with the Federal
    Government in holding or transferring criminal aliens.
        My bill will require that State and locals cooperate on
    criminal aliens or risk losing law enforcement-related grants
    that are distributed by Homeland Security and DOJ.
        My bill will also require a mandatory minimum 5-year prison
    sentence in addition to a possible fine for individuals who
    enter the United States after having been deported. Current law
    does not require prison time and caps the possible prison
    sentence at 2 years. This section of my bill is aimed at
    individuals who ignore our laws time and again.
        No more people should die at the hands of those who break
    our laws just by being here. No more families should have to go
    through what these families and others have gone through.
        Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the
    time to be with us today. Your strength and determination to
    change the unacceptable status quo will not go unnoticed.
        I will now turn to Senator Feinstein, and after she goes, I
    will introduce the witnesses.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley.
        I want to say that our Ranking Member, Patrick Leahy, would
    be here, but there is an urgent family appointment that he had
    to keep this morning, and so I sit in his stead. I know this is
    a hearing that he very much would have wanted to have attended.
        Yesterday, I had occasion to meet with the Steinle family,
    and Jim Steinle is sitting front and center at the dock. What I
    saw was a very hurt family, but very resolute and very
    concerned about doing the right thing, whatever that may be in
    a case like this.
        I want to voice my very clear sympathy and condolences to
    the family members that are here today. I cannot think of
    anything that is harder to do than what you are going to do
    today. I think your strength in doing it is noted and very much
    appreciated.
        It is very clear to me that we have to improve cooperation
    between local, State, and Federal law enforcement. The
    overriding concern and a deep belief of mine is that convicted
    felons should not be removed from the country--should be
    removed from the country, but not released onto our streets.
        When immigration authorities ask that a State or local law
    enforcement agency notify them of an impending release of an
    alien with a serious felony record, that request should be
    honored. I strongly believe that local law enforcement should
    have notified the immigration authorities in the case of the
    accused murderer of Kate Steinle. The man who killed Kate is a
    classic case of multiple felonies and prior deportations, and a
    simple phone call would have been enough.
        That did not happen. In fact, the San Francisco County
    sheriff adopted his own policy on March 2015, just 4 months
    ago. The memo states, ``SFSD staff shall not provide the
    following information or access to ICE representatives,'' end
    of quote. One of the items listed in the department's memo is,
    quote, ``release dates and times,'' end of quote.
        In other words, the sheriff's department barred its own
    deputies from informing ICE about an individual's release date
    and time. That, I believe, is wrong. I believe it is not
    required by San Francisco's ordinance as the mayor has made
    clear to the sheriff in a letter dated July 14th. Mr. Chairman,
    I would like to put that letter in the record, if I may.
        Chairman Grassley. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I agree with the mayor, and
    to prevent a similar tragedy, I hope and expect that my home
    State of California, and the city of San Francisco in
    particular, will agree to take part in the Department of
    Homeland Security Priority Enforcement Program, known as
    ``PEP.'' This program focuses on felons and others who are high
    priorities for removal from the country.
        Under PEP, ICE can request notification of an alien's
    release date from State or local custody so that they would
    have the opportunity, if the circumstances warranted, to take
    custody of that individual itself. In some instances, PEP also
    allows for ICE to lodge a detainer request with local law
    enforcement, asking that they hold an alien for up to 48 hours.
    It seems to me that a simple notification to ICE could have
    prevented Kate Steinle's death.
        I have urged Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors to
    participate in this new program, which the Secretary announced
    late last year. This program prioritizes those who threaten our
    Nation's national security. I am pleased that Mayor Lee is
    taking this request seriously and is in the process of
    communicating with the Department of Homeland Security about
    participating.
        We all know that most undocumented immigrants are otherwise
    law-abiding, hardworking, and just want to provide for their
    families. I believe that deeply. That is not the element of the
    undocumented population we are talking about today.
        I am currently working on a bill, as is our Chairman, and I
    think others in this Committee, that would require State and
    local law enforcement to notify Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement of the impending release from a detention center of
    an illegal alien who has previously been convicted of a felony
    if ICE requests such notification. This bill is a work in
    progress, and, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the
    testimony today and to working with other Members of this
    Committee so that we might produce a bill that is worthy of
    consideration and passage. I thank the Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        Our first witness is Ms. Susan Oliver. Ms. Oliver is the
    widow of Deputy Danny Oliver, a police officer in Sacramento.
    Danny was killed while on duty by an undocumented immigrant who
    was previously arrested on two separate occasions on drug-
    related charges and twice deported. Ms. Oliver has established
    a foundation in her husband's name to help kids in school.
        Our second witness is Ms. Grace Huang. She is public policy
    program coordinator for Washington State Coalition Against
    Domestic Violence, a nonprofit network of domestic violence
    programs founded in 1990.
        Our third witness is Mr. Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of
    Grant Ronnebeck. He was a 21-year-old convenience store clerk
    who was gunned down earlier this year by an undocumented
    immigrant. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released
    Grant's alleged murderer who was awaiting deportation. Grant
    was born in Iowa, but resided in Arizona, and had two brothers
    and a sister.
        Our fourth witness is The Reverend Gabriel Salguero.
    Reverend Salguero and his wife are the co-lead pastors of
    Lamb's Church of the Nazarene, New York City. He is also
    founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition.
        Our fifth witness is Mr. Jim Steinle of Pleasanton,
    California, the father of Kate Steinle, who was gunned down 20
    days ago while walking on a pier in San Francisco alongside her
    father. Her alleged killer had seven prior felony convictions
    and had been deported five times. Sanchez was shielded by San
    Francisco's sanctuary policy which allowed for his release in
    March despite an ICE detainer placed on him.
        The sixth person is Chief J. Thomas Manger. Chief Manger
    has been the chief of police, Montgomery County, since February
    2004. Chief Manger also serves as president of the Major Cities
    Chiefs Association.
        Our seventh witness is Dr. Brian McCann. Mr. McCann's
    brother, Dennis, was killed in 2011 by a drunk driver who was
    in the country illegally and driving without a license. U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on
    the drunk driver, but he was released under Cook County,
    Illinois, sanctuary city policies.
        Our final witness is Ms. Laura Wilkerson of Pearland,
    Texas. She is the mother of Josh Wilkerson. Josh was 18 years
    old when he was kidnapped and murdered by his high school
    classmate, an illegal immigrant, after offering his classmate a
    ride from school. Josh's murderer was sentenced to life in
    prison and will be eligible for parole in 30 years.
        I want to thank all of you for being here, and as I
    expressed to you privately our condolences, I say so now
    publicly, and you are very brave to come forward and testimony,
    and we welcome that very much.
        We will start with Ms. Oliver. I know you folks have been
    told about a 4-minute rule. The red light comes on. If you have
    a longer statement, it will be put in the record. That does not
    mean that just exactly when the red light comes on I am going
    to gavel you down, but please cut it short, because this is a
    very important hearing, and we want to get the witnesses in.
    The most important thing after you tell your stories is for us
    to hear from the administration and to question the
    administration. Will you start, Ms. Oliver?

               STATEMENT OF SUSAN OLIVER, WIFE OF DEPUTY

            SHERIFF DANNY OLIVER, GARDEN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Oliver. Good morning. I just want to first state that I
    am honored that the bill has been named after my husband,
    Deputy Oliver, as well as Detective Davis, who were killed on
    October 24, 2014.
        Over the past 9 months, my life has changed dramatically
    because of the loss of my husband, Sacramento County Sheriff
    Deputy Danny Oliver. Danny Oliver was a special person that
    knew that treating people with dignity and kindness resulted in
    stronger, healthier, and safer communities, and he worked every
    day to help make that a reality for communities that needed it
    the most.
        As a 15-year veteran of the Sacramento County Sheriff's
    Office, Danny Oliver was not a man to boast or gloat of his
    professional accomplishments. In fact, when he was given a
    standing ovation at a community meeting, he felt unsure of how
    to handle this overwhelming approval. Danny simply felt he was
    doing his job, and that was all that was needed to feel
    accomplished.
        My husband's last shift with the Sacramento County
    Sheriff's Office ended by doing something he had done countless
    times before in his career. He was policing his community and
    trying to make a difference. Danny was a POP officer, also
    known as a ``Problem Oriented Policing'' officer. His job was
    to identify possible community challenges and try to get ahead
    of them. He put himself into harm's way every day that he put
    his uniform on, and on Friday, October 24, 2014, my husband and
    father of two approached a car on his beat. This time it was
    the last time.
        The last thing my husband attempted to do as a POP officer
    was to ask the man inside the car how his day was going. He
    never made it to the driver's window. At about 10:30 a.m., that
    man was in the country illegally and armed with numerous
    illegal weapons. He aimed one outside the car of a parking lot
    of Motel 6 in Sacramento and opened fire, killing my husband
    with a shot to the forehead.
        I can honestly say that not a day goes by that this has not
    affected me. It may not be visible always. It may not be
    written in bold for all to see. It may not even be recognized,
    but it is always in the background of my mind. Sorry.
        It is there daily, sometimes moment by moment, as it should
    be. Many people ask if I have gotten past that terrible day,
    and the answer is no. Honestly, I do not think I will ever get
    past that day. I lost the man I was married to for 25 years.
    Each day I look for parental backup for rearing my child, who
    is 12 years old, and I feel that loss.
        Each day my children reach milestones. My daughter recently
    got engaged, and there will be a marriage that he will not be
    at. There will be school graduations and even our weekly family
    brunches that we held. I am reminded that I no longer have my
    husband by my side. I was with him since I graduated high
    school 25 years ago, and we watched each other grow up. We made
    careers together, and we raised two children. We could just
    look at each other and know what we needed. Perhaps it was
    support, a loving smile, or even an ``I will talk to you when
    we get home'' look. It is hard to build this trust and
    understanding, but we had it mastered with ease.
        Because of the actions of one criminal, this all ended on
    October 24th. My life will never be the same.
        Unlike law enforcement, there are few professions that
    consistently send our loved ones into harm's way. It is
    frightening, always knowing that each time they walk out the
    door it could be the last time that you see them. At the same
    time, not many professions consciously or intentionally give
    the order to take a life through the use of deadly force in
    order to protect others who cannot protect themselves, an
    awesome responsibility that my husband understood clearly. This
    continues to create a lot of ongoing dialog within communities
    throughout the country as we see a lack of continuity among law
    enforcement groups and communities that they serve.
        Every single day, law officers at the State, local, and
    Federal level put themselves, their loved ones, and their
    communities that they serve at risk when they are forced to
    release criminals who are illegal, who pose a threat to
    community safety--all in violation of current laws that require
    deportation. In just the last 2 years, ICE released back onto
    the Nation's streets 76,000 convicted criminals who are in this
    country illegally. There are 169,000 criminals in the United
    States who are here illegally right now. That means there are
    169,000 people on our streets who have criminal convictions and
    were formally and lawfully ordered deported, but who remain
    here to commit other crimes, to possibly kill someone else's
    loved one.
        The administration's tolerance of sanctuary cities has also
    resulted in another 10,000 potentially deportable illegal
    immigrant criminals being released by local law agencies since
    January of last year. One hundred and twenty-one of these
    criminals have been ordered deported in the last few years and
    yet were released by ICE and have now been charged with
    additional homicide offenses. The man that killed my husband,
    Danny Oliver, was deported several times for various felonies
    before killing my husband on October 24, 2014. However, due to
    the lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies, he
    was allowed back into the country and in one day he committed
    another crime, only this time his illegal crime status impacted
    many in a direct and profound way when he shot and killed my
    husband.
        It would be remiss if I did not also mention that it just
    was not my life that--it was not just my life that was changed
    that day. That same criminal eluded hundreds of officers from
    Sacramento to Auburn, California, during a 6-hour crime spree
    that also left Placer County Sheriff Detective Michael David
    Davis, Jr., dead, Placer County Sheriff Deputy Jeff Davis
    wounded, and a motorist in serious condition from a gunshot to
    the head.
        Many lives changed on October 24th. Today I honor my
    husband, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver, and the
    other fallen heroes throughout this Nation, who are always with
    us, in our hearts and in our memories. I wonder if I would even
    be here today talking to you about my loss if the Government
    better enforced immigration law. Unfortunately, this is now my
    reality.
        Thank you for honoring Danny and the others who have made
    the ultimate sacrifice. I hope by being here today and telling
    you about the grief my family has unnecessarily endured I can
    help save the life of someone else's friend, husband, or
    father. I hope that my husband's death will not be in vain. I
    hope that I can be here to make a difference. My life is
    forever changed and saddened. Please help put policy in place
    to make sure that criminal immigrants who are in this country
    illegally are never allowed to dictate the life of a true
    humanitarian like my husband, Deputy Danny Oliver.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Oliver appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Ms. Oliver. Ms. Huang.

                STATEMENT OF GRACE HUANG, PUBLIC POLICY

            COORDINATOR, WASHINGTON STATE COALITION AGAINST

                 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

        Ms. Huang. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and distinguished
    Members of the Committee. My name is Grace Huang from the
    Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. I am
    deeply honored to be here to comment on the impact of local law
    enforcement policies regarding Federal immigration enforcement
    on victims of domestic violence.
        The issue of violence in our communities is challenging,
    complex, and deeply emotional. As someone who has worked with
    survivors of violent crimes for over 22 years, I know how
    important it is for people to feel that they can prevent future
    tragedies, and I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the
    families here today.
        Over the years in my work at the coalition, I have had the
    honor to work in helping families make it--work in the advocacy
    process in advancing effective policy solutions. Through open
    and honest dialog, I hope that we can work to find solutions
    that make our communities safer for everyone.
        One crucial thing we can do is to build strong police and
    community relationships, which means establishing an
    environment of trust. If victims and witnesses do not feel safe
    coming forward, the police cannot do their jobs, and we are all
    less safe. Congress has affirmed the principle that immigrant
    victims and witnesses should feel safe to come forward by
    creating the U visa for victims of crime in 2000 and the
    Violence Against Women Act, which was recently reauthorized. I
    thank you all for everything you have done to make women and
    our communities as a whole, more safe. I ask that you remember
    these lessons as you work to address this new challenge.
        As a victim advocate, I am deeply concerned that mandating
    local police cooperation with immigration enforcement will
    strengthen the hand of violent perpetrators, helping them
    silence their victims and witnesses. I am also concerned that
    vulnerable immigrant victims brave enough to step forward will
    face detention, separation from their children, and swift
    deportation. This was what many communities encountered with
    Secure Communities, and the chilling effect it had on police-
    community relations was dramatic and counterproductive.
        One example of this chilling effect is the case of Cecilia,
    a young Guatemalan girl living in Colorado. Cecilia was
    sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her
    parents, who were undocumented, were terrified of reporting the
    crime to the police after having been told by friends and
    family that they would be reported to immigration if they
    stepped forward. A year later, that same perpetrator sexually
    abused another child. In the end, after the father of that
    child contacted Cecilia's parents, they went to the police
    together, and the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted.
    Because of their initial fear to report, another child was
    harmed. When immigrants are afraid to come forward with
    information about a crime, the entire community is less safe.
        When reaching out to police to address domestic violence
    may end up in deportation, law enforcement is effectively
    removed as an option for safety, which has life-threatening
    impacts. For example, one client, Maria, so distrusted the
    police that when her abuser tracked her down after she fled to
    another State, she tried to call her lawyer instead of calling
    911. It was midnight, he was pounding on the door, and she was
    frantically calling over and over the closed office of her
    attorney, who was, of course, not at work. For Maria, the idea
    of calling the police was simply not an option that put her
    life in danger. Imagine being so fearful that even though
    somebody is trying to break into your house, you cannot turn to
    the police.
        As victim advocates, we are also concerned that immigrant
    survivors will be caught up in deportation cases when there are
    mandates for local police cooperation with ICE. It is not
    unusual for immigrant victims to be convicted of crimes
    stemming from their victimization. For example, in California,
    Cindy, a Taiwanese woman on a student visa, was arrested and
    convicted of felony domestic violence charges and spent nearly
    a month in jail before she was able to speak to somebody in her
    own language. She had bitten her abuser while fighting him off
    when he tried to rape her. Although the jury determined that
    she had acted to defend herself, she was convicted of felony
    domestic violence because the jury determined that the force
    she used to defend herself was greater than the assault.
    Because Cindy was not automatically referred to ICE, she was
    able to complete her studies, expunge her criminal record, and
    become a productive member of society.
        Policies limiting local police cooperation with ICE may
    provide just enough respite for victims like Cindy to access
    the resources they need. Again, I want to say that we in the
    domestic violence advocacy field greatly appreciate the work
    that Congress has done and many Members of this Committee in
    particular have done to support a coordinated community
    response to domestic violence.
        Proposals that are under consideration now to limit funds
    to so-called sanctuary cities will allow violent crimes to go
    uninvestigated and leave victims without redress. Federal
    funding of law enforcement supports critical training,
    equipment, and staff that assists victims all over the country
    every day. Without such funding, there will be cases that go
    uninvestigated, protection orders that will not be served or
    enforced, rape kits that will not be tested, child abuse and
    sexual abuse victims that will not have trained interviewers.
        These victims are not limited to immigrants. We recognize
    the fact that there are victims both with lawful status and
    those without that are harmed by some immigrants. We all want
    justice for victims and to prevent future crimes. We urge
    Congress to proceed with measured, thoughtful policies in order
    to enhance the safety of all of our communities. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Huang appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Ms. Huang. Now, Mr.
    Ronnebeck.

                 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RONNEBECK, UNCLE

               OF GRANT RONNEBECK, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Ronnebeck. Good morning, distinguished Committee
    Members. Grant Ronnebeck was a 21-year-old son, brother,
    nephew, and grandson. He was a bright young man with an
    infectious smile and love of life. He had a positive outlook on
    life, and everyone he met knew it. Grant had no enemies; he was
    a friendly, outgoing lovable guy.
        As a 21-year-old American, he was just starting out in
    life, starting to realize his dreams, starting to follow his
    heart in matters of career choices, and just discovering his
    life's opportunities. His desire was to work his way up at the
    job he loved, working for the QuikTrip Corporation as he had
    for the previous 5 years, or possibly later to become a member
    of the law enforcement community.
        He loved four-wheeling in the desert around his home near
    Mesa, Arizona, spending time with friends and family, and
    watching the Broncos play during the football season. He was a
    pretty typical young American man, but to us he was a very
    special family and community member.
        At 4:00 a.m. on January 22, 2015, just 6 months ago, while
    working the overnight shift at his QuickTrip store, Grant
    assisted a man buying cigarettes. The man dumped a jar of coins
    on the counter and demanded those cigarettes. Grant tried to
    explain that he needed to count the coins before he could give
    the man the cigarettes. The man pulled a gun and said, ``You're
    not gonna take my money,'' and, ``You're not gonna give me my
    cigarettes.'' Grant immediately offered up the cigarettes to
    the man, who shot him in the--point-blank in the face, killing
    him. Seemingly unaffected, the man coldly and callously stepped
    over Grant's dying body, grabbed a couple of packs of
    cigarettes, and then left the store.
        After a 30-minute high-speed pursuit through the streets of
    Mesa and Phoenix, Arizona, the man was taken into custody.
    Inside his car were the cigarettes and two handguns, one of
    which was believed to have been used to kill Grant.
        Apolinar Altamirano, the alleged murderer, is an illegal
    alien. According to a news article detailing his 2012 arrest,
    he was a self-proclaimed member of the Mexican Mafia and says
    he has ties to the Sinaloa drug cartel.
        The news article states that in August 2012, he was
    arrested with two others after kidnapping and sexually
    assaulting a woman and burglarizing her apartment. She was
    allegedly held naked and against her will for a full week prior
    to escaping. He took a plea deal and pled guilty to a charge of
    felony burglary for that incident. He was sentenced to 2 years'
    probation and turned over to the Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement agency due to his undocumented status in the United
    States. He never served any time in custody related to that
    offense.
        ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency,
    released the now convicted felon Altamirano on a $10,000 bond
    pending a deportation hearing.
        In the 2 years since then, while awaiting his deportation
    hearing, Altamirano has had two orders of protection filed
    against him, including one from a woman who claimed he
    threatened to kill her and pointed a gun at her boyfriend. ICE
    was reportedly notified of the protection orders by a Mesa
    Superior Court Judge. Altamirano was still allowed to remain
    free in our country.
        In addition to Altamirano, ICE reported that they released
    66,564 other criminal aliens back onto the streets of our
    country in 2013 and 2014 and another 10,246 as of March 2015.
    This group included aliens convicted of violent and serious
    crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and
    aggravated assault. At least 123 American citizens have been
    murdered by one of those released criminal aliens, including my
    nephew Grant Ronnebeck.
        There are a number of immigration bills that have been
    introduced in the last several months, among those: Grant's
    Law, for my nephew; Kate's Law, for Kate Steinle; The Davis-
    Oliver Act for law enforcement officers Danny Oliver and
    Michael Davis; and Jamiel's Law, for Jamiel Shaw--all Americans
    killed by illegal immigrants. Each of these potential laws have
    a specific component that would help protect American lives. I
    ask that each of you give consideration and priority to passing
    these important bills into laws.
        It is my family's greatest desire that Grant Ronnebeck's
    legacy will be more than a fading obituary, a cemetery plot, or
    a fond memory. Instead, we want Grant's death to be a force for
    change and reform in the immigration policies of this great
    Nation.
        In closing, I am asking you, our elected leaders, scholars,
    lawyers, to make these changes, to rise above your political
    differences, to set aside your personal interests, and to use
    your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in
    the coming months, with the safety and security of American
    citizens first and foremost in mind.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ronnebeck appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Ronnebeck. Now, Reverend
    Salguero.

           STATEMENT OF REVEREND GABRIEL SALGUERO, THE LAMB'S

               CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

        Reverend Salguero. My name is Gabriel Salguero. Together
    with my wife, Jeanette, I am the pastor of the multiethnic
    Lamb's Church of the Nazarene where immigrants, police
    officers, whites, African Americans, and Asians worship
    together. I am also the founder of the National Latino
    Evangelical Coalition which represents some of the 8 million
    Hispanic evangelicals living in the United States. I offer my
    sincere thanks to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein,
    and the other Members of the Committee. I am honored to be here
    today.
        I want to begin by saying that I am heartbroken by the
    senseless violence and tragedy that we are discussing here
    today. I have prayed and asked the Lord to bless these families
    and provide grace and comfort to each family member here today.
    I can only imagine that every family member, friend, and
    community member continues to reel from the shock, loss, and
    grief at the remembrance of these lost loved ones. My prayers
    and sincere condolences go to each of you and your families.
    Nothing I can do here today will heal that grief, but your
    families will remain in my prayers. I pray for an end to
    violent acts such as these, and I pray that those who would
    commit such acts face just consequences and redemption.
        I am here to speak about my belief that we should take care
    to ensure that while we work to prevent these tragedies from
    occurring in the future we do not harm entire communities in
    the process. Faith organizations, including my evangelical
    community, have historically played a critical role in
    promoting community trust and providing safe haven to refugees,
    those fleeing violence, and other immigrants facing the
    daunting challenges of opportunity in the United States. I do
    not believe that the tragedies we discuss here today are the
    result of policies that seek to promote trust and cooperation
    with immigrant communities. The values of the sanctuary
    churches in the United States are deeply rooted in safety,
    family unity, and trust. These values are critical in the
    promotion of healthy, vibrant, and nonviolent communities. They
    are the foundation for hundreds of communities across the
    country who have chosen to embrace local law enforcement
    policies that foster and protect trust. These policies should
    be designed to prevent dangerous crimes, not encourage them.
        In the midst of our collective grief, I pray we avoid
    criminalizing or casting collective blame on entire communities
    for the actions committed by one or even a small number of
    individuals. In order to uphold our criminal justice system, we
    must ensure that our communities feel safe enough to come
    forward and interact with law enforcement. Cities across the
    United States need to work on their role in collaborating with
    Federal immigration authorities and on the use of immigration
    detainers in an effort to ensure that survivors of domestic
    violence, human trafficking, and other serious crimes will
    cooperate with law enforcement and come forward. If we fail to
    create smart policies that promote trust, victims and witnesses
    will remain silent due to their fear that they or their loved
    ones face deportation after seeking protection from the police.
    Silence can create fear and expose all communities to greater
    risks.
        We as a Nation should focus on solutions that will make our
    communities more integrated and, yes, more safe. I believe that
    legislation targeting immigrant communities will just lead to
    more crime as it may silence many of the more than 11 million
    immigrants who will fear cooperation with police at the risk of
    deportation. I urge Congress to resist politicizing the murders
    and the grief of these families with sweeping measures and to
    instead work with local communities and churches and others to
    ensure community safety.
        Let us work together to reform our immigration laws. The
    faith community should work to keep families safe, to keep
    families together, and to keep children with their parents. The
    faith community should not permit our grief to turn us against
    each other or against entire communities.
        Yes, our immigration system is broken, and it needs reform.
    We should not move forward with reactionary legislation that
    does not address the real issues at hand. The real solution to
    our immigration challenges is broad, just, and humane
    immigration reform which would placed undocumented immigrants
    on an earned path to citizenship, get many people on the
    rolls--that way we know who the criminals are and who is not--
    allowing also those hardworking immigrants to contribute to
    their families, communities, and country.
        As a pastor, I want to avoid scapegoating entire
    communities by passing legislation that focuses solely on
    deportation and not on integrating hardworking families in the
    United States. Let us work together to promote community
    safety. We can and should look at State and local policies
    carefully. I encourage communities to carefully tailor their
    policies to keep people safe. I encourage the Federal
    Government to carefully review its own policies and work with
    these localities across the country to ensure that our systems
    appropriately meet the goals of violence prevention against all
    community members. I do not encourage us to force States and
    localities to pursue one-size-fits-all policies.
        As we continue to mourn and pray for these families, let us
    work together to find real solutions that promote peace and
    security, not fear and not collective punishment. I pray for an
    end to senseless acts of violence. I pray for every policymaker
    here and beyond to make rational and deliberate decisions. I
    pray for reform that promotes thoughtful community safety
    policies, immigrant integration, and commonsense comprehensive
    immigration reform. I pray for the comfort of each of the
    families speaking here today and those who are not here. I
    thank you again for inviting me here today.
        [The prepared statement of Reverend Salguero appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Reverend Salguero. Now, Mr.
    Steinle.

                    STATEMENT OF JIM STEINLE, FATHER

               OF KATHRYN STEINLE, PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Steinle. First of all, on behalf of my family, I would
    like to thank the Members of this Committee for the honor to
    speak to you about our daughter, Kate.
        All children are special in their own way. Kate was special
    in the way she connected with people. We call it the ``Kate
    Effect.''
        Kate was beautiful, kind, happy, caring, loving, and deep
    in faith. Kate had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the
    most contagious laugh, and a smile that would light up a room.
    Kate loved to travel, spend time with her friends, and most of
    all spend time with her family. In fact, the day she was
    killed, we were walking arm in arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco,
    enjoying a wonderful day together. Suddenly a shot rang out,
    Kate fell, and looked at me and said, ``Help me, Dad.'' Those
    are the last words I will ever hear from my daughter.
        The day Kate died, she changed her Facebook cover photo to
    a saying that said, ``Whatever is good for your soul, do it.''
    This truly describes Kate's spirit. After graduating from Cal
    Poly San Luis Obispo, she went to work for a title company and
    saved her money so she could see the world. She traveled to
    Spain, Thailand, Amsterdam, Dubai, and South Africa, just to
    mention a few. She even made her way to the slums of Mumbai,
    India, to reach out to her friend's mother's nanny. She spent
    time there with the woman's family and came back a changed
    person. Everywhere Kate went throughout the world, she shined
    the light of a good citizen of the United States of America.
    Unfortunately, due to disjointed laws and basic incompetence on
    many levels, the U.S. has suffered a self-inflicted wound in
    the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should
    have never been on the streets of this country. I say this
    because the alleged murderer is an undocumented immigrant who
    has been convicted of seven felonies in the U.S. and already
    deported five times. Yet, in March of this year, he was
    released from jail and allowed to stay here freely because of
    those legal loopholes.
        It is unbelievable to see that so many innocent Americans
    have been killed by undocumented immigrant felons in recent
    years. In fact, we recently came across a statistic that says
    between 2010 and 2014, 121 criminal aliens who had an active
    deportation case at the time of release were subsequently
    charged with homicide--homicide-related offenses. Think about
    that: 121 times over the past 4 years, an illegal immigrant
    with prior criminal convictions that later went on to be
    charged with a murder when they should have been deported. That
    is one every 12 days.
        Our family realizes the complexities of immigration laws;
    however, we feel strongly that some legislation should be
    discussed, enacted, or changed to take these undocumented
    immigrant felons off our streets for good. We would be proud to
    see Kate's name associated with some of this new legislation.
    We feel that if Kate's Law saves one daughter, one son, a
    mother, or a father, Kate's death will not be in vain.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Steinle appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Steinle. Now, Chief
    Manger.

            STATEMENT OF J. THOMAS MANGER, CHIEF OF POLICE,

                  MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                 GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND, AND PRESIDENT,

                    MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION

        Chief Manger. Chairman Grassley, thank you for giving me
    the opportunity to testify. I come to you this morning
    representing as the president of the Major Cities Chiefs
    Association, which represents the largest cities in the United
    States.
        As cops, we see the good and the bad every day. We are
    witnesses to the immense benefits that immigration brings to
    our Nation, but we also see the sinister side. Our priority in
    local law enforcement is exactly what I think you would want
    and expect--the safety of our communities across the Nation--
    and our priority should be the prevention of crime and the
    protection of the public that we are sworn to serve. That is
    every resident of our community.
        In order to do our job, local law enforcement has to have
    the trust and confidence of the communities that we serve. We
    fail if the public or any segment of the public does not trust
    the police and will not come forward when we need them or when
    they need us.
        I want to talk to you this morning about the Major Cities
    Chiefs Association's policy with regard to immigration. I want
    to start by making a statement, and I want to be very clear.
        While we do not believe that local law enforcement should
    be saddled with the responsibility of immigration enforcement,
    we do believe that it is our duty to cooperate with ICE in a
    manner that is consistent with our duty to protect the public.
    To this end, we have developed a policy which I think strikes
    the right balance, and I am pleased to share some of the
    aspects of that policy this morning.
        First and foremost, immigration enforcement is a Federal
    responsibility. It is today and has always been. Local agencies
    cannot be expected to take on these additional duties.
        Second, we must secure our border. Immigration is a
    national issue, and the Federal Government should first act to
    secure the national borders preventing any further illegal
    entry into the United States. Federal agents must consistently
    enforce existing laws prohibition employers from hiring
    undocumented workers.
        Our member agencies are united in their commitment to
    continue arresting anyone who violates criminal laws of our
    jurisdictions regardless of their immigration status. Those
    individuals who commit criminal acts will find no safe harbor
    or sanctuary from their criminal violations of law within any
    major city but will instead face the full force of criminal
    prosecution.
        The decisions related to how law enforcement agencies
    allocate their resources, direct their workforce, and define
    their duties to best serve and protect their communities must
    be left in the control of local governments. The decision to
    have local police officers perform the functions and duties of
    immigration agents should be left to the local government. This
    shall not be mandated or forced upon them by the Federal
    Government through the threat of sanctions or the withholding
    of existing police assistance funding.
        The Major Cities Chiefs Association supports the Priority
    Enforcement Program that has been developed by the U.S.
    Department of Homeland Security. DHS listened to our concerns,
    and they have included us in the development of this new
    program that includes procedures for notification to ICE by
    local police agencies.
        My own jurisdiction, Montgomery County, Maryland, serves as
    an example of how the new program works well. While it is not
    our policy to inquire or investigate immigration status, we
    provide electronic notification to DHS whenever we make an
    arrest. Likewise, we provide notification if such a person in
    our custody is to be released. This is the model policy of the
    Major Cities Chiefs and the policy of Montgomery County. Local
    law enforcement is cooperating with DHS through the
    notification process, but not engaged in routine immigration
    enforcement. In our view, this notification policy represents a
    balance that the Judiciary Committee should consider.
        With recognition of immigration enforcement as a Federal
    responsibility, we ask the Committee to resist initiatives that
    would seek to force routine aspects of Federal responsibility
    upon local police.
        Finally, regarding Federal funding, Federal assistance
    programs at the Justice Department and Homeland Security were
    established to strengthen criminal justice and domestic
    security, not to compel local agencies to perform Federal
    duties. Their purpose was to help local police and sheriffs,
    not to require that we take over the job of Federal agencies.
    It is right to call upon us for actions to protect the public
    from crime and violence, but it is wrong to demand that we
    engage in matters related solely to immigration enforcement by
    withholding Federal funds to coerce performance of Federal
    duties by local police. This is not why these programs were
    established.
        We welcome this dialog and commit to a partnership with
    this Committee. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chief Manger appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Chief Manger. Now, Mr.
    McCann.

                   STATEMENT OF BRIAN McCANN, BROTHER

                  OF DENNIS McCANN, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Mr. McCann. On behalf of the McCann family, I want to thank
    you, Senator Grassley, and the other Members of the Committee
    for this opportunity to share with you my efforts to return
    justice to our family after the violent death of my brother 4
    years and about 6 weeks ago.
        Denny was crossing Kedzie Avenue on Chicago's North Side to
    visit with a client of his. He was a commercial insurance
    broker. The restaurant was named El Cid's, and he and the owner
    would frequently dine together in the evening. As he was
    crossing a walk at that international market, this kid, Chavez,
    came by, drunk as a skunk, and dragged him for about a block
    and a half and killed him.
        Chavez was charged with aggravated DUI, and 2 days later
    ICE issued a detainer, and we went to court, a bunch of us in
    the family, I guess a week later for the arraignment, and they
    assured us--see, I did not know anything about detainers, but
    they assured us that the Federal Government had these holds and
    detainers and that no way would he be able to post bond and
    leave. His bond was $250,000, so we were comforted, if you can
    use that word, that he would be prosecuted. And a few people in
    the neighborhood, one of them a retired judge, told me he would
    probably get 6 to 8 years. That is some measure of comfort that
    we were assured of.
        Unbeknownst to us, that summer, members of the Cook County
    Board--in Cook County, they are the administrators of justice
    in my hometown, Chicago. They worked tirelessly, without my
    knowledge--you know, we have this witness notification system
    in Illinois that is in the Constitution. Nobody notified me
    what they were doing. They ran through an ordinance after the
    August recess in September without going to Committee. You all
    know how important Committee work is. Cook County apparently
    did not in this case, and they got it passed 10 to 5. We were
    not even notified of that, nor was the prosecutor. She was not
    even aware of it. Somehow there is this lack of communication
    that the county passes this very important ordinance, and they
    do not even tell the 400, 500 assistant State's attorneys,
    because the lady who was prosecuting my brother's killer was
    never notified. Here I am sitting at home the Sunday before
    Thanksgiving, and I get a recorded message from some kid at the
    jail who said that Chavez left. He posted bond and ran. Who do
    I call on a Sunday? You know, nobody is working. I could not
    get a hold of the prosecutor. I got a hold of my niece, who is
    a deputy sheriff in the county, and she verified that, in fact,
    he did get released. I was not able to call the prosecutor
    until the next day.
        She immediately runs to her supervisor, and they send out a
    couple of cops to look for him. Well, he is gone. You know, the
    brother said that he never sees him and that he lives in the
    basement. Lies were everywhere, you know.
        Anyhow, long story short, we also learned--and I failed to
    mention this kid was prosecuted for a prior felony 2 years
    earlier, and he was put on probation. ICE was never notified
    because Secure Communities had just, I guess, gotten off the
    ground in 2008 or something, and so the notification, that
    system that police use, an electronic system, was--oh, I am
    going way over time here.
        Anyhow, long story short, we have been fighting for the
    last couple years. We got a lawsuit pending. Judicial Watch is
    here, and they have helped us. We are before the Illinois
    Supreme Court currently. We worked with the prior ICE guy,
    Morton. He was very helpful. It has just been a pathetic
    miscarriage of justice visited upon my family and hundreds of
    other families across the country, and I am so glad you all
    were able to spend some time listening to this.
        All eyes are on both the Senate and the House Judiciary
    Committee. I am convinced this is where resolution rests
    because the sanctuary jurisdictions, they are going to get away
    with literally murder passing these policies, and you guys got
    to do it.
        I regret that my Senator had to leave and could not hear my
    testimony. Maybe I will talk to him later. All right. Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McCann appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Ms. Wilkerson.

                  STATEMENT OF LAURA WILKERSON, MOTHER

                   OF JOSH WILKERSON, PEARLAND, TEXAS

        Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you for allowing me to tell the story
    of my son, Josh, and his murder.
        My son's name was Joshua Wilkerson. On November 16, 2010,
    he was beaten, strangled, tortured until he died. He was tied
    up, thrown in a field, and set on fire. His killer, Hermilo
    Moralez, was brought here illegally by his illegal parents when
    he was 10 years old. He fit the DREAM kid description. He was
    sentenced to life in prison, which means it will be 30 years
    before he is up for parole. He will be a 49-year-old man who I
    do not expect to be deported, and I just hope he does not come
    to live in your city.
        We had to hear this kid from the stand muttering about,
    ``In my country, in my country,'' never to finish that
    sentence. He went on to tell--we listened to him tell us
    repeatedly that his killing skills took over, that Josh had
    kicked his dog, his killing skills took over.
        His parents somehow managed to provide lessons so that he
    acquired a black belt in mixed martial arts. Joshua had never
    been in a fight in his life, very quiet, old soul. He did not
    speak a lot, but when he did, you listened to him.
        Like I said, he had never been in a fight in his life. His
    killing skills were those martial arts that somehow his parents
    provided here for him. Instead of getting Joshua home that day
    from school, we got an autopsy report that reads in part,
    ``This body is received in a grey body bag. There is a tag on
    his toe that bears the name Joshua Wilkerson. He is a white
    male weighing 100 pounds. He is tied up with braided rope, 13
    loops around his neck with a slip knot. It goes behind his back
    through his back belt loop. It goes to his hands and his feet
    behind his body. He has multiple fractures in his face and
    nasal cavity. His throat and his voice box are crushed. He was
    kicked so hard in the stomach that it sent his spleen into his
    spine and sliced it in two. It was painful. The medical
    examiner said it was torture. This body has significant skin
    loss on his buttocks, his abdomen, his penis, his hands, and
    his face. He has one stick of gum and a tardy slip in his
    pocket.''
        This was our family's 9/11 terrorist attack by foreign--a
    foreign invader, whether you want to recognize it or whether
    you do not. This Government continues to fail or even recognize
    that we have an issue. Americans are dying daily at the hands
    of criminals that we do not even know are here.
        You are officially notified today there is a problem when
    this happens. You cannot deny it any longer. You cannot stand
    by and ignore our families, our American families. You are
    elected by Americans, not any other country. You should be for
    Americans. If you want to sit quietly on the sidelines, you
    have thrown your hat into the ring already. Your silence speaks
    volumes. You are either for Americans or you are not.
        I will not give up control--another one of my children so
    that a foreign person can have a nicer life. I am not going to
    do it. You do not understand the pain. It is so deep in a soul
    in a place that you do not even recognize you have. There are
    not words to describe the pain to someone who has not gone
    through it.
        I am not giving up another kid. Sanctuary city policies
    scream to the criminal element of all illegals in this country.
    There is a criminal element. It screams to them, ``Come to our
    town, USA. We will protect you from our terrible police. We
    will protect you from these tough American laws that you,
    because you had a hard life, are not able to go through the
    same motions that an American is.'' They are buying into that
    fact.
        It is going to take another life lost by a Senator, a
    Congressman, the President, even another of today's heroes,
    someone from Hollywood, before someone in a position moves on
    this. I urge you, you are in a position to do something about
    this for Americans.
        A thank you to Mr. Trump for getting a message out about
    the Nation in 2 minutes that for 4\1/2\ years solidly, Maria
    Espinoza at the Remembrance Project and countless families like
    my own have been trying to say for 5 to 6 years. It feels good
    to be heard. Whether you love him or whether you do not, I felt
    heard.
        Our family is shattered. It is shattered. It will never be
    the same. We will manage. We will go on. We function. We put on
    that happy face. My kids have changed, the surviving kids.
    Everything about us has changed.
        It is by the grace of God that in our broken hearts we have
    a stream of memories of the loving relationship that we had
    with Joshua. Joshua had a very deep, intense spiritual
    relationship, leaving us 4 or 5 Scriptures in the weeks before
    he died. I am okay with where Josh is at today. I do not--it is
    not just about missing Josh. It is about what you are doing to
    an entire family, not just our immediate family, his friends,
    the teachers, the community, our extended family. It is
    incredible. I cannot even explain it to you.
        America lost that day. You lost a good citizen that was on
    the brink of becoming who knows what. He had mentioned going
    into the Air Force like his older brother, who had to come home
    for 2 weeks and bury--he was out defending this country,
    Americans, and we had to bring him home for 2 weeks to bury his
    little brother who was not being defended right here at home.
    It is absurd to me.
        Thank you for your time. I do want to say, too, in just a
    little bit of a rebuttal about--they are not scared to come
    here. We are inviting them. Sanctuary cities just say, ``Come
    on down. You can have a pass in our city.'' You know, you are
    tying policemen's hands. I am not for mandating them to ask
    them where they are from, but if they pull somebody over for a
    reason, valid cause, and they are investigating them for
    something, they have a right to ask them. They have a right to
    ask me, stop me on the freeway, ``Where are you going, Ms.
    Wilkerson? Where are you coming from? Do you have drugs?'' I am
    going to answer those, and in about 15 minutes, hopefully, it
    will come out in the wash that I am okay to leave.
        Why are you creating a class of people who seem to say we
    cannot do that? They are not afraid to come here. They are not
    afraid to traipse across the desert. I have been to the border.
    I have stood there with border agents and watched them come
    across from jet skis.
        I will finish quickly. Sympathy has never trumped the law
    in this country, ever. You know, you sympathize with me. Can I
    go break a Federal law? Anyone? Anyone here like to let me do
    that?
        Every one of them here threatened national security because
    we do not know who they are, so they are a threat. We do not
    know them. They make a decision to come here. They are not
    scared. They are invited by sanctuary city policies. They are
    not scared to stand in line for a handout that every American
    here has paid into the system for our children if need be. You
    know, they mistrust police because they come from countries
    that mistrust police. You know, they are not scared here.
        I want you to know that our family is broken forever. We
    are forever broken. I thank you for your time, and I do not
    want the sympathy. I want you to do something about it. Every
    one of you sitting here is in a position to do something. Just
    throw your hat into the ring for Americans. Quit sitting silent
    because it is going to help you get a vote. Throw your hat into
    the ring and take care of American families. Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkerson appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. First of all, thank you for
    your testimony. I have heard frustration and anger about our
    immigration policies. We can learn a lot from you about how our
    immigration system needs to be fixed, and for me that starts
    with border security.
        Can I ask my Members, because we are here for oversight of
    the administration, how many of you have questions that you
    want to ask of this panel?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Grassley. If none of you want to ask questions of
    this panel, then I will dismiss them after thanking them.
        Thank you all very much for coming and lending your
    expertise to this hearing, and I will call the next panel.
        [Pause.]
        [Disturbance occurs in the hearing room.]
        Chairman Grassley. Could we have order?
        Today's hearing deals with a very special issue. I trust
    that members of the public here will act accordingly. I want to
    note at the outset that the rules of the Senate prohibits
    outbursts, clapping, and demonstration of any kind. This
    includes blocking the view of people around you. Please be
    mindful that those rules as we conduct the hearing, and if it
    is not abided by, I, of course, would have to ask the Capitol
    Police to remove anyone who violates the rules.
        Before our next panel is seated, I would ask to deliver an
    oath. Ms. Saldana and Mr. Rodriguez, would you come, please?
    Before you sit and before I introduce you, I would like to ask
    you to affirm.
        Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give
    before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I do.
        Director Saldana. I do.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you very much.
        Leon Rodriguez is Director of U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services. He was confirmed by the Senate on June
    24, 2014. Director Rodriguez was born in Brooklyn, New York,
    graduated from Brown University, and earned his J.D. degree,
    juris doctorate degree, from Boston College.
        Sarah Saldana is Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement. She was confirmed by the Senate
    December 16th last year. She was born in Corpus Christi, Texas,
    graduated from Texas A&I University and received her juris
    doctorate from Southern Methodist University.
        Director Rodriguez, would you please begin. Then we will
    call the other Director.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. LEON RODRIGUEZ,

                     DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

                 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Director Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman, thank you, Ranking
    Member, thank you, Members of the Committee.
        In August 1988, I was sworn in as an assistant district
    attorney in Brooklyn, New York, Kings County, New York. At the
    time that I was sworn in, New York City, like many other large
    jurisdictions throughout the country, was witnessing
    unprecedented crime rates: high homicide rates, high sexual
    assault rates, high robbery rates, high narcotics trafficking
    rates. It was into this environment that I started as a young,
    26-year-old prosecutor.
        Among my assignments as an assistant district attorney were
    homicide investigations, sex crimes, special victims
    prosecutions, organized crime investigations and prosecutions.
    During my tenure as an assistant district attorney, I sat by
    the side of many hundreds of victims of violent crime, family
    members of victims of violent crime, including homicides. I
    witnessed the same kind of grief without limit that I saw among
    the crime victims' families that you saw here this morning. I
    witnessed the sense of profound injustice that was felt by
    those families. I did everything I could as an assistant
    district attorney to honor the oath that I had taken in August
    1988, and I have frequently remembered throughout my many years
    of Government service, frequently remembered and felt the grief
    and sense of injustice that I saw in those years in Brooklyn,
    New York.
        I learned another lesson as an assistant district attorney,
    and that is that in law enforcement, one size does not fit all.
    One size fits all is the surest way to let violent criminals go
    free, to let the worst crimes go unaddressed. It is for that
    reason that there are homicide detectives who specialize in
    homicide. Those detectives are not asked to go and arrest the
    individuals who jumped the turnstile at the subway.
        The DACA Program, the Deferred Action for Childhood
    Arrivals Program, provides a way to take young people who came
    to this country not of their own volition but were brought by
    their parents. It takes such young people who have not been
    convicted of a criminal offense, who do not present a threat to
    national security, who are not members of gangs, and who either
    are pursuing a course of study or have pursued a course of
    study, and does nothing more than to delay their deportation
    and to offer them work authorization.
        Let me be clear about one of the points that I made here.
    Those individuals are not supposed to have committed and been
    convicted of a prior felony, significant misdemeanors, or
    multiple misdemeanors, and they may not be or have been a
    member of a gang.
        As several of you are well aware, there were situations in
    my agency where that policy was not understood. As a result, in
    a small number of cases, approximately 20, individuals who were
    identified in law enforcement data bases as gang members were
    afforded deferred action nonetheless. That is unacceptable. We
    took decisive steps to correct our procedures, to retrain our
    staff, to ensure that that bedrock requirement of the Deferred
    Action for Childhood Arrivals Program was fully understood. As
    a result, a number of those individuals have had their deferred
    action terminated. In a small number of cases, we determined
    that the individuals actually were not gang members at all
    after thorough investigation. You have my pledge that we will
    conduct our business at USCIS, at U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Service, in a way that prevents gang members from
    ever receiving deferred action.
        Having said that, I realize the topics that we are here to
    talk about are important and grave ones, and I look forward to
    what I think is the very important dialog that, Chairman, you
    have convened today. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Director Rodriguez appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Now, Ms.
    Saldana.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. SARAH R. SALDANA,

                 ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. IMMIGRATION

                AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC.

        Director Saldana. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking
    Member Feinstein, and other Members of this distinguished
    Committee.
        Like you all, and everyone actually in this country, I am
    greatly moved by the stories that I have heard this morning and
    the tragedies that have occurred and the pain, the very
    palpable pain that has been inflicted on the families that we
    heard from today.
        To them I say, I am so sorry for the loss each of you has
    experienced, and I know many of you have shared those
    condolences as well. I say that not only as the Director of
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but I say it as a mother,
    a sister, an aunt, and a grandmother--one of my grandchildren
    being here today with me. I can only imagine what such a loss
    would be like.
        I want to say that for over a decade, first as a
    prosecutor, then as a United States Attorney for North Texas,
    and now as the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the
    largest law enforcement agency in the Department of Homeland
    Security, I am committed to do all I can to prevent violent
    crime. I have been and I continue today to do so. I consider
    myself a law enforcement officer and have for several years.
        While the things we did as prosecutors will not bring back
    the victims of any violent crime, there is some very small
    solace that I gained, at least, in bringing the perpetrators to
    justice. I am very proud of that work.
        As you know, the men and women of ICE play an integral role
    in public safety and in national security. Tragic situations
    like the ones that the family members find themselves in are
    deplorable and highlight the need to continue our work to focus
    on the apprehension and removal of convicted criminals who pose
    the greatest threat to public safety and national security.
        This is exactly what our Priority Enforcement Program is
    designed to do. We spent months talking with all kinds of
    people from all of the stakeholders that are interested in our
    program in designing it, and our objective is to take custody
    of dangerous individuals before they commit further crimes and
    before they are released into the communities.
        As has been said before, it is not a one size fits all. We
    have been working across the country to bring people to the
    table to work with them to reach their communities and the
    needs of the communities when it comes to public safety.
        Just as Senator Feinstein has done in San Francisco, I am
    asking for the help of each one of you and those other Members
    of the entire Senate to assist us in this effort to try to have
    jurisdictions who have not cooperated with us in the past to
    start doing so now. I urge you, quite frankly, as a part of all
    that, to help with respect to a comprehensive change to
    immigration law. It is complex, it is broken. This is--these
    are the statutes and the codes of regulations that our folks
    have to deal with every day, and I implore your help in that
    regard.
        Secretary Johnson has made it clear that our borders are
    not open to illegal migration. As such, ICE in our Enforcement
    and Removal Operations Directorate, ERO, is dedicating our
    resources toward the removal of individuals considered
    enforcement priorities. We are making some progress.
        Along the southwest border this year, apprehensions are
    down 110,000. That I see as a significant positive sign, 34
    percent from last year at this time.
        Likewise, our interior enforcement efforts are also paying
    off. Of those people detained in our detention centers, 96
    percent of them meet our top two priorities; 76 percent of them
    meet our top priority. I believe that our people are doing a
    good thing and focusing on where the focus should be with
    respect to these hardened criminals.
        You all know, of course, the enforcement work and the
    investigative work that our side of the house does, Homeland
    Security Investigations, very fine work with respect to
    transnational crime with very good results, and one in
    particular I want to point out with respect to gang
    enforcement. We had an operation recently called ``Operation
    Wildfire,'' which netted 32,000 criminal arrests and 1,000 gang
    members in that particular group, some charged with criminal
    offenses; of those 1,000,--913,--and it is very meaningful work
    as well.
        I do know that we are going to focus on the enforcement and
    removal side, and I stand ready to take any questions of this
    Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Saldana appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. I thank both of you very much for being
    here, and most importantly, I want to thank you for coming and
    listening to the testimony of the first panel. I am going to
    ask questions, then Senator Feinstein will. Then because the
    Finance Committee is meeting on taxes upstairs, I am going to
    have to turn over the meeting to Senator Sessions, if he will
    do that, please.
        I will start with you, Mr. Rodriguez. You said that certain
    actions of people in your Department were unacceptable in
    regard to DACA, and so a natural follow up of that is somebody
    did not do their job right. In this particular case, somebody
    probably did not do their job right, and we know that people
    have died as a result of it. Then if it is unacceptable, who
    has been fired or disciplined for providing DACA to gang
    members?
        Director Rodriguez. Senator, there was action taken to
    correct and counsel individuals who did not understand, back in
    2013, the proper manner in which to utilize the TeX database,
    which is the law enforcement database that identifies
    individuals as gang members. We have undertaken extensive
    efforts to ensure that both the policy that very clearly
    excludes gang members from deferred action and the processes of
    our agency are fully understood.
        I would also add that we have run the entire population of
    deferred action DACA recipients back through the TeX database
    to identify all those instances where gang membership was not
    handled appropriately by our officers. There has been
    counseling in appropriate instances.
        Chairman Grassley. Since there were 323, how many were
    changed after review?
        Director Rodriguez. Actually, sir, as I indicated, there
    were--of the 600,000, nearly 700,000 DACA recipients, we
    identified 20 cases in which an indication of gang membership
    appeared in the law enforcement databases for individuals who
    had previously received deferred action. Eight of those
    individuals have already been terminated. Others have been
    turned over to ICE for appropriate handling. Several others
    continue to be adjudicated. In a few cases, we actually
    determined that notwithstanding the identification as gang
    members in the database, they were not, after investigation,
    gang members.
        Chairman Grassley. What process, if any, do you have in
    your agency in place to learn about DACA recipients' criminal
    activity in order to immediately terminate the benefit?
        Director Rodriguez. We obviously have ongoing contacts and
    discussion above all with ICE. We are notified in situations
    where individuals have either been convicted of a crime or
    where information is discovered that they are gang members.
    When we receive that information, we act on it.
        We are also in the middle of the DACA renewal process right
    now. Some individuals have been identified as being gang
    members during the course of that process and, of course, have
    been denied renewal and other appropriate action taken.
        Chairman Grassley. Does your agency require an interview in
    every DACA applicant who has a criminal record?
        Director Rodriguez. We do do interviews in those cases
    where in order to resolve an outstanding issue, for example,
    one related to either criminality or gang membership, we do
    utilize interviews in those cases to resolve those concerns.
        Chairman Grassley. Ms. Saldana, in March, you told the
    House Judiciary Committee that you supported mandatory
    detainers. The following day, you changed your position.
    Sanctuary cities, as you have heard today, do very little to
    protect the public safety. They are in place to protect certain
    groups of law breakers, but there are real consequences. Can
    you tell the family members here today, including the Steinle
    family, that you do not think State and local law enforcement
    officials should have to abide by detainers of criminal aliens?
        Director Saldana. I am not going to say that, Senator
    Grassley. What I am going to say is that we are working very
    hard--very hard--with respect to a whole host--there were about
    200 last time I checked--of jurisdictions--and when I say
    ``jurisdictions,'' I am talking about counties, cities all over
    the country who have declined to cooperate with us in the past.
        As the Secretary testified last week, Senator, we are
    making some progress. We have actually identified the top
    almost 50 jurisdictions that we have had little progress with
    in the past couple of--several months, and we are going and
    meeting with those local officials to try to engage them in why
    the PEP program is actually different from what their
    experience was with Secure Communities.
        You heard from some of the witnesses this morning that
    there is some fear out there and some concerns about even the
    impact on local law enforcement if they--there is a feeling of
    distrust between a community and law enforcement. My answer--
    the question to me was would it be helpful. Clarity is always
    helpful to law enforcement, but what I would like to do is,
    since we have just rolled out this program--we have been
    working on the design and implementation of it for months, but
    we just rolled out this program. I want us to be given a chance
    to work with folks.
        As U.S. attorney, my whole existence relied on
    relationships with State and local law enforcement. I had to
    work with sheriffs, DAs all across North Texas, to try to get
    them to work with us, and it is a mutual cooperation. They help
    us and we help them, and I would like to continue those efforts
    through PEP.
        Chairman Grassley. Can you admit, yes or no, that sanctuary
    cities pose a problem to public safety?
        Director Saldana. I do not know exactly what ``sanctuary
    cities'' definition is, but I do know--and I have said this in
    the past, sir, and so has the Secretary--that not cooperating
    with us does expose our officers to greater risk because now
    they have to go out at large and try to recover some of these
    convicted criminals. It is a resource expenditure much greater
    than it would be if we could just get these people from the
    jails directly into our custody and through the process.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. Let me thank the two witnesses and the very moving
    witnesses we heard in the prior panel.
        I would like to put in the record the record of Lopez
    Sanchez because you see the felonies and you see the number of
    deportations, and you really see the failure of the system. The
    question really comes what to do about it.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        It is clear to me this man was convicted and served time in
    more than one State, deported five times, kept coming back, and
    this is how it ended. It should not happen that way. Maybe the
    price on deportation is too low because it does not seem to be
    a deterrent at all, at least in this case.
        Mr. Ronnebeck said the following: ``ICE reported that they
    released 66,564 other criminal aliens back onto the streets of
    our country in 2013 and 2014, and another 10,246 as of March
    2015. This group included aliens convicted of violent and
    serious crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping,
    and aggravated assault.'' Then it goes on and says 123
    Americans have been murdered by one of those released criminal
    aliens, including Mr. Ronnebeck's nephew. Are those numbers
    correct?
        Director Saldana. They are.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay.
        Director Saldana. They are, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Then how does it happen that of
    those numbers, an additional 123 Americans have been murdered
    by them?
        Director Saldana. How is it that happened? Or how is it
    that they came to be----
        Senator Feinstein. Yes. It seems to me we have got one size
    fits all that you do for the worst felon what you do for
    someone without that kind of record.
        Director Saldana. You have really struck on the heart of
    our efforts in talking to jurisdictions who have not been
    working with us in the recent past. We recently tried to tell
    them, ``Work with us. Let us look at your statutes. Let us look
    at what you have passed, and let us see if, one, we have to
    urge you to try to tweak it; or, two, if we can work within it
    in whatever ordinance or legislation there is.''
        I truly believe, in my heart of hearts, that we can bring
    reasonable minds to the table to work something out, and that
    is why we talk about one size not fitting all. It is because we
    are really trying to accommodate the needs of the communities
    that are so different--west coast, east coast, north and south.
    I come from Texas. Our problems there are not the same as the
    problems in California or New York, or in the heartland.
        That is one of the beauties of PEP, and, again, I need
    local and State law enforcement----
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you what should happen to
    somebody convicted of seven felonies in this country in a
    number of different States and someone who has been deported
    five times and comes back to eventually commit a heinous crime.
        Director Saldana. Of course----
        Senator Feinstein. What should--how should that be
    prevented?
        Director Saldana. My belief is in developing those
    relationships and communication. Here there were--it was a
    three-way law enforcement communication: the Bureau of Prisons,
    the sheriff's office, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
    I am doing all I can to try to look into--and we actually have
    directed my senior staff to start opening doors, and there have
    been some conversations already with the Bureau of Prisons,
    which is overseen by my old Department, the Department of
    Justice----
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Director Saldana [continuing]. To try to talk about, at
    least with respect to Federal agency--to Federal agency, what
    we can do better. I invite your thoughts.
        Senator Feinstein. One last question. Supposing the sheriff
    did consult with you, the city did consult with you. The record
    is still there: seven felonies, five deportations, and he came
    back, and he has tried a number of different States and managed
    to commit felonies there, too. What would happen to him? What
    would you do with him?
        Director Saldana. We would probably, with someone with that
    kind of a record, we would, if he came into our custody,
    present him to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution.
        Senator Feinstein. On what?
        Director Saldana. On illegal reentry, and there are
    escalating punishments if you have--depending on your criminal
    record, and so we can do that. Right now it is up to 20 years,
    depending on the nature of the person's background.
        Senator Feinstein. Are there cases where you have done
    that?
        Director Saldana. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Can you tell me approximately how many?
    Where somebody with multiple deportations and multiple felonies
    actually goes, based on the last deportation, to jail, to
    Federal prison for a long time?
        Director Saldana. We have presented on every occasion that
    those facts arise. Unfortunately, the prosecution decision is
    not up to us. It is up to the U.S. Attorney's Office. They have
    their own priorities. I cannot quibble with that. We do present
    it every time we see those facts, ma'am.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you, there are Members here
    who have bills that would like to put a minimum sentence on
    deportation that is violated; in other words, the individual
    comes back. What do you think of that?
        Director Saldana. I have got to start with, quite frankly,
    I would like, rather than a piecemeal approach to this
    tremendous problem, a more comprehensive approach to reform. If
    we are just looking at that, I would like to take a look at
    that language and what the statute provides. This fellow in Ms.
    Steinle's case actually had served several sentences for
    illegal reentry, and substantial--not insubstantial sentences.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, I have----
        Director Saldana. The average sentence is 18 months to 2
    years. In this case, we had 36, 56, 46 months that this
    individual served. Obviously, it did not deter him.
        Senator Feinstein. Right. My time is up. I will put in the
    record two different copies of the criminal record of Mr. Lopez
    Sanchez.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Feinstein. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
    You made some important points.
        I would note that San Francisco proudly calls itself a
    sanctuary city. They are not hiding it. They are proud of it.
    They have directed their police chiefs and product officers in
    that accord, too. We are focused, I think, more today on the
    sheriff's department, who even the mayor has concluded acted
    improperly.
        I would offer for the record a letter just a week ago on
    behalf of the San Francisco deputy sheriffs that work for the
    sheriff there, and that letter to the sheriffs says this: ``As
    evidenced by the tragic death of Kate Steinle on July 1st, the
    Department's refusal to coordinate much less cooperate with
    Federal law enforcement agencies recklessly compromises the
    safety of sworn personnel, citizens, and those who merely come
    to the San Francisco area. This association hereby demands that
    the Department immediately rescind the directives and comply
    with the statutory and contractual obligations to meet and
    confer in good faith.'' They go on to say, ``Moreover, it is
    the association's sincere belief that any changes that the
    Department might pursue should honor Ms. Steinle's life by
    correcting the Department's flawed philosophy so that the
    people of San Francisco--citizens, visitors, employees alike--
    are safer in the future.''
        Ms. Saldana, you are in charge of filing the detainers and
    dealing with these issues. Do you agree with that letter from
    the deputy sheriffs of San Francisco?
        Director Saldana. I would agree certainly with the essence
    of what the question----
        Senator Feinstein. Could you put on your microphone,
    please?
        Director Saldana. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Director Saldana. Let us get cooperation, let us do all we
    can to do--because we are all in the same business, and that
    is, public safety.
        Senator Sessions. You are exactly right. What this is all
    about is protecting public safety. Isn't it a fact, Ms.
    Saldana, that everybody that would like to come to the United
    States should not--is not entitled to be admitted on their
    demand?
        Director Saldana. That is why we have these statutes and
    the process, sir.
        Senator Sessions. You make evaluations based on people, and
    if they have certain risk factors or if they get here legally
    or illegally and they evidence dangerous tendencies, they can
    be deported?
        Director Saldana. That is certainly laid out in the
    statute.
        Senator Sessions. That is required in certain instances you
    the statute. It says they ``shall be deported.''
        Director Saldana. There are mandatory provisions, yes, sir.
        Senator Sessions. I think that we have a serious problem
    here, and I believe it is directly from the top of this
    administration, and I believe you have been directed to carry
    out administration policies. When you were asked about the
    sanctuary city reform, as Senator Grassley said, you said
    absolutely amen. The next day, did you have a conversation with
    someone and decided to change your statement on that?
        Director Saldana. As I said before, Senator, truly my
    response was a straight-out law enforcement response. What I
    did the next day was to clarify, I am not going against what we
    have--all our efforts in establishing and now implementing the
    PEP program. We want to work with those jurisdictions. That is
    what I have always done, is try to set up relationship with
    State and----
        Senator Sessions. I agree with you. You were a United
    States attorney, and you gave a law enforcement response, which
    is, ``This is unacceptable.'' Every jurisdiction in America
    that I know of participates in a detainer policy that honors
    detainers from other jurisdictions. They do not ask whether the
    case is a good case or not. They do not retry the case. If a
    United States Federal, State, or local jurisdiction places a
    detainer hold on a prisoner, that is honored. Isn't it a
    historic and really unbelievable act that major cities in this
    country are refusing to comply with that basic requirement of
    law enforcement?
        Director Saldana. This is why I needed the next day to
    clarify, sir, that yes, we need to get there, but we have got
    this program that we are about to roll out, and it is all hands
    on deck. We cannot afford not to work together in this area. It
    is too dangerous.
        Senator Sessions. What if they do not cooperate? What if
    they just refuse, as they refused before--didn't your
    predecessor, Mr. Morton, call on Chicago, Cook County, to stop
    its sanctuary policies?
        Director Saldana. I am sorry, sir. I was not following
    that. I am not aware what Mr. Morton did.
        Senator Sessions. He made a clear statement about it, and
    it was a call on them to change. The administration apparently
    has changed and stopped pushing it, and now after these events
    that have achieved so much publicity, you are beginning to talk
    about it again.
        Mr. Rodriguez, you represent the Citizenship and
    Immigration Service. Your council president has made a series
    of statements--Mr. Palinkas, he is the head official---saying,
    quote ``USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber-
    stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review
    and investigation. The culture at USCIS encourages all
    applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation
    into red flags, and discouraging the denial of any
    applications. USCIS has turned into an approval machine.''
        He goes on to say: ``USCIS officers who identify illegal
    aliens that, in accordance with law, should be placed into
    immigration removal proceedings before a Federal judge are
    prevented from exercising their authority and responsibility.''
        He goes on to say--Ms. Saldana, the ICE officers' moral is
    reported to be the lowest in the entire Federal Government.
    They filed a lawsuit against your predecessor, the officers
    association did, claiming that they are being ordered to
    violate their oath to enforce the law. What actions have you
    taken to end this and create--and meet with the officers to
    create a system in which they are encouraged to follow the law,
    not violate the law?
        Director Saldana. I listen, Senator. I have been to several
    of our offices across the country. I wish I had time to do all
    of them in my first year on the job. I do go there, and I do
    listen. I meet with union officers. I meet with employees top
    to bottom, and we discuss what our mission is and how it is so
    important and how commonsensical it is to focus on the most
    heinous crimes and convicted criminals. I get a very good
    response.
        I--and, by the way, I may now be a named defendant in that
    lawsuit. I think I have been replaced in there. I take those
    allegations seriously, and I work with our employees across the
    country to discuss it.
        Senator Sessions. I have never seen the kind of morale
    problems that I see from Mr. Palinkas' statement to you, Mr.
    Rodriguez, in your official actions, and you, Ms. Saldana, and
    your predecessor really. This is not healthy. It is very bad,
    and it is a product of the trends we are seeing of
    nonenforcement rather than enforcement.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Senator
    Durbin is not here. Senator--excuse me. Senator Schumer is not
    here. Senator Durbin----
        Senator Sessions. Senator Durbin is here.
        Senator Feinstein. I will call on Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, I
    was not able to stay at the hearing for Brian McCann's
    testimony. Brian McCann is from Chicago. I agreed to speak at
    an Alzheimer's Association research meeting, came back, got him
    on the phone. We are working with him through the FBI to try to
    help bring this fugitive to justice who is responsible for this
    terrible tragedy in his family. I want to put that on the
    record.
        Let me see if I can put some perspective on this for a
    minute. There seem to be two or three basic elements here that
    we ought to keep in mind. First is the belief of local law
    enforcement that if they are called on to enforce status
    crimes--that is, persons who are here undocumented--that it
    could infringe on their ability to maintain order in a
    community. If every time a police car drove by, folks in a
    certain neighborhood thought they are looking for undocumented
    people, those folks are less likely to step up and cooperate
    with police to find real wrongdoers, real criminals, so that
    they would be brought to justice. That seems to be a starting
    point I have heard over and over again. Ms. Saldana?
        Director Saldana. I agree. I have heard it also because I
    have met with quite a few officials, and they have a tough job.
    We all have a tough job. I recognize those arguments.
        One jurisdiction in Oregon has been sued, and in other
    jurisdictions, and in these days of tough financial budgets, I
    can understand why people are concerned about being exposed to
    constitutional challenges like they have been in some of the
    law offices.
        Senator Durbin. What the President has proposed in both
    DACA and DAPA--DACA referring to young people, DREAMers who
    were brought here as children and are undocumented, and DAPA
    for those millions who are here undocumented, working, raising
    families and such. In both instances, the President has
    insisted that there be a criminal background check before they
    are even given a temporary--a temporary--permission to stay, to
    either live, go to school, or work. Is that not true?
        Director Saldana. Certainly--and my colleague, Director
    Rodriguez, can speak more clearly to this, but, yes, that is my
    understanding.
        Senator Durbin. Director Rodriguez, out of 680,000 who have
    successfully applied for DACA status, DREAMers who were able to
    stay on a temporary basis for a few years and not be deported,
    of that number, 680,000, I am told that roughly 323, about one-
    half of 1 percent, have either been engaged in crime or had a
    criminal record to the point where they were disqualified from
    the DACA Program. Is that close to what you have heard?
        Director Rodriguez. That is correct. Most of those were as
    a result of criminal convictions. Some of them were because of
    information received that they either were gang members or
    presented threats to national security.
        Senator Durbin. They were disqualified from the program.
        Director Rodriguez. Correct. By the way, Senator, I would
    cite that as an instance where we did not rubber-stamp, as Mr.
    Palinkas, my union head, suggested. We have certainly dug into
    those allegations.
        Senator Durbin. The President's proposal, when it comes to
    the millions who are here undocumented, they, too, will not
    only be subjected to a criminal background check before they
    are eligible to stay and work on a temporary basis, they are
    subject to review every time that permit comes up to see if
    they have committed a crime. Is that not true?
        Director Rodriguez. That is correct, Senator. It is a
    multistep process of biographic and biometric checks that are
    conducted on all such individuals to eliminate criminals,
    eliminate threats to our national security, eliminate gang
    members from access to those----
        Senator Durbin. For the record, on both of these programs,
    DACA and DAPA, proposed by President Obama, there has been
    general opposition from the other side of the aisle. What the
    President has proposed for regular criminal background checks
    about these people living who are undocumented in America has
    been resisted. That has been a starting point in each of these
    proposals.
        Yesterday, I spoke to Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of
    Homeland Security. He just visited in Chicago to meet with some
    of our political leaders to talk about the specific issue that
    brings us here today. What do we do about those who are
    convicted of crimes and also undocumented? They are working now
    to come to an agreement through the PEP program that there be
    an understanding that certain levels of crime will result in a
    reporting. They have not reached an agreement--do not get me
    wrong--but they are moving in that direction.
        Can you explain to me the difference between a civil
    detainer and a criminal detainer and whether that is
    significant to our conversation here?
        Director Rodriguez. Senator, I think I am a little--I do
    have some insight into those distinctions based on prior
    positions that I have held as a Federal prosecutor and also as
    county attorney in Montgomery County. Given that it is Director
    Saldana's portfolio, I think I may defer to her.
        Director Saldana. Yes, quite frankly, I am not familiar
    with the distinction that way. More importantly, it seems to me
    that there are--when there is a criminal case that has been
    presented to the United States attorney, they have accepted it.
    There will be a criminal warrant and a detainer notice sent to,
    if the person is in somebody's else's custody, and that has--it
    is a court order. It is not administrative, which is the large
    part of what our function is. Our function is civil and
    administrative.
        There are some groups of illegal immigrants that we do
    refer to the U.S. attorneys for criminal prosecution, but that
    is only where the--that is the only place the criminal
    documentation would arise.
        Senator Durbin. What I am trying to get to is this: If we
    are dealing with someone who is incarcerated and who has been
    found guilty of, let us say, a serious felony--no questions
    asked, it is over the line, serious felony--from your point of
    view, what you are asking is that before they be released in
    their undocumented status there be a report to your agency?
        Director Saldana. A notice.
        Senator Durbin. A notice to your agency?
        Director Saldana. Yes. Please advise us with respect to the
    notification part where there is not--we have not actually
    established probable cause, or where we have, a detainer.
        Senator Durbin. Instead of dealing with the serious felon,
    we are dealing with a question of illegal reentry. An illegal
    reentry may occur, if I am not mistaken, someone who has been
    deported from the United States and attempts to return, even if
    there is no criminal history other than that action of
    returning after deportation. Is that correct?
        Director Saldana. Yes, that is right, and the U.S.
    attorneys across the country are not necessarily enforcing
    those because of their priorities. That is just too low level
    an offense.
        Senator Durbin. The suggestion that we make a mandatory
    minimum 5-year sentence for people who have been deported and
    come back across the border, let us say, with no other
    criminal--no criminal history and no other history from the
    Government's point of view, that seems to me to be an
    invitation for a lot of prosecutions.
        Director Saldana. We are stretched on our resources
    already, and we are focusing on convicted criminals. To expand
    it to just illegal entries or reentries would be a very big
    problem for us.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
        Senator Sessions [presiding]. Thank you. I believe Senator
    Lee has yielded to Senator Cruz. Good. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    Senator Lee. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. The
    testimony we have heard today is powerful.
        Ms. Saldana, you are a Texan. You were a prosecutor in our
    State. You had a good reputation as a prosecutor. You are
    serving in an administration that consistently refuses to
    follow the law. We heard this morning the very real
    consequences of that.
        In March, when you were testifying before the House, you
    were asked about sanctuary cities, cities like San Francisco
    that defy Federal law, and because of their defiance of Federal
    law, Kate Steinle is no longer with us. She was murdered
    because of the refusal of local officials to recognize Federal
    law.
        You were asked in that House hearing, Should Federal law
    compel State officials to comply with Federal law? Your answer,
    and I want to quote verbatim, was, ``Thank you. Amen. Yes.''
        In my view, that was the former Federal prosecutor speaking
    and giving an answer. Yet the next day, you issued a statement
    retracting what you had said and saying, in fact, although you
    had said, ``Amen,'' which is a pretty powerful statement from
    the heart, you did not, in fact, mean that Federal law should
    force local officials to comply with Federal laws.
        I want to ask you what political officials pressured you to
    change your statement.
        Director Saldana. Not a single one. This came from--the
    original statement came from my heart. The clarification came
    from my heart. I do not mean to quibble with you, Senator. I
    respect you greatly. I will say this, the question was not
    asked--the question was very specific. Would it be helpful for
    detainers to be mandatory? The law enforcement response there
    is clarity is always helpful. I wanted to be sure that people
    were not reacting to that as an indictment of PEP or working
    with communities, and that is what I am committed to do.
        Senator Cruz. Let me make sure I understand your testimony
    correctly, then. You said then it would be helpful, as in
    presumably helpful is good, is beneficial, is something you
    support. Are you saying then that ICE supports making it
    mandatory to comply with Federal detainers?
        Director Saldana. No.
        Senator Cruz. It is helpful, but you do not support it?
        Director Saldana. No, sir. I support what we have proposed
    and what we have been----
        Senator Cruz. You just said it is helpful----
        Director Saldana [continuing]. Hours on--yes, sir.
        Senator Cruz. You just said it is--but you do not support
    it.
        Director Saldana. Clarity is always helpful, but
    cooperation and working with our State and local partners,
    something I have always done, I will continue to do it, and I
    am committed to see it through with respect to these
    jurisdictions that have not been working with us.
        Senator Cruz. It is difficult to work in an administration
    where you are required to take a position where, although
    something would be, in your own words, helpful, you nonetheless
    do not support it. Let me shift to a different topic. In the
    year 2013, how many criminal illegal aliens did the Obama
    administration release?
        Director Saldana. In 2014, it was a little over 30,000.
        Senator Cruz. How many murderers?
        Director Saldana. In that year, sir, I cannot remember the
    number right now, but I know that we had--the statistic that
    was said earlier, the 4-year period from 2010 to 2014, there
    were 121 persons who committed crimes afterwards. I cannot
    provide you the exact number.
        Senator Cruz. How many rapists?
        Director Saldana. I am not sure right now. I would have to
    pull that number.
        Senator Cruz. How many drunk drivers?
        Director Saldana. Same answer. I can certainly break that
    down for you. In fact, I think we are working on that right
    now. It has been requested before.
        Senator Cruz. Yesterday, how many murderers did the Obama
    administration release?
        Director Saldana. Senator, I do not know the answer to that
    question, but I want the American people to understand our job
    and our mission, if I may. We do not release people willy-
    nilly. We release people pursuant to these statutes and
    regulations. There are only a limited number of crimes that we
    are required to detain people. It is mandatory. They are
    spelled out here very clearly, many of them related to drug
    distribution and conspiracies.
        With the rest of the people, as you know very well,
    Zadvydas requires us to release some. I think that is a small
    percentage of the total. Also, the immigration courts have a
    half-a-million-case backlog. They have the proceedings they go
    through; they will order release because many of these folks
    challenge their bond or their detention.
        In the rest--and I think it is like 49 percent this past
    year--in the rest, where ICE has discretion, where this statute
    has given us discretion, we have very well trained, very well
    experienced law enforcement officers who look at the entire
    case, just like a magistrate judge or a Federal judge does----
        Senator Cruz. Ms. Saldana, I want to note that your
    testimony here, when I asked you how many criminals ICE
    released in 2013, you were off by a factor of three. You said
    30,000. The correct answer is 104,000. There were 68,000
    criminals, criminal illegal aliens, that ICE declined to begin
    deportation proceedings against despite the fact, as Senator
    Sessions observed, the Federal law that you are holding up
    there says they shall be deported, the Obama administration
    refused to deport them. That is 68,000.
        In addition to that, there were 36,000 in deportation
    proceedings with criminal convictions that the Obama
    administration released. I would note that among those were 193
    murderers with homicide convictions, were 426 people with
    sexual assault convictions, were over 16,000 criminal illegal
    aliens with drunk-driving convictions, released by this
    administration because this administration refuses to follow
    the law.
        Director Saldana. Sir, those numbers, I am looking straight
    at them. You asked me, I thought, about 2014. That is 30,558.
    The good news is at least that went down from 2013, when it was
    36,007.
        Senator Cruz. You are omitting the 68,000 criminal illegal
    aliens that ICE did not begin deportation proceedings against
    at all, and you have got to add both of those together. It is
    over 100,000.
        Director Saldana. Yes, sir, that is absolutely right, all
    done pursuant to this statute that the Congress has outlined.
        Senator Cruz. Ms. Saldana, you heard the testimony from the
    victims' families. I have introduced Kate's Law in the Senate,
    a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison for anyone apprehended
    with an illegal reentry. Does ICE support Kate's Law?
        Director Saldana. I sure would like to look at that. I have
    not had a chance to. I am not sure when it was introduced, if
    it has been.
        Senator Cruz. It was introduced last week.
        Director Saldana. Okay. I have not had a chance to look at
    it. I am sorry, Senator. I am certainly willing to look at any
    proposal along those lines and consider it and work with you if
    I find some objection to it.
        Senator Cruz. Ms. Saldana, I will note in your opening
    statement here you said, after listening to the victims'
    families, that you were so sorry for their losses. Yet the
    Obama administration keeps doing it. When I asked you how many
    murderers were released yesterday, you do not know. There is a
    reason the American people are upset. If President Obama had
    the courage of his convictions, he would come and look in the
    eyes of these men and women who have lost their sons, their
    daughters, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, and
    the administration would stop releasing murderers and rapists.
    It is within your power to follow Federal law, and this
    administration refuses to do so, and that is altogether
    unacceptable. Thank you.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions,
    and thank you to both you, Director, and also to you, Assistant
    Secretary, for your work.
        I know Senator Grassley had to step out for another
    hearing, but I wanted to thank him for bringing together the
    first panel of witnesses. I thought their testimony was moving,
    and I know from being a former prosecutor how difficult it can
    be for victims and their families to come forward. I am sure
    some of the families are still in the room today, so I thank
    you for being willing to come forward today.
        I also wanted to thank Senator Feinstein for her frankness
    in criticism of the sheriff in her own State. Clearly, there
    should have been cooperation, and they should have been working
    with ICE, and I think it is very important to remember that
    there are some of us that are willing to look at these policies
    and look at them in a way to figure out what best helps public
    safety. Deputy Secretary, you talked about some of the work
    that is being done to work with these local jurisdictions, and
    I listened to the head of the Major Cities Chiefs talk about
    their policy, which he made clear was cooperating with ICE.
    Clearly, that did not happen in the case in San Francisco.
        Are there other sheriffs and other law enforcement people
    who have taken that position and have policies where they are
    not going to--and I understand the mayor said that was not what
    happened in San Francisco, but where they are not going to work
    with you and notify you when a repeat felon is being released?
        Director Saldana. The last time I checked the number of
    communities that had passed some kind of ordinance or
    legislation, it was a little bit over 200, about 208.
        Senator Klobuchar. But these vary. Is that correct?
        Director Saldana. Excuse me?
        Senator Klobuchar. Do they vary?
        Director Saldana. Oh, tremendously.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. What I am talking here about is, I
    think, the most glaring thing, this idea that someone who has
    been deported several times, been convicted of lengthy
    felonies, that there was no notification to either try to
    deport him or, as you made the better point, for someone who is
    a repeat felon like that, bring them to the U.S. Attorney's
    Office. Do you know how many have that policy that was as
    severe as what the sheriff did in San Francisco?
        Director Saldana. Maybe a handful. Maybe a handful. You
    know, we have identified, I think I said earlier, the top 49
    jurisdictions who have not been cooperating with us that would
    have the greatest impact with respect to their immigrant
    populations in their communities, and we have made real
    progress. As the Secretary testified last week, about 33 of
    them have now said over the efforts of the Secretary, the
    Deputy, and quite a few officials, that they will work with us.
    In some manner, we are working with them.
        Senator Klobuchar. It just seems like in a case like this
    it should be mandatory that something gets reported to ICE, and
    that is what I am trying to grapple with, and I know Senator
    Feinstein is.
        Director Saldana. It is a very commonsense approach,
    Senator. I agree with you. I think PEP covers that. These are
    severe, heinous, and dangerous criminals that we are targeting
    and that we are working--trying to work with these
    jurisdictions to say can't we all agree on this category of
    individual and this criminal history.
        Senator Klobuchar. We used to have cases sometimes--in
    fact, I was just reading about one where we had convicted a man
    of murder. He had hacked up his wife into pieces, left her head
    in a bowling ball. It was a horrible case. He was from Russia,
    and he has been making requests to go back to Russia, and my
    successor is saying no to that. I remembered the pressure you
    would sometimes get, not necessarily from defendants--you would
    not care about that--but from sometimes family members, people
    say, ``Oh, send them back to the other country.'' I think it is
    an argument clearly for serving out sentences in the U.S. for
    public safety. Then, also, you brought up the U.S. Attorney's
    Office, and obviously they cannot handle all these cases. When
    there are these serious ones with a number of felonies, I would
    think this should become more of a priority when it comes to
    these prosecutions. Has there been discussion about this with
    the Justice Department at all?
        Director Saldana. Yes. I have actually met with the Deputy
    Attorney General and discussed where we can work together to
    strengthen this. I have met with the Border and Immigration
    Security Subcommittee of the Attorney General's Advisory
    Committee of U.S. Attorneys, and we have discussed specifically
    what can you do to help us make an impact with respect to some
    of these cases, and they seem very interested and cooperative.
        Senator Klobuchar. I have been a supporter of comprehensive
    immigration reform, and I think there is a lot of focus on
    things that we need for our economy with that bill and
    allowing, you know, everyone from engineers on to be able to
    get green cards and to stop training our competition, and there
    are many important things in that bill. It is a bipartisan
    bill. I think one of them, as you know, Director, is also more
    money for the border, more money for enforcement, those kinds
    of things. Do you think that that would be helpful as well to
    pass some kind of comprehensive immigration reform? Either of
    you can answer this.
        Director Saldana. Essential. I mean----
        Senator Klobuchar. I am talking about from a public safety
    perspective.
        Director Saldana. Yes. It is like one of these very wise
    victims indicated this morning, when you hear something that
    simply stated, you wonder why do we get bogged down. That was
    put aside political interests and let us get to work on a
    better immigration system, comprehensively.
        Senator Klobuchar. Did you want to add to that?
        Director Rodriguez. I would like to add to that. One of the
    issues that we have heard about this morning is the notion that
    individuals who are here illegally, we do not know who they
    are. They are not registered. They are off the grid,
    essentially. Both what the Deferred Action Programs and, more
    helpfully, comprehensive immigration reform provides is a way
    to know who those people are, to hold them accountable, to know
    who they are in those rare instances where they do commit
    crimes. That is just one example of many where public safety
    would be promoted by immigration reform.
        Senator Klobuchar. The last thing I wanted to bring up is
    just a different issue to me, and I do not want it to get
    scrambled into it, and that is, the U visa program for victims
    of crime and witnesses. We have worked hard on this. I had many
    experiences where people would be preyed upon because they
    thought they had power over them because a family member or
    something else could be deported. The U visa program has been
    helpful in bringing cases, as one of the witnesses pointed out
    who worked in the domestic violence area. Could you speak to
    that?
        Director Saldana. I can certainly. I prosecuted human-
    trafficking cases, and we often requested T visas. I am happy
    to say that many of the victims that were involved in some of
    these cases actually ended up staying in the country and
    applying for residency and ultimately, I am sure, citizenship
    and will make extraordinary American citizens if they get to
    that point.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much, and we
    look forward to working with you.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you
    for coming here, for your willingness to serve our country, and
    your willingness to talk to us today.
        I believe that the great majority of those who have come to
    the United States in violation of our laws have probably done
    so for very sympathetic reasons and have probably been living
    their lives in a way that, aside from the illegal manner in
    which they chose to enter the country, are otherwise living
    good lives, respectable lives.
        This fact does not--and I do not think ever can--vest them
    with the right to citizenship, and it certainly cannot override
    the need that we have to ensure that U.S. citizens are
    protected from violence, including the type of violence that
    might result from someone who came here who should not have
    come here, someone with a known criminal record who has been
    allowed to remain here in violation of our laws.
        I have spoken at length in other hearings and on the floor
    of the Senate about some concerns I have about the use of a
    legal remedy known as parole within our immigration law. For
    those who are not steeped in immigration law, parole is a very
    narrow exception, one that allows a person to enter the country
    temporarily. The law governing parole within the immigration
    context is fairly specific. It points out that this needs to be
    narrow, and it needs to be either for urgent humanitarian
    reasons on the one hand or a significant public benefit on the
    other hand.
        This temporary parole is meant to allow people to enter the
    country for temporary, finite occasions, such as the need to
    get medical treatment. That would be an urgent humanitarian
    reason to allow someone to get parole. Or if we are talking
    about significant public benefit, we might add to that the
    hypothetical of someone needing to come in to testify as a
    witness at a trial.
        These things are temporary, and they are time sensitive.
    The temporary nature of parole and its narrow nature is very
    important because once you have been granted parole, if you
    have been paroled into the country, you have removed an
    otherwise present and significant legal impediment to gaining
    access to citizenship. If parole is abused, if it is granted
    excessively, indiscriminately, or outside of the framework of
    what the law allows, this, you can understand, could really
    create a giant gaping hole in our immigration laws.
        The President has cleverly, and some might say
    surreptitiously, spread the definition of parole wide enough to
    give DACA and DAPA recipients access to citizenship in
    circumstances in which citizenship would otherwise be not
    available to them. We are now seeing the President expanding
    that program again, expanding yet again the use of parole.
        First, as Vice President Biden announced in November, the
    Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are
    establishing a refugee parole program that would allow those
    who failed to get refugee status to enter the country under
    parole. I reiterate, parole is meant to be a temporary
    admission to get past the border on a case-by-case basis,
    either for urgent humanitarian reasons or for a significant
    public benefit. It is not a substitute for refugee status and
    should not be used to permanently relocate nonrefugees to the
    United States where refugee status is not available.
        Second, the President announced in a report released just
    last week that the Department of Homeland Security will propose
    an expanded parole program for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are
    valuable. We all love entrepreneurs in this country. In fact,
    we have a lot of programs that are designed specifically to
    help encourage more entrepreneurs, not just within the United
    States but to come here from other countries, because we like
    entrepreneurs. Any program that encourages entrepreneurs to
    come into the United States, to this country, should be
    established by statute, by law, not shoehorned into a narrow
    exception that is meant to allow the administration to step
    outside the normal process only under extraordinary
    circumstances.
        Mr. Rodriguez, we will start with you. Do you believe these
    programs are consistent with the limited intent and the
    temporary nature of statutory text regarding parole?
        Director Rodriguez. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
    The short answer is yes, I do, and I do precisely for the point
    that you made, which is that these are programs that are meant
    to be limited--they are meant to either afford a permanent
    immigration benefit--nor are they meant to be utilized by
    everybody.
        Senator Lee. You agree with my characterization of the----
        Director Rodriguez. I do not agree with your
    characterization of the programs. I agree with----
        Senator Lee. You agree that they are limited?
        Director Rodriguez. That is correct, that these programs
    are limited. When we talk about the Central American Minors
    Program, it is a limited number of individuals who will be able
    to seek parole. There are very specific requirements, very
    specific circumstances which afford people that parole, and
    parole is, as you say, a temporary program.
        Senator Lee. Okay. You agree that it is intended to be
    temporary and limited. Yet when we look at--in the DACA
    application for advanced parole, there is a form called Form I-
    131, and it defines the statutory term ``significant public
    benefit,'' again, which historically was understood to refer to
    something like the need for someone to come into the country to
    testify at a trial. It defines that to include semester-abroad
    programs and meetings with clients. Do you think that is a fair
    interpretation of the statute? Is it fair to shoehorn meetings
    with clients or semester-abroad programs into significant
    public benefit, something intended to give somebody the right
    to enter the country to testify at a trial?
        Director Rodriguez. Understand what we are talking about
    when we talk about the advanced parole. These are individuals
    who are participants in a deferred action, not a parole
    program, whose ability to temporarily remain in the United
    States is under a Deferred Action Program. They are-----
        Senator Lee. Okay. If it is not a parole program, then why
    are you using parole for them?
        Director Rodriguez. That is basically the manner in which
    those individuals on either a humanitarian or significant
    public interest basis are able to then reenter the United
    States.
        Senator Lee. Reenter the United States----
        Director Rodriguez. It permits them to temporarily leave
    the United States and then return to the United States.
        Senator Lee. When they return, they have had a significant
    impediment that would otherwise exist to their pathway to
    citizenship lifted.
        Director Rodriguez. It does not make them qualify for
    either legal permanent resident status or for citizenship. In
    fact, like anybody else, they need to have an actual basis.
    There must be a family member----
        Senator Lee. Correct--no, it is not independently adequate.
    It removes an impediment that would otherwise be there, namely,
    by virtue of the fact that they entered illegally, that would
    impede them from getting a green card but for the use of
    parole. Isn't that right? Is that correct?
        Director Rodriguez. It is correct to a point, sir. The
    critical aspect is they need to qualify for whatever the basis
    is, be it for residence, for a visa, for citizenship. They need
    to qualify that. Advanced parole will not make them qualified.
        Senator Lee. It will not make them qualified, but it is a
    condition precedent, a condition without which they could not
    otherwise have gotten there. You have distorted this law. You
    have manipulated it beyond what the statutory text would bear,
    and that does cause me great concern. I see I am over my time.
    Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Lee. That is a
    technical and important issue. It will be Senators Vitter,
    Perdue, and Tillis, in that order. Senator Vitter.
        Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
    thank the Full Committee Chairman and Senator Flake for a lot
    of work and cooperation with me on legislation which we want to
    bring forward and will be bringing forward to stop sanctuary
    cities policy, to put teeth in existing Federal law which says
    that local law enforcement has to cooperate with immigration
    enforcement. I thank you. You have been very active on that,
    and the Full Committee Chairman and Senator Flake and others
    who were working with me on that, and hopefully I think we are
    going to move that soon in Committee.
        Thanks to you both for your service. Ms. Saldana, the White
    House, through the press secretary, recently suggested that the
    murder of Kate Steinle was made possible because Republicans
    refused to pass the large immigration bill, which included an
    amnesty, during the last Congress. Do you agree with that?
        Director Saldana. Sir, I decline to engage in this
    political discussion. I am just interested in law enforcement
    and making sure that the immigration laws are enforced.
        Senator Vitter. Okay. Do you agree or disagree with that
    suggestion?
        Director Saldana. I have no opinion one way or the other. I
    am focused on a very important job under the immigration laws
    and really would prefer to work on that and answer questions
    related to that than political questions. That just does not
    advance the ball for----
        Senator Vitter. I agree it does not advance the ball, and I
    agree Josh Earnest's statement was insulting to a lot of
    people, including the victims.
        Let me ask you this. How is your action to block sanctuary
    city policy through the Priority Enforcement Program going to
    be any more effective than it has been through the Secure
    Communities Program? Obviously, it has been completely
    ineffective through that.
        Director Saldana. Lots of controversy, lots of litigation
    arising out of the Secure Communities. The differences are
    significant, particularly, I believe, as we talk to more
    jurisdictions, they will see this more clearly, the
    distinctions are material.
        For example, one of the problems in that Clackamas County
    case was that there is no basis to detain someone at the State
    or local level beyond 48 hours, which is what our request was,
    to detain them 48 hours beyond what their underlying offense
    called for.
        Under PEP, we will have--we are only asking for 48 hours'
    notice before the release of an individual, unless we have
    probable cause, in which case we have got indications of a true
    violation with evidence that we can show the local
    jurisdiction. Then we ask for detaining that person the 48
    hours.
        Senator Vitter. Under this new policy to try to stop these
    abuses from happening, first of all, I am glad that we are
    finally doing this from the administration. Under this new
    policy, what is going to happen if and when the local
    jurisdiction does not comply?
        Director Saldana. This is one of the things I am
    considering. I, along with the victims this morning, do not
    want to see their lives go--you know, without being----
        Senator Vitter. I hope we can all agree about that, but the
    bottom line is there is no consequence now, there are no teeth
    now. Nothing happens to these local jurisdictions. If this is a
    brand-new day brought on by these horrific incidents, what is
    going to happen to these local jurisdictions?
        Director Saldana. I am in the middle of looking at that
    because, as you know, we just started implementing PEP within
    the last couple of weeks.
        Senator Vitter. You do not know that anything is going to
    happen to them.
        Director Saldana. No. We are going to work toward that,
    sir. I want to talk to more jurisdictions to understand exactly
    what the problems are with respect to their accepting our--
    cooperating with us. Once I understand their local problems, I
    think I can help them better to help figure out a solution. I
    do not want to be one of these people that comes in and says--
    --
        Senator Vitter. After you say, ``Pretty please,'' three
    times----
        Director Saldana [continuing]. ``I am the Federal
    Government, and I am here to help you.''
        Senator Vitter. After you say, ``Pretty please,'' three
    times and they do not comply, is there going to be any negative
    consequence?
        Director Saldana. I am looking at that, sir, and working
    with the Secretary to see what we can do with respect to that.
        Senator Vitter. You have not determined yet that there will
    be any negative consequence?
        Director Saldana. The program has been in effect for about
    3 weeks, sir. We just started. We asked for a chance.
        Senator Vitter. There were some victims' families here who
    asked for a chance, and their chance is gone in terms of their
    family member. Three weeks--this has been going on for years,
    and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going
    to be any negative consequence to those jurisdictions. When is
    that going to change?
        Director Saldana. I presume when you all address
    comprehensive immigration reform, perhaps it can be addressed
    there.
        Senator Vitter. Oh, now, we are going to the Josh Earnest
    line, right?
        Director Saldana. The what, sir?
        Senator Vitter. Ridiculous. We are going to the political
    line you just disavowed.
        Director Saldana. Comprehensive immigration reform to me is
    not political. It is an essential legislative effort to try to
    get----
        Senator Vitter. Absent Congress passing that bill that you
    and the Obama administration prefer, you do not think right now
    we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting Federal law? You do
    not think right now there can be any negative consequences when
    they do not properly cooperate under existing Federal law with
    immigration enforcement?
        Director Saldana. That is what I understand you all are
    working on.
        Senator Vitter. Are you working on it? You have the
    authority to do that now.
        Director Saldana. Sir, not according to certain
    jurisdictions. A court, a Federal district court in Oregon, for
    example, has ruled against us on mandatory detainers, even
    citing the language that says ``shall.'' I am looking forward
    to looking at the legislation that is being proposed to address
    these questions. I want a solution, too, sir.
        Senator Vitter. We have been asking for a solution to that
    about sanctuary cities for years. There has been absolutely no
    effort from the administration before. There is a promise of an
    effort, but still today after these tragedies, you are not
    prepared to say that you support any negative consequence to
    sanctuary city jurisdictions if they do not properly cooperate.
    I eagerly await you all to finally say that, to finally say,
    yes, there needs to be some consequence, because that is the
    only way it is going to stop throughout hundreds of
    jurisdictions around the United States.
        Director Saldana. Senator Vitter, I offer you my assurance
    if you would like my input with respect to any legislation you
    propose to try to resolve this or advance the ball.
        Senator Vitter. I am asking for your input right now. What
    should the negative consequence be that you will support?
        Director Saldana. I am hopeful that I do not have to hit
    somebody over the head with a Federal hammer and work with
    these State and local jurisdictions, which have their own
    specific problems to address. I think you understand that,
    Senator, and that is why I would like to work with you to try
    to address it jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
        Senator Vitter. Unfortunately, the biggest thing I
    understand is that you are not prepared today as we speak, even
    after these horrible tragedies, to support a single negative
    consequence against a sanctuary city jurisdiction if they do
    not properly cooperate with immigration enforcement. That is
    unfortunately the biggest thing I understand. If that is
    incorrect, please tell me how. I am eager to hear that.
        Director Saldana. It is incorrect.
        Senator Vitter. Okay. What negative----
        Director Saldana. I would love to see----
        Senator Vitter [continuing]. Consequence will you support?
        Director Saldana. Whatever you all propose with respect to
    legislation, I would like to work with you on it to see what we
    can do to help our communities as opposed to put road blocks in
    their way in their community policing.
        Senator Vitter. Will you tell us what you would support in
    that regard right now?
        Director Saldana. You know, sir, I am so focused on trying
    to correct the problem through our PEP program that I would be
    happy to work with you with respect to any legislation you
    propose.
        Senator Vitter. Thank you.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Vitter. I would note
    there was nothing in the Gang of Eight comprehensive bill that
    fixed the sanctuary city problem. It was just one of the
    loopholes in that legislation. Senator Perdue.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to both
    of you for being here today. This is a tremendously important
    crisis, as I would call it, not just an immigration crisis but
    a national security crisis. There are only 6 reasons why 13
    Colonies got together in the first place--6 reasons--and one of
    those was to provide for the national defense. We heard from
    six families this morning. There are many other thousands out
    there who have similar experiences, including in my home State,
    with similar tragedies. We both have got to work together and
    solve this thing.
        We heard this morning that between 2000 and 2014, over 100
    convicted criminal aliens were released and then subsequently
    arrested again for murder after they had been released. Those
    convicted criminals were in our communities because the
    Government let them go free instead of deporting them.
        In 2013 alone, ICE released over 36,000 criminal illegal
    immigrants into American communities. These illegal aliens had
    almost 90,000 convictions on their records, including 193
    murder convictions and over 16,000 drunk-driving convictions.
        All told--and I know this is a debatable number, but all
    told, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, there
    are over 340,000 criminal illegal immigrants walking the
    streets right now. I would argue that this is a national
    emergency. It is absolutely outrageous, in my opinion. I do not
    think there are innocent parties in this debate.
        In 2000 in my home State, we had a 16-year-old kid killed
    by an illegal immigrant. Today, 15 years later, the perpetrator
    of that crime is still at large. This is unconscionable when
    you hear the stories of these families. We could bring
    thousands in here. It is time for us to do something.
        I just have a real quick question, Director Saldana, and
    thank you for your service in Texas and now nationally. If you
    had this perpetrator in California in your custody--you had
    answered this question earlier. I just want to ask it again for
    clarity. What is ICE's policy? What are you driving in your
    organization? How would you have treated this particular
    incident where they were released back to the custody of the
    authorities in San Francisco?
        Director Saldana. As we mentioned earlier, the difference
    between a criminal warrant and a notice of detainer from ICE,
    we expect for other jurisdictions to respect the court orders
    that we get when we get a judicial warrant or a criminal
    warrant. So we----
        Senator Perdue. What if they do not?
        Director Saldana. That is not an issue we have when it
    comes to court orders. We take them to court then and say this
    individual--this jurisdiction has failed to honor this court
    order. I mean, that has teeth, right, when it is coming from a
    Federal judge or even a local judge. Then we ask other
    jurisdictions to honor our criminal warrants that we get in our
    investigations. To us it is a mutual benefit, and we would
    honor that criminal warrant typically.
        The Secretary testified last week on something I know he
    and I are going to have many more conversations about, and that
    is, what more could be done to try to ensure that where we have
    a jurisdiction that is not cooperating with us, that we work in
    this case with the Bureau of Prisons or someone else to try to
    ensure we get custody of that person.
        Senator Perdue. I want to come back to the Bureau of
    Prisons in just a second, but in that particular case, I am a
    little confused because--and this is not a trick question, but
    I want to know that the policy is consistent in your
    organization about how you would have treated that particular
    perpetrator, because just last week one of your senior
    officials inside your staff told the Judiciary Committee staff
    that, in their opinion, ICE would have done exactly the same
    thing as the BOP did in that particular instance and would have
    released that individual back to the authorities in San
    Francisco. Is that pretty much correct?
        Director Saldana. That is correct, sir. Here is the deal.
    Here is how, typically, law enforcement works. We have a
    criminal warrant signed by a judge. We call the jurisdiction--
    or we see that, and we call the jurisdiction and say, ``Are
    you--is this still a live warrant? Are you going to pursue
    prosecution?'' We work with that jurisdiction. If the answer--
    depending on what the answer is, we work with that jurisdiction
    to ensure where are we going to get the biggest bang for our
    buck. Is it the State prosecution or the Federal prosecution?
    That is where that cooperation is so important and why I truly
    recommend against forcing these jurisdictions, because that
    breaks relationships.
        Senator Perdue. I am not worried about relationships. I am
    worried about results, and right now we have got cities not
    adhering to Federal law. I just think that is a tremendous
    problem whether it is regarding immigration or highway issues.
        Let me change topics. We just mentioned PEP earlier. You
    know, we sent a letter, several Senators sent a letter to
    Secretary Johnson a couple weeks ago. We still have not
    received a response yet, by the way, but we are concerned about
    PEP. I really believe that, as we said to the Secretary, it is
    pretty clear that PEP will lead to the release of additional,
    maybe thousands of additional criminal aliens from Federal
    custody. I am really concerned about what effect that could
    have just like we heard this morning.
        Let me ask you this. With regard to these communities and
    PEP, given that these communities did not previously honor ICE
    detainers or cooperate with Federal immigration at all, why do
    we have confidence that they are going to work with us on PEP?
    Why do we think that is going to be a better approach?
        Director Saldana. Because of the distinction, the
    differences that we have weaved into the new PEP program. I
    mentioned one earlier, and that is, we are removing the
    objection, the constitutional objection that we are detaining
    people or asking for them to hold people without a basis. They
    have already completed their State or local sentence, and so
    now we are saying, okay, do not hold them 48 hours in the
    typical situation, just give us notice of 48 hours before.
        We have got some differences to communicate to them and to
    show them, and I think they make a difference in many cases. I
    do not know--I do not remember if I shared with you, Senator. I
    would like you to know this. We have identified the top 49
    jurisdictions that have the greatest impact based on their
    illegal populations, and 33 have already said they are going to
    work with us in one way or another. Eleven are still in the
    process of considering it. We are going to keep working that,
    and that will have a great impact.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you. Director Rodriguez, I am almost
    out of time, but I want to talk about the Martinez case with
    regard to the exception relative to gang membership and the
    potential loophole. I mean, this seems pretty obvious to me. We
    talked about this in an earlier Committee hearing, but I would
    like to get your opinion on isn't this just another loophole
    for someone to falsely claim a threat that if they were to go
    back home, they are under threat, therefore they should get
    asylum here?
        Director Rodriguez. It is certainly our view that, you
    know, you should not be able to use your prior criminality as a
    way to claim a particular social group. We do think that
    rulemaking is the right path to resolving the right way to
    handle this issue, and we can certainly meet, Senator, and talk
    more about solutions to the issue that you have presented.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Flake, are we going to Senator
    Tillis, or are you going next? Is that--Senator Tillis. All
    right. Thank you.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Saldana and
    Director Rodriguez, thank you for your service. I know you have
    got a tough job.
        A lot of people have quoted some numbers, but I want to
    make sure that we unify around what I think are very, very
    important numbers. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates
    that there are some 347,000 criminal immigrants at large today.
    According to a March 2d report, ICE Weekly Departures and
    Detentions Report, there are 168,000 convicted criminal
    immigrants who had final orders of removal but are now at large
    in the United States.
        In 2013, I think that Senator Perdue mentioned there were
    some 36,000 aliens released. They represented a total of 88,000
    convictions: 193 homicide convictions, including one willful
    killing of a police officer with a gun; 426 sexual assault
    convictions; 303 kidnapping convictions; 1,075 aggravated
    assault convictions; 1,160 stolen vehicles; 9,187 dangerous
    drug convictions; and 1,670 drunk-or drug-driving convictions.
        After they were released--now, that is what they mounted.
    By the way, that is on average, if my back-of-the-napkin math
    is right, releasing someone who is convicted of a homicide some
    two or three times a week.
        After these people were released, 1,000 were convicted of
    another crime following their release. This is a significant
    problem. Those stats were only for 2013. We could quote stats
    before and after that. It is a serious problem, and I think
    that it is something that the sanctuary cities need to
    recognize.
        Senator Saldana--or Director----
        Director Saldana. Quite a promotion, sir. Thank you.
        Senator Tillis. I am not sure.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis. I guess I am a little bit confused with the
    PEP program. I understand that you are trying to work with
    local law enforcement, but to a certain extent it seems to me
    that we are really excusing the fact that they are not really
    reading at least the spirit of the law, and some would say the
    letter. We have talked about whether or not we should pass
    legislation to be very specific about the mandatory
    requirements, and you do not want to do it, and it seems to me
    that a part of that is because you are concerned with the
    relationship damage that could be done by forcing them. Is that
    accurate?
        Director Saldana. Sir, as I said, the local--our local law
    enforcement relationships are vital, not just to what we do in
    immigration. I mentioned Homeland Security Investigations
    earlier. We rely on our local law enforcement partners to
    assist us with crime that is part of the Homeland Security
    investigations----
        Senator Tillis. I understand that, but shame on them if
    they all of a sudden are not going to cooperate on these other
    matters of homeland security, because we want to take a very
    specific direct stand that they should obey the law. I mean,
    that to me is like, well, we will do a favor here, cut them
    some slack so they will work with us. That is their job. That
    is what they are sworn to do.
        Director Saldana. Yes, and just because I have worked here
    in law enforcement over a decade, I just want to be sure you
    understand. Most of the jurisdictions work with us every day.
    Thank goodness they do. Let me set some context here. I think
    mentioned about a little over 200 jurisdictions that are not,
    that have passed some kind of ordinance or other legislation
    not to work with us. There are thousands of jurisdictions that
    do already. I am very proud of my home State of Texas that has
    254 jurisdictions in it, and we have very good relationships
    with 99.9 percent of those. Please do not assume that these 208
    represent the total number of--the vast majority of
    jurisdictions out there.
        Senator Tillis. I understand. I do think, though, that we
    need to keep in mind that the numbers that I went through are
    significant, and each and every year there is roughly the same
    sorts of numbers. This is a significant challenge. I do not
    feel like for the bad--what I would consider bad actor cities,
    sanctuary cities, shame on them. They need to cooperate with
    you all. You need to be able to do your job. They need to help
    you do your job, not because it is some sort of favor or
    accommodation, but because that is their responsibility.
        The last question that I have relates to the DACA program,
    and, Director Rodriguez, this may be appropriate for you. I
    asked the Secretary when he was here if he felt certain--you
    are probably familiar with the Rangel-Hernandez quadruple
    murder down in Charlotte, 20 minutes from where I live. That
    was someone who was granted deferred action, determined he did
    have some affiliation with gang violence, and he was one of the
    cases that I think spurred your review of the other actions.
        Are you absolutely certain that we have scrubbed those who
    have received deferred action and that we do not have another
    Rangel-Hernandez out there waiting to happen?
        Director Rodriguez. I will take that as really two
    questions. The first is, am I absolutely certain? I am
    satisfied that my staff engaged in a very thorough process of
    running the entire DACA cohort back through the law enforcement
    databases that we use to identify gang membership. I do believe
    that the label of gang member in that database is a reliable
    label so that if the individual is identified, that gives us
    what we need to either deny them outright or to conduct further
    investigation. So, that as we speak today, that does leave me
    with confidence that as of the date that we did that review, we
    were able to address all cases of gang membership.
        If we have future cases where people either become gang
    members or commit crimes, we will address those, as we have. We
    will terminate DACA in the manner that we have in other cases.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Flake.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Saldana, in
    response to a letter that I sent to you, along with Chairman
    Grassley, you mentioned that in the Altamirano case, he, quote,
    ``posted $10,000 bond after his immigration hearing, which
    means that he became obligated to report to ICE upon demand,
    and that at the time of the most recent criminal offense, ICE
    had not triggered his obligation to report on demand.''
        He was released from custody in January 2013. He was
    arrested for murder January 22, 2015, over 2 years. Was there
    any contact with ICE during that period between ICE and Mr.
    Altamirano?
        Director Saldana. He was in proceedings. He is involved
    with the court, with the immigration courts. Whether ICE had
    some communication with him in that 2-year period, I do not
    know, Senator.
        Senator Flake. Do you know if the immigration court or
    anybody had any contact with him?
        Director Saldana. You know, I have not looked at that
    specifically, sir.
        Senator Flake. Is that typical for somebody to go 2 full
    years with seemingly no contact at all?
        Director Saldana. It can happen given the half-a-million-
    case backlog with the immigration courts.
        Senator Flake. ICE's policy for triggering a convicted
    alien's obligation to report, you mentioned that you did not
    see him because there was nothing that triggered an obligation
    to report. Has that policy been changed in terms of triggers
    for reporting? In light of this case and others, has there been
    any change?
        Director Saldana. Not that I am aware of, sir.
        Senator Flake. How many times has ICE revoked bail for
    those that have been put out on bail like this?
        Director Saldana. Oh, it happens with some regularity. I
    cannot give you a percentage, but I am happy to provide that to
    you for a specific period.
        Senator Flake. One thing that was just striking about this
    is the lack of cooperation and coordination and even
    notification between Federal and local officials. In response
    to the letter that Chairman Grassley and I sent to you, you
    mentioned that ICE is working to implement a new initiative
    called the ``Law Enforcement Notification System,'' or LENS. In
    your testimony, you mentioned that LENS has been deployed in 11
    States, and full implementation is expected by the end of the
    year. What is stopping that from being implemented in the other
    39 States?
        Director Saldana. Because we have to work with each State
    office that gets notices out to their counties and communities.
    Some, like mine, have a lot of counties. It is complex. We have
    to make our systems compatible to talk, and so we started with
    3 States as test cases, Texas being one of them. It worked
    pretty well there. We have expanded it now to a total of 11,
    and there is a period of time that you have to work out kinks,
    because we want to be sure to get this right, and that is what
    we have been going through right now, is just the test program.
    We passed that. We now have expanded it to the 11. We are
    liking what we are seeing, and I think we will be there by the
    end of the year.
        Senator Flake. Is this being handled with a little more
    urgency now?
        Director Saldana. I would like to see it done earlier than
    the end of the year, sir. I will stay on it, I assure you, to
    make sure it gets done as quickly as we possibly can.
        Senator Flake. By the end of the year, you believe that we
    will be able to say that in all 50 States we have better
    notification requirements?
        Director Saldana. Yes, sir.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. Ms. Saldana, in Director
    Rodriguez's testimony he mentioned that 43,375 new DACA
    requests were denied; 414 renewal requests have been denied. Of
    these approximately 44,000 denied requests, how many have been
    deported?
        Director Saldana. Of what requests? I am sorry, sir.
        Senator Flake. There are 43,375 DACA requests that were
    denied, and then 414 renewal requests have been denied. If
    somebody is not able to access DACA, then they are still
    eligible for deportation, or that is demanded. How many of
    those have been deported?
        Director Saldana. I cannot give you the specific number,
    but they go in--whether they are DACA or not eligible, sir, we
    look at ours the same way we do anybody else. DACA does not get
    them a free pass. We have to look at them on a case-by-case
    basis as to what is the next step, whether we detain someone,
    you know, what level of bond we place if we release them, that
    kind of thing. It is all done on the whole facts and
    circumstances surrounding that individual, including criminal
    history.
        Senator Flake. If they have done something or have an
    offense that makes them ineligible, you would assume that they
    are being looked at now. Can you give me any ball park of how
    many of those have been deported of the 44,000 DACA cases, that
    people who were not able to access DACA?
        Director Saldana. I assure you I will get that to you, sir,
    as soon as I can get someone to look at it and get us an
    accurate number for you. I would rather not throw out a ball
    park.
        Senator Flake. All right. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, in the
    case of the murder of Kate Steinle, the individual, Mr.
    Sanchez, was here in the country illegally, obviously. He had
    been deported five times. That means that he was able to come
    back across the border illegally five times. Obviously, border
    security is something that we are very concerned about in
    Arizona and this Committee is extremely concerned about.
        There is one program that we have had, Operation
    Streamline, in Arizona, a secure or assure consequences
    program, and it has helped significantly in Yuma. We have been
    able to bring repeat crossings down significantly. Yet the
    Department of Justice seems to be now backing away from that
    program. What are your thoughts there?
        Director Rodriguez. Senator, as you know, I administer the
    immigration benefits structure. I do not operate border
    security----
        Senator Flake. I understand that, but----
        Director Rodriguez. I certainly support border security. I
    am sure Commissioner Kerlikowske would be able to address those
    concerns that you have, sir.
        Senator Flake. They are serious concerns. We want to make
    sure the programs that we actually have working continue, and
    we have one that is working here in Arizona, and we are very
    concerned that it is not being fully implemented. The fact that
    Mr. Sanchez was able to so easily return across the border five
    times in the case in California is very disturbing, but not
    surprising, frankly. I thank you for your testimony. I
    appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Rodriguez. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Flake. The Streamline
    Program, I do not think either one of you operate that, but I
    hope you will fight for it, because backing away from it, as
    Senator Flake has said, was very much a retrograde step. We are
    also familiar with the 287(g). Ms. Saldana, you know--you talk
    about cooperating with State and local officials. Your
    Department, Homeland Security, has dramatically weakened the
    287(g) program, which trains local law enforcement officers how
    to properly and legally assist the Homeland Security in
    carrying out its function. Do you support the 287(g)? What is
    the status of that?
        Director Saldana. Yes. I am not sure what you are talking
    about with respect to weakening. We welcome any 287(g)
    partners, and it is not----
        Senator Sessions. I would ask you then to just check the
    records and see if there has not been a diminution of the
    287(g) program, which I think should be expanded regularly.
        Director Saldana. There has been, sir, but it is not
    because of us not wanting that partnership. It is because
    jurisdictions have either withdrawn or are not coming to the
    table anymore.
        Senator Sessions. We think it could be advanced and should
    be. Look, what the American people know and what the families
    of victims of violent crime know is that this administration
    has consistently and steadfastly placed the goal of amnesty
    above the goal of public safety. Time and time and time again,
    that has been the fact. You are just functionaries in that
    system. You have been asked to do a system, but within the
    rules been given by the political leaders. It is just not
    right, and it is wrong. We need to do more about that, and we
    need to see that end.
        If this administration had spent one-tenth of the effort on
    enforcement and protecting people from crimes and punishing
    people who are criminals who violate our immigration laws
    rather on amnesty, we would be a lot safer today. Many of the
    people that have been injured, robbed, or killed by illegal
    aliens would be alive today. That is just fact. Everybody knows
    it. I am concerned about it.
        Ms. Saldana, Chris Crane is the head of the association
    that ICE Officers Association, 7,000 officers. They are the
    ones that filed a lawsuit against your predecessor saying that
    he was ordering them to carry out policies that required them
    to violate their oath to enforce the law. I have never heard of
    anything like that.
        The statements, Mr. Rodriguez, that your officers said,
    12,000, led by Chris--Ken Palinkas, are just stunning in their
    criticism of supervisors and political leaders. Morale is down,
    and it is because they are not doing what they are paid to do,
    and they know it.
        This is what Mr. Crane says, Ms. Saldana, ``ICE is
    crumbling from within. Morale is at an all-time low as criminal
    aliens are released to the streets and ICE instead takes
    disciplinary action against its own officers for making lawful
    arrests. It appears clear that Federal law enforcement officers
    are the enemy, not those who break the laws,'' end quote.
        He goes on to say, ``ICE officers requested a meeting with
    President Obama and are still waiting. In that time, the White
    House has met with big business, big labor, illegal alien
    activists. The administration has ramped up its nonenforcement
    directives, putting officers and the public in danger. Every
    day, dangerous and violent criminal aliens are released back
    into our communities.''
        Those are the true facts of the situation here, and you can
    do better if you had leadership that would let you do better.
    We could do so much better. We have added thousands of officers
    since the last dust-up in 2007 over amnesty. We ought to be in
    a position that we can make real progress.
        Director Saldana. Senator, may I say something on that
    point?
        Senator Sessions. Yes, you may.
        Director Saldana. I am very--that is one of the first
    things that caught my attention when I joined the agency late
    last year or early this year. I am putting a lot of effort in
    trying to engage employees and what they do.
        I will tell you this, though, I have met with Mr. Crane
    several times now. I have met with Mr. Trumka, the head of the
    AFL-CIO, as well, to discuss our mutual--their concerns, our
    mutual interests, and I will say, when I get out in the field--
    this is somewhat inconsistent with the portrayal that you have
    just described of our employees. They are so proud of the work
    they do, and they are so proud of being able to focus on
    criminal convicted aliens and removing them from the country.
    They go about their business in a very efficient and good way,
    and they take pride in that. I just want to mention that to you
    because that is a fact. I mean, that is what I have seen as I
    have traveled across the country.
        Senator Sessions. I believe the facts show that this
    administration, in a host of ways, has failed to take strong
    action to help those officers do their duty and comply with
    their oath.
        Mr. Rodriguez, Secretary Jeh Johnson, your supervisor,
    testified recently before the House, and you said that,
    ``Comprehensive immigration reform, had it passed, we would
    know who the criminal aliens are.'' That is not so well said
    because I do not think anyone that has a criminal warrant out
    for them or has a history of criminal activities is going to
    register for any of these programs that you have got. In fact,
    Mr. Johnson admitted as much, saying, ``Most criminals do not
    subject themselves to criminal background checks.'' I agree
    with that.
        You are not saying, are you, that if we call for people to
    come and register on the DACA or the President's executive
    amnesty, that people with criminal records are going to waltz
    in and file with you so they can be arrested, are you?
        Director Rodriguez. Let me point out a few things, Senator,
    Chairman, if I may. One, some have, to their detriment. Even in
    the DACA program, some who had disqualifying criminal records
    did come and apply, and in many cases became the subjects of
    notices to appear. Part of my point also is that those who were
    not criminals, those who committed no other illegal act other
    than their illegal entry into the United States but who are not
    murderers, robbers, or rapists are now on the record so that
    should they become criminals down the line, we know who they
    are.
        For the most part, I think you are right. Your ordinary
    criminal will not register in the manner you described. They
    know what the detriment is.
        I would also, Senator, if I could, invite you to tour a
    field office with me, because if you did that with me, you
    would see what I have seen, is that our officers take pride in
    their work, they feel empowered in their ability to do their
    work, and they exercise their discretion, and the chips fall
    where they will, meaning that if there is a case to be denied,
    they do that. I have seen them do it firsthand.
        Senator Sessions. With regard to this DACA program and the
    process of providing a legal status to people in the country
    illegally, isn't it a fact that you have set it up so that
    there will not be in-person interviews for the people?
        Director Rodriguez. Yes, my point, it is----
        Senator Sessions. Isn't it a fact that experts tell us that
    an in-person interview is critical to a proper evaluation of a
    person who is applying for legal status?
        Director Rodriguez. We do do in-person interviews in those
    cases that raise concerns that need to be investigated by our
    officers.
        Senator Sessions. How do you know if it is going to raise
    concern if you have not met with them?
        Director Rodriguez. Because, again, another one of the
    things that I do is look through our files, and I know that at
    the time we are reviewing the file, there is extensive
    information about that individual, where our experienced,
    trained officers can identify if there is the kind of
    information about that individual that warrants an actual----
        Senator Sessions. Mr. Palinkas has been very clear in his
    opinion of what is going to work in the real world, and it has
    been set up so there will be very few in-person interviews, and
    he says that denies your officers the ability to make rational
    choices that can protect the public safety. I guess you just
    disagree with him on that.
        Director Rodriguez. I respectfully do.
        Senator Sessions. With regard to your processes, is it true
    that over 95 percent of the DACA applicants have been approved,
    or maybe 99 percent?
        Director Rodriguez. I would not be able to tell you the
    specific percentages other than to say that there are a
    significant number who have been denied or----
        Senator Sessions. You do not know what percentage have been
    denied?
        Director Rodriguez. I could not, as I stand before you,
    other than to say that it is a substantial number who have been
    denied because of criminality or national security----
        Senator Sessions. Would you say less than one-half of 1
    percent is a substantial number?
        Director Rodriguez. I would not say what the percentage is.
        Senator Sessions. You do not know? I mean, you are the
    Director of this program.
        Director Rodriguez. What matters to me is the manner in
    which----
        Senator Sessions. I just asked a question. What matters to
    me is what percentage are being denied.
        Director Rodriguez. Again, I could not tell you as I sit
    here before you. Again, I know that a significant number have
    been denied because of these kinds of----
        Senator Sessions. I am looking at a sworn statement by Mr.
    Palinkas in the lawsuit in Texas that we have referred to.
    ``According to the most recent data I have seen''--this is his
    quote under oath quote--``According to the most recent data I
    have seen, USCIS reports a 99.5-percent approval rate for all
    DACA applicants. The approval rate is high because USCIS
    leadership''--you--``prevented immigration officers from
    conducting case-by-case investigations of DACA applications.
    Leadership has intentionally stopped proper screening and
    enforcement, and in so doing, it has guaranteed that
    applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice
    that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public
    safety at risk.''
        I will ask you, does this process allow for person-to-
    person interviews for even a substantial minority of----
        Director Rodriguez. As I mentioned, when there are concerns
    that warrant such an interview, yes, the process does allow for
    it.
        Senator Sessions. It goes on to say, ``As explained above,
    by routing DACA applications through service centers instead of
    field offices all over the country, USCIS management has
    intentionally created an application process that bypasses
    traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained
    USCIS adjudications officers.''
        Now, the way this will work, I guess somebody sends in an
    e-mail or mails in a document--is that what they do?--and they
    are approved based on that?
        Director Rodriguez. There is obviously a lot of information
    that is collected----
        Senator Sessions. How? How is the information----
        Director Rodriguez [continuing]. From the requesters.
        Senator Sessions [continuing]. Collected?
        Director Rodriguez. There are specific items that are
    required as part of the initial request. There are requests for
    evidence that are subsequently sent to the requesters. There is
    a full suite of biographic and biometric checks to examine
    either criminal history issues or national security issues.
    That forms the entirety of a file. In those cases where those
    raise concerns, then, yes, those are referred for interviews.
        Senator Sessions. Let me show you--go further with what Mr.
    Palinkas said under oath. ``For example, a new USCIS computer
    system--a new USCIS computer system to screen applications
    known as Transformation has proved to be a disaster as the
    agency has spent upwards of $2 billion for a system that would
    eventually allow an alien, now referred to as a customer, under
    USCIS policy,''--as I previously stated--``to upload their own
    information via the internet for adjudication purposes.''
        There will be information sent through some $2 billion
    computer system by internet, and there will not be an interview
    of most of the applicants. Isn't that correct?
        Director Rodriguez. I am not sure that--no, I really do not
    agree with that premise at all, Senator. A few things.
        One, I believe we are--we have turned the corner on the
    transformation process. There is no doubt that historically
    there was a development approach that was not working. We
    recently launched the replacement green card; that has gone
    very, very well. It actually built a number of functionalities
    that we are going to be able to apply to other forms.
        The use of electronic filing as the means of receiving and
    then adjudicating applications does not change which programs
    will have interviews associated with them. That is not set to
    change as part of the transformation process.
        Senator Sessions. Look, it is not going to be an in-person
    interview. Mr. Palinkas has said for years now they are
    overwhelmed and cannot do the kind of proper background check.
    You need to be defending the people's public safety. If you
    need more money to do this, you need to ask for it. If you want
    to rubber-stamp the process, keep doing it the way you are
    doing it.
        Ms. Saldana, Section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code
    provides, among other things quote, ``a Federal, State, or
    local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any
    way restrict any Government entity or official from sending to
    or receiving from ICE information regarding a citizenship or
    immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual,''
    close quote.
        Don't you think that resolutions by city councils or State
    governments or sheriffs in certain jurisdictions directing
    their officers not to honor detainers or otherwise notify ICE
    that they have arrested someone that is unlawfully in the
    country could violate or would violate Section 1373?
        Director Saldana. You know, all of that is part of
    litigation, Senator. Quite frankly, I think we have taken that
    position in litigation that that is the case.
        Senator Sessions. That they did have to supply information?
    In other words, you have taken the position, which I think I
    understand you correctly, you are correct to say, cities, you
    have to comply with this law?
        Director Saldana. Yes. Again, is it more practical to work
    through all this morass of litigation? Or can we work with
    these jurisdictions to try to get them to cooperate? I think it
    is the latter.
        Senator Sessions. I understand you are saying that, but
    forgive me if I am not persuaded. This has been going on for
    many years. It came up in 2007 when we had a debate about all
    of this. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It has gotten
    to be--I think it is 300 or so jurisdictions that are sanctuary
    jurisdictions out of, what, 17,000 maybe? Some are very big
    cities that have very large immigrant populations. It is a huge
    matter, but most cities are cooperating. If you want to know
    what I hear, the complaints about the Federal Government
    enforcement from our law enforcement officers, it is that you
    will not allow them to help you, that if they arrest somebody
    and they call your office, nobody comes, nobody cares, nobody
    responds. That is the big problem we have got in the country,
    maybe bigger than the other.
        At any rate, I hope that you will understand, Ms. Saldana,
    that your talking with them is not going to change the
    situation. Do you have any cities that have indicated to you
    they are going to make a change in their policy?
        Director Saldana. I mentioned the numbers earlier, sir.
    Just as a matter of focus, we have looked at these 49 in
    particular, and 33 are working--have come and said that they
    will work with us in some way or another--again, tailored to
    their needs. We have only had 5 that really have said, of those
    49, no. We will continue working with them.
        Senator Sessions. I am sure that after all the events of
    the last few months, they certainly should be willing to listen
    about this. I have serious doubts that we are going to see any
    change unless Congress takes some action or unless this
    administration takes some action.
        Ms. Saldana, one problem I know you have that I am sure is
    frustrating to you is countries not taking back criminals that
    you have arrested and ordered deported. Can you tell us the
    status of that situation?
        Director Saldana. Yes. As you know, the Department of State
    obviously has a vast interest in this, and I have worked with
    the Department of State and met with the individual who
    oversees these relationships, and we are working very closely
    to try to open doors.
        I went to China a couple of months ago, Beijing in
    particular, and China has been a challenge for us. We signed
    together kind of an astounding agreement that they will
    actually have two people here to help process Chinese going
    back to the country who we are repatriating from this country.
    That is some progress. We continue to work with them. I have
    worked with South American countries. I visited Guatemala and
    El Salvador, and we continue to work with my counterparts there
    to try to ensure that we have--and we actually have signed a
    memorandum of understanding with them regarding their citizens.
        Senator Sessions. Working with them is one thing, but this
    has been going on for years also, many years. How long have you
    been in office?
        Director Saldana. Seven months.
        Senator Sessions. Seven months, so I cannot blame you for
    all that has gone on----
        Director Saldana. Oh, you can.
        Senator Sessions [continuing]. Over the years. I want you
    to know I understand that you have professional training and
    you understand the world. Are there powers and actions the U.S.
    Government can take without legislation that would put pressure
    on these countries to accept back individuals who we have
    ordered deported?
        Director Saldana. Obviously, this is in the province of the
    Department of State largely because there are relationships
    with international countries. Yes, I understand that they have
    some authorities to do that.
        As you know, Senator, it is a very complex picture when it
    comes to international relationships, and one agency's issues
    may not hold sway over the bigger picture in the relationship
    with that country.
        Senator Sessions. I remember Senator Specter, the former
    Chairman of this Committee, a number of years ago was outraged
    by all of this and actually offered legislation that would
    mandate reducing--or mandate a reduction of visas from
    countries that do not comply. Doesn't it cost you a lot of
    money and create huge time involvement in dealing with
    situations where a country will not take back one of their own?
        Director Saldana. It is a great challenge, sir, and that is
    where we face issues under Zadvydas, for example, where we
    cannot get papers of cooperation from those countries, and we
    actually have to release them under that Supreme Court opinion
    after a certain period of time.
        Senator Sessions. Under a Supreme Court opinion, if a
    country will not take them back and a year goes by?
        Director Saldana. I think it is actually more like 180
    days.
        Senator Sessions. One hundred eighty days, you have to
    release----
        Director Saldana. We can extend that period of time, but
    there is a point at which we have got to release them.
        Senator Sessions. That takes a lot of your officers' and
    agents' time and effort.
        Director Saldana. It does, sir.
        Senator Sessions. You have to pay to house people in high-
    quality prisons while you are waiting on this instead of being
    able to deport them promptly.
        Director Saldana. Yes, that is correct.
        Senator Sessions. I think--I have a recollection--was it
    Mr. von Raab, the Customs chief in years gone by, when he shut
    the border down with Mexico over some disagreement over their
    responsibilities? It caused quite a stir. He just closed the
    border. I would just say to you, Ms. Saldana, I think it is
    time for the State Department and your Department to stand up
    and say we are not going to accept this anymore. If you do not
    accept back promptly people we deport, then you are going to
    suffer serious consequences. Any relationship that deals in
    visas is a reciprocal relationship, isn't it? That if we accept
    people, then they agree to take them back. Likewise, if they
    accept individuals from the United States and they deport them,
    we accept them back. Is there a law that requires that? Or is
    that just State Department agreements with these countries?
        Director Saldana. I am sorry. You are way above my
    knowledge here when it comes to the State Department and----
        Senator Sessions. You are going to have to stand up to the
    State Department. It looks like we all are. This cannot
    continue. We do not have the money to continue to bicker with
    these countries for years and years and years and not get this
    matter settled. We will try to work on that, and I think
    legislation would be appropriate, too, although it is not
    necessary. If the President and the State Department stood up
    and were clear on it, it could be fixed promptly, in my
    opinion.
        I may submit some additional questions for the record, but
    we are having some problem getting answers to our questions.
    Mr. Rodriguez, when do you plan to send us your responses to
    our questions for the record following the March hearing on
    oversight of your agency?
        Director Rodriguez. As soon as possible. I thought we had
    satisfied all of those requests. We will make sure to get those
    to you as soon as possible.
        Senator Sessions. I do not believe we have.
        Director Rodriguez. If there are outstanding requests, I am
    obviously not happy about that, and we will act quickly to
    respond, sir.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you. The record will remain open
    for 1 week, and if there is nothing further--but I will say one
    more thing.
        Both of you are good law officers. You know how the system
    works, and I hope you know that things are not going as well as
    they should. A lot of that is because of administration policy.
    At some point you will have to decide whether you are going to
    execute that policy or not. Some of the policies I think cannot
    be defended. I respect your integrity, and I appreciate your
    commitment to your country and your service to your country.
    The hearing is adjourned.
        Director Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman.
        Director Saldana. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Miscellaneous submissions

     American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), November 13, 2014.........   190

     American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), July 21, 2015.............   186

     Archdiocese of San Francisco, statement..........................   201

     American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)..................   202

     American Immigration Council.....................................   206

     Center for Immigration Studies, Catch and Release................   212

     Center for Immigration Studies, Deportation Numbers Unwrapped....   220

     Center for Immigration Studies, ICE Document Details.............   236

     Center for Immigration Studies, ICE Enforcement Collapses Further
        in 2014.......................................................   240

     Center for Immigration Studies, Rejecting Detainers, Endangering
        Communities...................................................   249

     Cities United for Immigration Action (CUIA)......................   253

     Church World Service (CWS).......................................   255

     Court decisions relating to ICE detainers........................   199

     Jesuit Refugee Service/USA (JRS).................................   279

     Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force...........................   258

     Major County Sheriffs' Association...............................   263

     National Council of La Raza (NCLR)...............................   265

     National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA).......................   184

     National Immigration Law Center (NILC)...........................   273

     National League of Cities........................................   282

     National Organizations...........................................   269

     National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against
        Women.........................................................   277

     Praying for Healing..............................................   257

     Rains Lucia Stern, PC (RLS)......................................   280

     We Belong Together...............................................   283

     Wyman, Hon. Phillip, statement...................................   210

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]