[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS: MAGNET FOR MIGRANTS, COVER FOR CRIMINALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION INTEGRITY, SECURITY, AND ENFORCEMENT
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-069 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION INTEGRITY, SECURITY,
AND ENFORCEMENT
TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Chair
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Ranking Member
CHIP ROY, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey J. LUIS CORREA, California
TROY NEHLS, Texas MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
ROBERT F. ONDER, Missouri Vacant
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas Vacant
BRANDON GILL, Texas Vacant
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement from the State
of California.................................................. 1
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement from the
State of Washington............................................ 3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 6
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 6
WITNESSES
Sheriff Dale Wagner, Adam's County Sheriff's Department
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Testimony............................................. 12
Neill Franklin, Former Major, Baltimore City & Maryland State
Police Departments, Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Testimony............................................. 18
Danielle Carter-Walters, Chicago Resident
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Testimony............................................. 23
RJ Hauman, President, National Immigration Center for Enforcement
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Testimony............................................. 27
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement are listed
below.......................................................... 69
A letter to Elon Musk, Department of Government Efficiency,
Executive Office of the President, Mar. 10, 2025, submitted the
by Honorable Tom Tiffany, a Member Subcommittee on Immigration
Integrity, Security, and Enforcement from the State of Wiscons,
for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
An article entitled, ``Donald Trump Pardon Recipients Are
Being Charged With New Crimes,'' Jan. 30, 2025, Newsweek
An article entitled, ``Jan. 6 rioters pardoned by Trump had
criminal records: NPR,'' Jan. 30, 2025, NPR
An article entitled, ``Trump-appointed judge in Texas halts
deportations under Alien Enemies Act following SCOTUS
ruling,'' Apr. 9, 2025, Law and Crime News
A Case Summary entitled, ``Mercado v. Dallas Cnty., Jan. 17,
2017, Dallas Division, Northern District of Texas, The
United States District Court
A Case entitled, ``Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County,''
Apr. 11, 2014, Portland Division, District of Oregon, The
United States District Court
A Case Summary entitled, ``Morales v. Chadbourne,'' Jul. 17,
2015, First Circuit, The United States Court of Appeals
A Case Summary entitled, ``Santos v. Frederick County Bd. Of
Comm'rs.,'' May 15, 2013, Fourth Circuit, The United
States Court of Appeals
A Civil Action entitled, ``J.A.V., et al. v. Donald J. Trump,
et al.,'' Apr. 09, 2025, Brownsville Division, Southern
District of Texas, The United States District Court
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a
Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security,
and Enforcement from the State of Illinois, for the record
An article entitled, ``Immigrants Do Not Commit More Crimes
in the US, Despite Fearmongering,'' Oct. 17, 2024,
Immigration Impact
An article entitled, ``Immigrants are less likely to commit
crimes than U.S.-born Americans, studies find,'' Mar. 8,
2024, NPR
An article entitled, ``Study finds no crime increase in
cities that adopt `sanctuary' policies, despite Trump
claims,'' Oct. 21, 2020, Washington Post
Materials submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security,
and Enforcement from the State of Washington, for the record
An Press Release entitled, ``U.S. Citizen Sues Department of
Homeland Security Following Three And A Half Years In
Immigration Detention,'' Oct. 30, 2014, National
Immigrant Justice Center
An article entitled, ``Marine veteran was among US citizens
detained by ICE, ACLU says,'' Dec. 12, 2019, ABC News
An article entitled, ``Police say ICE tactics are eroding
public trust in local law enforcement,'' Mar. 30, 2025,
NPR
A Research Paper entitled, ``Immigrant Sanctuary Policies and
Crime-Reporting Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis of
Reports of Crime Victimization to Law Enforcement, 1980
to 2004,'' American Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 86(1)
154-185
An article entitled, ``The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on
Crime and the Economy,'' Jan. 26, 2017, Center for
American Progress
A Research entitled, ``The local effects of federal law
enforcement policies: Evidence from sanctuary
jurisdictions and crime,'' Dec. 14, 2021, Contemporary
Economic Policy
A Research Working Paper entitled, ``Can Sanctuary Policies
Reduce Domestic Violence?'' May 2020, The Center for
Growth and Opportunity, Utah State University
An article entitled, ``She told Michigan cops she was
attacked. Now she faces deportation by the feds,'' Mar.
28, 2025, Detroit Free Press
A Report entitled, ``Setting the Record Straight On Local
Involvement in Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement: The Facts
and The Laws,'' May 2017, The New York State Office of the
Attorney General, submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett,
a Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity,
Security, and Enforcement from the State of Texas, for the
record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Robert F. Onder, a Member of
the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and
Enforcement from the State of Missouri, for the record
A blog entitled, ``Another Fatally Flawed Study on Illegal
Alien Crime from the Cato Institute,'' Mar. 11, 2019,
Federation for American Immigration Reform
A report entitled, ``SCAAP Date Suggest Illegal Aliens Commit
Crime at a Much Higher Rate Than Citizens & Lawful
Immigrants,'' Feb. 2019, The Federation for American
Immigration Reform
An article entitled, ``Cato Institute's `Analysis' on Illegal
Alien Crime Latest in Long History of Poor Scholarship,''
Mar. 18, 2021, Federation for American Immigration Reform
SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS: MAGNET FOR MIGRANTS, COVER FOR CRIMINALS
----------
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security,
and Enforcement
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Tom
McClintock [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Jordan, Biggs, Van
Drew, Nehls, Moore, Hunt, Fry, Grothman, Knott, Onder, Schmidt,
Gill, Jayapal, Raskin, Nadler, Ross, Garcia, Crockett, and
Cohen.
Also present: Representatives Baumgartner.
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee will come to order. I
apologize for our late start. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare a recess at any time.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on sanctuary
jurisdictions. Without objection, Mr. Baumgartner will be
permitted to participate in today's hearing for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses, if the Member yields him time for
that purpose and to introduce a witness. I'll now recognize
myself for an opening statement.
Our Subcommittee meets today to address the continuing
efforts of Democratic jurisdictions to nullify Federal
immigration laws and to instruct law enforcement officials in
their vital efforts to uphold those laws. They self-righteously
call themselves sanctuary cities, but the sanctuary they offer
is to violent criminals who prey on not only our own citizens,
but on immigrant communities themselves.
During the last four years, the Democrats deliberately
trafficked into our country more than eight million unvetted
and illegal migrants, including some of the most dangerous,
vicious and violent criminals, and cartels in the world. They
did nothing when local law enforcement agencies from across
this country warned this Committee that foreign criminal
cartels and gangs were establishing themselves throughout the
country. The Sinaloa Cartel, Tren de Aragua, MS-13 prominent
among them. When the grieving families of the victims of their
policies were introduced on the House floor, the Democrats sat
in stony, contemptuous silence. When those same families warned
this Committee about the devastating effect of these sanctuary
policies, Democrats offered platitudes and implied they were
exaggerating the threat.
When local and Federal law enforcement officials warned
that these policies were endangering law enforcement officers
in the communities themselves, the Democrats ridiculed them.
Well, the American people finally had enough of Democrats'
gaslighting and callous disregard for public safety. For years
the Democrats had told us they were powerless to stop this mass
illegal migration without allowing at least 4,000 illegal
migrants a day into the country and offering amnesty to those
already here. Yet, on inauguration day, President Trump put the
lie to all of that. President Trump ordered our laws to
actually be enforced. Within weeks, illegal crossings at the
Southern border plunged 96 percent. Migrant caravans en route
to this country broke up in Mexico and dispersed.
Migrants crossing the perilous Darien Gap dropped 99
percent. By February, monthly illegal border crossings plunged
from $37,000 in February 2024, to 408 this past February. ICE
has now arrested more than 100,000 illegal migrants, most of
them with criminal records. With the Border Patrol refocused,
gotaways have fallen from 95 percent to an average of 1,800 a
day to 77.
Now the work before us is enormous. The largest illegal
mass migration in recorded mystery must now be followed by the
largest mass repatriation in history, and congressional
Republicans stand squarely behind the President. There is still
an estimated 600,000 on the nondetained docket that were set
loose in our country right behind them were 1.4 million illegal
migrants who have already received a final court order of
deportation that they will simply ignore. Now, instead of
recognizing and respecting the wish and will of the American
people to see their communities made safe again and their
borders made secure again, the Democrats continue to obstruct
the enforcement of our immigration laws. For the first time
since Antebellum days the Democrats have returned to their
doctrine of nullification, that recalcitrant jurisdictions can
simply defy and nullify Federal law.
Take Adams County, Washington, for example. When a rural
county sheriff's office had the audacity to cooperate with
Federal officials to remove dangerous illegals from their
streets, the State's woke Democratic Attorney General sued
them.
In Chicago, when lifelong residents begged their city
government to protect them, Major Brandon Johnson did
everything he could to silence them. In the Denver suburbs with
struggling families appealed to city officials for help as
armed Venezuelan gangs took over their apartment complex, the
Democrats called them liars. Before this Committee, as mothers
recounted the senseless, brutal, and entirely preventable rapes
and murders of their daughters at the hands of illegal aliens
that the Democrats had deliberately released into their
communities our Democratic colleagues put on their best long
faces, offered platitudes and then advocated for the same
policies that created this humanitarian disaster. They still
don't get it.
Across the country, Democratic sanctuary jurisdictions are
doubling down on these horrific policies. In February, in my
home State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom approved $50
million in State funds to be used for ``legal defenses against
the Trump administration,'' half of which is for nonprofits to
provide Legal Aid to aliens in removal proceedings.
Jurisdictions, like San Diego and Los Angeles, have hardened
their sanctuary policies to further thwart the enforcement of
our immigration laws. San Francisco leads a lawsuit against the
Trump Administration to try to prevent the administration from
withholding Federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that are
in open defiance of Federal law.
In December, the Boston City Council unanimously voted in
favor of keeping the city's sanctuary status. Last month,
Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson defended the city's sanctuary
status at a congressional hearing repeating discredited and
utterly absurd claims that returning criminals into our
communities actually make those communities safer.
Just today, it's reported that an illegal migrant from El
Salvador charged with previously sexually assaulting a 16-year-
old boy in Palmdale has now been arrested for the murder of a
13-year-old boy in Lancaster, California. These Democratic
sanctuary policies not only require the release of dangerous
criminals back into our communities in defiance of Federal law,
they place law enforcement at much greater risk, as officers
must now confront these criminals not when they are in custody
and not armed, but rather when they are at large and often
armed.
The Trump Administration is doing everything it can to
confront these dangerous policies. In one of his first
Executive Orders, President Trump directed law enforcement to
evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure the so-
called sanctuary jurisdictions would seek to interfere with the
lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations do not
receive access to Federal funds.
In February, President Trump signed an additional Executive
Order to ensure that Federal funds to States and localities
will not be used to support sanctuary policies or assist
illegal immigration. The administration has sued multiple
jurisdictions, including Illinois and New York for their
efforts impeding Federal law enforcement.
Without new laws, the next Democratic President will
undoubtedly reverse these policies and once again open our
borders to the worst criminal elements on the planet, and then
shield them under Democratic sanctuary policies. We cannot let
that happen. Congress must enact stronger laws that will
prevent a future Joe Biden from ever again placing our families
at risk. It will stop today's Democratic politicians from
impeding the enforcement of our immigration and public safety
laws.
Today, we will hear from several law enforcement and local
officials on their perspectives and suggestions as we pursue
this work, and I want to welcome them all here today. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to all our
witnesses, including Sheriff Wagner from my home State of
Washington. Good to see you here. Perhaps the Chair would have
this level of concern for the victims of senseless gun violence
across this country 47,000 people who were killed from gun
violence just in one year alone, or perhaps the chairman would
have this level of concern for the families of law enforcement
that were killed during the January 6th insurrection on the
United States Capitol. Or even the families that are suffering
from rising grocery prices and devastated retirement accounts,
thanks to Donald Trump's chaotic economic policy.
Ever since Donald Trump came into office, my colleagues
have been very happy to sit back and let him run completely
roughshod over our laws. President Trump, Tom Homan, and
Stephen Miller, all led to you believe that this attack on
immigrants was supposed to have been criminal immigrants. It
was supposed to be about people who threatened public safety.
Despite the fact that research clearly shows that immigrants
commit fewer crimes than Americans. They actually led you to
believe that they were for the immigrants who did things
legally. I can't tell you how many times on this Committee I've
sat here as my Republican colleagues say, ``We're not against
illegal immigration, we're for the people who do things
legally.'' They led you to believe that legal immigrants had
nothing to worry about, people on permanent resident status or
legal visa or legal status.
They even led you to believe that somehow getting rid of
immigrants would be good for American jobs, that it would bring
down costs for the American public. This was all about caring
for you versus them, some shady criminal immigrant that might
be invading our communities. Well, as people's 401(k) accounts
plummet with Trump's economic policies, as costs of everything
that Americans need to buy keep going up instead of down, the
effects of Trump's unconstitutional and unlawful actions
against all immigrants are causing fear and havoc in our
communities across the country. Let me be clear, Trump has
targeted immigrants who are here lawfully, spending refugee
admissions, a program that, by the way, was once hailed by both
Republicans and Democrats and the faith community everywhere as
the cornerstone of humanitarian assistance. They revoked the
program that created legal pathways for immigrants to enter
that effectively brought down the numbers at the border, and in
revoking student visas and green cards of legal permanent
residence, many of whom are married to U.S. citizens, they are
going after every single immigrant in America fabricating
stories about these immigrants being, quote, ``criminals'' even
deporting them to other countries in violation of Judicial
orders. All this leads us to ask once again as the 4th Circuit
said earlier this week in the case of a Maryland father who was
quote, ``mistakenly deported to a Salvadorian prison by the
Trump Administration.''
If due process is of no moment, what is stopping the government
from refusing and removing to return a lawful permanent
resident, or even a natural born citizen?
That is a quote from the judge in the decision. This obsession
to weaponize every part of the U.S. Government against
immigrants is hurting Americans. It is taking away critical
resources for crime prevention and counterterrorism, drug
interdiction, and other law enforcement at the Department of
Justice and Homeland Security investigations. Its terrorizing
immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members, including
those with no criminal background and with legal status.
Now, the Trump Administration wants to coerce State and
local law enforcement to help them round up immigrants by
threatening to cutoff their transportation and law enforcement
funds if they don't comply, even though multiple courts have
held that this is illegal and numerous research studies and law
enforcement officials have confirmed that keeping the long-
standing distinction between Federal immigration and local law
enforcement actually helps keep communities safer.
In 2019, my home State of Washington passed the Keep
Washington Working Act with bipartisan support. It is a
commonsense law to ensure that local policy remains focused on
public safety of all residents, rather than enforcing Federal
immigration law.
We know that when local police act as immigration agents,
immigrant communities and their families are less likely to
come forward to report a crime when they are a witness or even
a victim. It destroys the trust that police rely on to preserve
public safety in communities.
Courts have ruled multiple times that States have the right
to enact laws like Keep Washington Working Act. Despite what
you might hear today, the law does allow information-sharing
with the Federal Government when necessary for an ongoing
criminal investigation or pursuant to a court order or a
judicial warrant.
As the Trump Administration continues to bully and
intimidate the country to bend the knee, we won't be
intimidated. I fully support Attorney General Nick Brown's
efforts to ensure that everyone in our State follows our laws.
The Major Cities Chiefs Association has repeatedly
reaffirmed that across the country, if law enforcement officers
are viewed by members of the immigrant community as colluding
or working with immigration law enforcement officers and this
is a quote,
This would result in increased crime against immigrants in the
broader community, create a class of silent victims and
eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in
solving crimes or preventing future terrorist acts.
The Major Cities Chief Association has also explained that
cooperation with the immigrant community is a crucial part of
solving crime and preventing further criminal activity with the
entire community, including ensuring protections for victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault. Instead of trashing the
rights of every American and destroying communities and our
economy, this Subcommittee should be holding hearings on why
Mahmoud Khalil remains detained, simply for expressing pro-
Palestinian views that Donald Trump doesn't like; or why
Alfredo Juarez, a longtime labor leader, has been detained in
my State of Washington, apparently simply for organizing farm
workers for fairer wages; or why a local roofing company just
had a raid where 37 immigrants who are longtime residents in
our State, building affordable housing for our communities were
all picked up and jailed, or why the administration refuses to
return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States to reunite
with his U.S. citizen wife and his three children, even after
admitting to mistakenly deporting him to a Salvadorian gulag,
where he fears for his life.
Let's have a hearing, Mr. Chair, on the disappearing and
the kidnapping of people across this country, instead of
hurting public safety for all Americans by undermining trust
policies of local jurisdictions.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize the Chair of Full
Committee, Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair.
Here is how it works, I sent a detainer to the local
sheriff, or the local police chief and said, ``Hey, if you're
going to release this migrant, who we know is here illegally
who has been accused of some crime, if you are going to release
them, give us a heads-up 48 hours before you release them, give
us a heads-up.'' They do that because that protects everyone.
It protects law enforcement resources, it protects the public
from letting a guy out, it protects law enforcement when they
go to arrest this guy out on the street if they can do it in
the jail or in the local facility much better. Frankly, it
protects the illegal migrant. How do we know all that? Because
it just happened in Denver not too long ago. Denver is a
sanctuary city. ICE sent them a detainer. Well, they have this
guy in custody for 310 days. ICE sends them a detainer, Denver,
because of their sanctuary city policy says, ``No, no, we're
not going to give you a notice, we'll give you notice like 1
hour before and they released the guy to the streets.'' I
actually have the form where it says, stamp, release to and
there a blank, they write in the street. Then law enforcement
goes to arrest him. Guess what happens? A law enforcement
officer gets hurt, took resources, money to do that when they
could have just--because they had to send more agents. It hurt
the migrant himself, because they ended up tasing this guy,
when they could have just kept him in the jail, ICE comes
there, goes from the jail to handcuffing him to take him
wherever they are going to take them.
No, no, we can't do that because we're a sanctuary city.
Now, it has gotten even worse. If you're a sanctuary State,
they come after law enforcement, like Sheriff Wagner, who is
trying to do the right thing, use the resources in a proper
way, protect the migrant, protect law enforcement, and protect
the public.
No, we're a sanctuary city, we're going to release them to
the streets even though they had a detainer months before that
said just give us a heads-up and we'll come down and do it the
easy way. That's why the sanctuary cities policy; sanctuary
State policy is so darn ridiculous.
I appreciate the Chair having this hearing. I appreciate
our witnesses, particularly the law enforcement that we have
here on the front lines of this every single day. Thank you all
for what you do.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ms. Jayapal. Greetings
to the witness.
Donald Trump's ruinous tariffs and calamitous trade war
against the world, except for Russia, have crashed the stock
market and cost American workers and retirees and farmers $11
trillion in one week--one week. The Republican Majority in the
House could stop this nightmare today by exercising our powers
over international commerce. They prefer to own the tariffs own
the trade war. We'll see how well that works out for them going
into the future. It is certainly not working out well for the
American people. Now, desperate to displace attention from this
world historic economic debacle, and the fact that courts have
struck down more than 55 of their lawless, unconstitutional
Executive Orders and actions, they invite us to discuss against
immigration, so be it.
In New York City, Donald Trump's deportation force grabbed
green card holder Mahmoud Khalil for exercising his First
Amendment rights in a way that Donald Trump disapproved. Now,
they are trying to deport him, as well as other students across
the country, using the McCarthy-era statute that the
President's own sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, declared to
be, quote, ``unconstitutional on its face.''
Then, they tried to extra legally deport more than 100
Venezuelans, shackling them and putting them on plane down to a
self-proclaimed dictator's infamous mega prison in El Salvador
under a cover of night, based on an 18th century law about
wartime authorities called the Alien Enemies Act, which
palpably did not apply to this case because we are at
peacetime. Congress still has the power to declare war under
our Constitution, not the President.
Despite their best efforts to keep these removals a secret
until it was too late, attorneys for people on the plane filed
a lawsuit, and Judge Boasberg, a George W. Bush appointee,
issued an order to stop the removals while the planes were
hurrying to get in the air and were still in the air. Today,
the judge in that case will likely decide whether or not to
hold the administration in contempt for deliberately defying
the order to turn the removal flights around. On one of those
flights, the administration deported Kilmar Garcia, a Maryland
man, a father and a husband to American citizens, who had
illegal status called withholding of removal, a legal
immigration status that specifically blocked him from being
removed to El Salvador. He won his status after the government
falsely accused him of being a gang member and tried to deport
him during the first Trump Administration in 2019. Instead, he
was able to prove that he posed no threat to public safety, and
that on the contrary, he had well-founded fear of persecution
from the violent gangs back in El Salvador.
The first Trump Administration respected that ruling, but
this second iteration, the administration violated its legal
obligation and shipped him off to the Salvadoran mega prison to
be locked up in a cage with the very gang members whose
violence he had escaped. The administration admitted in court
that this deportation, which had absolutely no legal basis, was
done in ``administrative error.'' The judge ordered them to
return Mr. Garcia to the United States by midnight this Monday.
Rather than bring back the man they admitted they had
wrongfully deported, the administration placed the attorney who
argued the case on leave and decided to double-down and appeal
the order.
We've seen the administration conduct indiscriminate raids
that round up people with no criminal records, who have lived
in our country for decades, who own homes and pay taxes, whose
family members are U.S. citizens, and who pose no threat to
public safety. U.S. citizens have even been arrested and
detained by the deportation force as part of these reckless and
lawless raids. Now, the administration is trying to force State
and local law enforcement agencies to use their time, their
money and their resources to participate in these raids. Under
Article I, Congress has exclusive power over naturalization and
immigration. Under the Tenth Amendment, the Federal Government
has no power to, quote, ``commandeer'' the machinery personnel
or resources of the State and local government for Federal law
enforcement purposes.
The administration is using threats and coercion now to try
to force State and local governments and police departments to
use their limited resources to arrest and detain students,
fathers, mothers, and law-abiding community members, which
means fewer cops, less money, fewer resources to focus on
protecting communities from actual violent threats, and gangs,
and the scourge of gun violence and drugs and drunk driving and
so on.
There's no power in our Constitution to do that, something
I thought our colleagues believed in and respected in this
system of American federalism. These authoritarian policies
have nothing to do with law and order, they are about
intimidation and retaliation against disfavored populations.
State and local governments, immigrant communities, students,
lawyers who dare oppose the administration in court, and judges
who stand up to rule against Trump's continuing reign of
unlawful actions.
I look forward to hearing from our witness today. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses. I will begin by
deferring to Mr. Baumgartner to introduce our first witness.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to introduce the outstanding Sheriff of Adams
County, Mr. Dale Wagner.
Sheriff Wagner is a respected law enforcement leader who
made the decision to cooperate with Federal immigration
authorities to protect his community. Adams County is a small
rural county in eastern Washington that I have the privilege to
represent. Its people are the best in our district and indeed
the best of America. It is Dale Wagner in which they have put
their trust to enforce laws and protect their community. For
that, Dale Wagner now finds himself the target of a legal
campaign.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, this is not an introduction. So, if
the gentleman from my home State of Washington, my colleague
would like to introduce the Sheriff, he's welcome to do that,
but he is not on this Committee and he is solely here for the
purpose of introducing the sheriff.
Chair Jordan. The point's well taken.
Mr. Baumgartner. He started as a target.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, the gentleman is not complying with
your order.
Mr. McClintock. Will suspend. The gentlelady is correct in
her point of order. The unanimous consent covers an
introduction without editorial comment.
Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman will proceed in order.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chair?
Mr. McClintock. For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Mr. Cohen. Could I ask Mr. Baumgartner a question?
Mr. McClintock. No, not at this moment in the proceeding.
Mr. Cohen. He had me all interested in this county.
Mr. McClintock. Again, the gentleman is recognized to make
an introduction, that is what in order at this time.
Mr. Baumgartner. I'll keep it brief, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman will continue in order.
Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you.
I am very pleased Adams County Sheriff Dale Wagner is here.
I would just also point out we have eight outstanding sheriffs
in the State of Washington dealing with the fentanyl scourge
here with us as well today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Our other witnesses are Ms. Daniel Carter-Williams. Ms.
Carter-Williams is a Chicago resident and fitness trainer who
advocates for Chicago residents. She serves as Vice President
of the Chicago Flips Red, a grassroots movement dedicated to
empowering communities across Chicago to embrace bold,
conservative solutions for a brighter future.
Our third witness is Mr. Neill Franklin. Major Franklin
retired from law enforcement after a combined total of 34 years
in the Baltimore and Maryland State Police Departments. He is
currently the Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Action
Partnership.
Finally, we have Mr. RJ Hauman. Mr. Hauman is the President
of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement. He's also a
founder of the boutique firm Stryker Strategies and is a
visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation's border security
immigration center. He has worked in immigration enforcement
policy for more than a decade, including at the Federation for
American Immigration Reform.
I want to welcome all our witnesses today, thank them for
appearing. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please
rise and raise your right-hand?
Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that
the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the
best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you
God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you. Please know that your written testimony will be
entered into the record in its entirety and accordingly, we
would ask that you summarize your oral testimony in five
minutes. We will begin with Sheriff Wagner.
STATEMENT OF SHERIFF DALE WAGNER
Sheriff Wagner. Thank you very much for your time.
Good morning, my name is Sheriff Dale Wagner. I have
dedicated my career to serving the people of Washington State.
Law enforcement today faces unprecedented challenges, many
of which stem from political agendas, rather than public safety
concerns. One of the most pressing issues in this conflict
between Washington State, Keep Washington Working Act and
sanctuary policies and Federal immigration laws; the situation
that places all sheriffs in our State in an impossible
position.
Recently, Adams County became the target of a lawsuit of
Washington State Attorney General. Alleging violations that
Keep Washington Working Act over sanctuary policies. This
lawsuit is not about justice or protecting communities, it's
enforcing a political agenda that restricts law enforcement's
ability to cooperate with Federal authorities.
Adams County is a hardworking community built on
agriculture, perseverance, and strong family values. Spanning
approximately 1,925 square miles in Eastern Washington, our
county is home to farmers, ranchers and business owners who
contribute daily to our State's economy. The people of Adams
County are resilient and committed to maintaining a safe and
prosperous home for the future and family.
Our office operations by principle of service about self
and we police who we love, those are our friends and our family
and our neighbors. These sanctuary policies prohibit law
enforcement from working with Federal immigration agencies,
such as ICE and Border Patrol. Even individuals in custody have
committed serious crimes beyond immigration violations we are
barred from notifying Federal agencies or authorities on their
release. The result, repeat offenders, drug traffickers, and
violent criminals, and they remain in our community instead of
facing appropriate legal action.
While proponents claim sanctuary policies protect
vulnerable populations, they also shield repeat offenders who
exploit the system.
Criminal organizations, including drug cartels, human
traffickers, take advantage of these policies, knowing they
face minimal risk of deportation, even when caught committing
additional crimes. These sanctuary policies create confusion
and fear among law-abiding residents and citizens. This public
is misled into believing local law enforcement arrest people
solely based on immigration status, this is not true. It's not
true in my county.
Our office, like others across the State, do not arrest
individuals based on immigration status. Yet, the policies
create barriers that prevent victims and witnesses from
reporting crimes, fearing potential of immigration consequences
they do not fully understand. This makes it harder for law
enforcement to investigate crimes and protect the community.
Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the law and protect public safety.
However, sanctuary policies place us in an illegal bind,
forcing us to navigate conflicting State and Federal laws. We
must follow the State mandate that contradicts Federal law,
compromising our ability to enforce laws effectively.
Instead of focusing on crime prevention, we are caught in
the unnecessary legal battles that are wasting tax dollars and
diverting resources from critical public safety efforts.
When law enforcement cannot address repeat criminal
activity effectively, families, businesses, and their entire
community suffer. Hard-working residents should not have to
live in fear of criminals who exploit policies designed to
shield them from accountability. Public safety is a must, and
our priority, not political agendas. Rather than allowing law
enforcement agencies to work at local, State, and Federal
levels together, sanctuary policies force us to rearrest
individuals who could have been transferred to Federal custody,
this strains our jails, wastes tax money and puts residents at
unnecessary risk.
The solution is not to pit State and Federal authorities
against one another, but to ensure public safety remains a top
priority for everyone. Law enforcement should be allowed to do
its job without political interference. We must defend the
constitutional authority of the sheriffs and enforce the laws
that we protect our citizens with. We advocate for policies
that support law enforcement effort rather than hinder them;
continue hiring and training the best deputies and police
officers to uphold the highest standard of professionalism and
integrity; work with local, State, and Federal law enforcement
and community partners to maintain safe neighborhoods and
prioritize security over politics.
The people of Adams County have always supported law
enforcement, and we are proud to serve our community that
values law and order. Despite these challenges, we remain
steadfast in our mission to serve and protect. We will not back
down from our responsibility to uphold the law and keep or
residents safe.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Wagner follows:]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next witness is Major Franklin. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE FORMER MAJOR NEILL FRANKLIN
Major Franklin. Good morning, Chair McClintock and the Hon.
Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to testify today.
My name is Major Neill Franklin, and I am retired. I'm here
today representing myself having served a 34-year law
enforcement career in the Baltimore Police Department and in
the Maryland State Police, as well as representing the Law
Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), where I was the
Executive Director for an additional 10 years post-retirement.
Lieutenant Diane Goldstein is now the current Executive
Director.
LEAP is a nonprofit group of police, prosecutors, judges,
other criminal justice professionals, who speak from firsthand
experience. Our mission is to make the community safer by
focusing law enforcement resources on the greatest threats to
public safety in working toward improving police-community
relations.
While we strongly believe that effective border security is
imperative to public safety, we adamantly oppose any proposal
that would push sanctuary cities and mandate State and local
law enforcement to play a significant role in enforcement of
Federal immigration law. We believe routine civil immigration
enforcement by local officers would harm public safety by
eroding police community trusts, and diverting law enforcement
resources away from tackling more serious crime.
Ordering the State and local law enforcement to act as ICE
agents would deeply damage police community trust that we
depend on to do our jobs effectively. Across policing the
research underscores that having trust from the people we serve
directly impacts public safety. Police are only as strong as
the relationships we have with the public. We can only prevent,
detect and solve crimes if witnesses and victims are willing to
come forward to report criminal activities and work with us to
address it.
A report on Latino perceptions of police found that 44
percent of Latinos hesitate to report crime to police for fear
that it could lead to investigations into immigration status of
their family or community members, even if they are legal
citizens. Compelling local police to enforce Federal
immigration law would only further damage community trust,
making victims, witnesses, and other residents less likely to
report crimes or provide critical information to help us solve
them. Forcing local law enforcement to act as Federal
immigration agents would also divert their focus away from the
greatest threats and public safety.
Local law enforcement should not be forced to dedicate
precious time and resources toward burdensome information-
sharing and detainer requirements instead of solving serious
crime. It would lead to countless people being detained for
extended periods solely based on their immigration status,
wasting limited jail space that should be reserved for those
who pose the most serious threats to public safety.
Proposed bans to sanctuary cities also pose constitutional
and civil liabilities for local police departments and jails,
exposing them to costly lawsuits that could further drain their
already-stretched resources. Many cities across the country
have been forced to pay massive settlements for illegally
holding people based on requested ICE detainers. A practice
that would become more frequent as police hope to avoid cuts to
essential Federal programs in their communities. For example,
New York City recently agreed to a $92.5 million settlement
stemming from a lawsuit claiming authorities had detained
20,000 people for days, weeks, and even months after their
scheduled release date due to ICE detainer request. The
proposed act would put State and local governments in an
impossible position of deciding between risking cuts to
essential Federal programs or inviting potential legal action
for violating the civil rights of their community members.
Furthermore, one solution does not fit all, cities and
towns are unique with very different needs, requiring different
solutions for various problems. Each community should be free
to design its own strategies, absent sanctions of any kind from
the Federal Government. We are deeply concerned to see the
Federal Government considering blocking Federal funds through
sanctuary jurisdictions and mandating local law enforcement to
act as ICE agents. Forcing local police to act as Federal
immigration agents would harm public safety by eroding
community trust and diverting critical resources away from more
serious crime.
Thanks again for having me.
[The prepared statement of Major Franklin follows:]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
I will next hear from Ms. Carter-Walters.
STATEMENT OF DANIELLE CARTER-WALTERS
Ms. Carter-Walters. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and the
esteemed Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you to President
Donald J. Trump, the people's President, for giving Chicago
Flips Red our first platform and to the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak truth in the people's House.
We proudly stand with our President to bring his message to
the Black American community and expose the lies pushed by the
Democratic party and the fake news media. We are here to
confront the reality of sanctuary cities. Despite the word,
``sanctuaries,'' these cities are anything but safe. Chicago
has claimed the title for years and now they are drowning in
the consequences. Lifelong residents are pushed aside, schools
are overcrowded, crime is out of control, and affordable
housing is vanishing. This crisis exploded under Biden and will
worsen by the reckless agenda-driven leadership of Lori
Lightfoot and Brandon Johnson. They didn't just ignore the
collapse, they fueled it.
In December 2023, a few aldermen tried to give us a voice,
but the mayor and his allies used systematic stunts to block
the vote on a nonbinding sanctuary city referendum, silencing
Chicagoans and stripping us of our right to choose.
Every elected official swears an oath to serve their
constituents and uphold the Constitution. Brandon Johnson has
failed, he's dismissed that oath in his obsession with keeping
Chicago a sanctuary for illegal aliens. He's driven our city
into $1 billion deficit, handed out shady nonbid contracts, and
funneled over $6 million into services for illegal aliens.
That's why we demand a full forensic audit focused on migrant-
related spending. This isn't mismanagement, it's organized
looting our taxpayer dollars.
Shots fired. A lifesaving gunshot detection tool is gone.
Hyde Park now bears a permanent 720 bid shelter as illegal
alien shelters multiply all over our city. Tax increment
financing, known as TIF meant to revive struggling areas, are
being embezzled. Our kids aren't learning to read while the
city teachers cater to non-English speakers.
These are deliberate acts of neglect, justified by
Chicago's sanctuary cities' status. Lori Lightfoot lit the fuse
with Executive Orders and DEI Johnson poured gasoline on the
fire. Field houses have been taken, police stations overrun
with illegal aliens in tents, on the floors, and leaving
officers demoralized. My husband, a retired CPD officer, saw it
all, violence, disease, measles, and tuberculosis outbreaks,
prostitution and bed bugs that reached our home.
Since 2025, over 51,000 illegal aliens have flooded into
Chicago. The city's answer, blame migrant and homeless shelters
under the one system initiative and hope no one notices.
Homelessness has jumped by 207 percent, as 2,100 bids go to
illegal aliens. When State funding ends in 2025, corrupt
insiders will pass the contracts among themselves. This isn't
policies, it's racketeering.
My husband and I are tax-paying business owners. We did
everything right. We invested in the opportunity zones. Thank
you, President Trump. Applied for grants and we were denied.
Yet, 140,000 illegal alien-run businesses were funded without
question. Law abiding citizens are being replaced to sow a
political machine. MS-13, Tren de Aragua, they are here. Their
graffiti marks our neighborhoods. New gangs, the Venezuelan
Disciples is forming in our neighborhood. One shelter gets 20-
30 police calls daily, drug use, harassment, loitering, and
violence have turned parks, sidewalks and porches into no-go
zones. This isn't immigration. This is an invasion. Sanctuary
cities do not protect us, they abandon us. The citizens of
Chicago demand a full forensic audit of every dollar tied to--
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Carter-Wallace, I very much appreciate
your testimony, but we have to limit it to five minutes. You
will have an opportunity to expand on those remarks during the
questioning period. We appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Carter-Walters. OK.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Carter-Walters follows:]
Mr. McClintock. We will finish with Mr. RJ Hauman.
STATEMENT OF RJ HAUMAN
Mr. Hauman. Chair McClintock, Ranking Member Jayapal, and
the esteemed Members of the Subcommittee, I come before you
today to discuss a crisis that threatens the very foundation of
our great Nation, a crisis that has been borne of reckless
policies that jeopardize the safety of our communities and
shred the integrity of our immigration system.
The sacred duty of any government is to shield its law-
abiding citizens from harm. The bedrock of why we submit to
governance, why we uphold the laws that bind us together, we
cherish our families, our neighbors, and our way of life. We
trust that the law will stand as our shield, a unifying force
that levels the field for all. That's what sets America apart,
our reverence for the rule of law. Profound that we demand
every aspiring citizen to [sanctuary] an oath steeped in its
honor. That system has betrayed too many of our people. It is
not some abstract debate about legal nuance or political
gamesmanship. It is talking the safety and security of our
Nation.
We face a stark reality right now, even with President
Trump in office. There are millions of illegal aliens roaming
free among us, some are on ICE radar, 98 percent aren't. They
are nearly all in the shadows, those criminals. Those are the
final orders of removal that went through due process, 1.4
million of them. Then, there is the unknown. Worse, you have
hundreds of so-called sanctuaries, they roll out of the red
carpet for these law breakers, while turning the backs on the
honest citizens that they are sworn to protect.
Though it strikes me is the silence from party up here on
Capitol Hill, there is no demand for real enforcement. Instead,
we are drowned in a chorus of tired slogans and distractions
like tattoo motives, chant it like it could offset illegality.
Well, it can't.
Amnesty for all, no risk, no consequences. That seems to be
the agenda. At the same time, lots of folks rail against
empowering State and local aid Federal efforts, twisting logic
into knots. These are the same officers that we trust to hunt
murderers, rapists, and traffickers. If you inject immigration
status into it, suddenly they are unfit. Their competence and
integrity are repeatedly questioned again, unless they are
defying Federal law outright. Then, of course, in sanctuary
jurisdictions, everything they do is cheered or enabled. That
brings us to the deceptive term as well, sanctuary
jurisdiction. It sounds noble, doesn't it? A haven, a refuge,
but for whom? Not our sons and daughters, the left vulnerable
do to them. Our communities are then torn apart. These
sanctuaries shield the lawless, not the lawful and that
betrayal cuts to the core of what America must stand against.
The American people spoke loud and clear in November, it is
time for Congress to wake up, shift into President Trump's gear
and act decisively. End the sanctuary cities for good and
launch mass deportations now. Every day we delay, we roll the
dice on the next preventable tragedy. The next innocent life
lost to a criminal alien that we could have deported.
Last, just consider the numbers that are pretty much hot
off the press: From October 1, 2022-February 6, 2025, more than
25,000 detainers were declined by sanctuary jails. More than
1,400 instances, the jails failed to give adequate notification
to ICE, to take custody of the aliens. You see more than half
of the declined detainers were prisons in California, just
where we saw a heinous crime where the child's body was found
10 minutes from where I grew up.
When is it enough? Congress needs to act. Give ICE the
resources to act in accordance with the law, deliver an
electoral mandate, secure American communities. It is time for
statutory changes to make sure the changes last and our system
gets ramped up in term of integrity. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. RJ Hauman follows:]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now proceed with questions under the five-minute
rule and we will begin with Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I thank the witnesses
for being here today.
I read all your statements that you have submitted. I've
been listening intently to your testimony.
Mr. Hauman, I want just to confirm, Cook County jail in
Illinois from October 1, 2022-February 6, 2025, released more
than 1,000 criminal aliens into their community. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Hauman. Yep.
Mr. Biggs. I just want to confirm this, Mr. Franklin, I
don't want to take this out of context, you said, ``Compelling
local police to enforce Federal immigration law would only
further damage community trust.'' Is that an accurate
statement, reflection? I'm reading from your statement. Is that
accurate?
Major Franklin. Yes, depending on the jurisdiction and what
those unique circumstances might be for that particular city or
town.
Mr. Biggs. Ms. Carter-Walters, in Chicago where they have
released over a three-year period more than 1,000 criminals
back into your community, does that make you feel safer as a
citizen?
Ms. Carter-Walters. No.
Mr. Biggs. Does it make your community feel safer?
Ms. Carter-Walters. No.
Mr. Biggs. Did it provide actual safety when you saw MS-13,
Tren de Aragua roaming the streets there?
Ms. Carter-Walters. No.
Mr. Biggs. You've demanded a full forensic guide of every
dollar tied to migrant shelters, right?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. A freeze on the $92 million budget until full
reviews are completed?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. You want the accountability and community input?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. A Federal investigation into potential
corruption. Potentially if there is corruption, you want
prosecution. Is that right?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. Most importantly you want and end to sanctuary
policies that you feel disadvantages you guys as citizens of
Chicago, vis-a-vis illegal aliens who are being released into
your community.
Ms. Carter-Walters. We want to end sanctuary cities.
Mr. Biggs. I will go to you now, Sheriff. Thank you.
Sheriff Wagner.
You outlined and give some examples of some horrific
instances in your own county, particularly shocking case 2021
in Othello. Can you briefly, I mean briefly, recount that for
us?
Sheriff Wagner. In 2021, we an incident of an illegal alien
that took the life of a mother and a daughter, the daughter
being a special needs female that at the capacity of a five-
year-old. They did it in a very horrific way by dismembering
the bodies and leaving them in the trunk of a vehicle.
Mr. Biggs. How did that impact your community?
Sheriff Wagner. That was a huge impact in our community.
Mr. Biggs. How so?
Sheriff Wagner. Horrific crime, no matter who is involved,
is going to impact the community. That the situation that we
were faced with is the limited resources that everyone keeps
talking about here. I am a department of 18 people, and that
includes myself and my under sheriff, we are working. I'm not a
politician but I guess my job is, but we actually get out and
do the work. This situation--
Mr. Biggs. You imply that we don't get out and do the work
which is--that's fair.
Sheriff Wagner. I'm not saying that, I'm not saying that.
The reality is that it affects the community, because we are a
small community, a small farming community of all
nationalities, and we are very close to each other and we care
about each other very much.
Mr. Biggs. In your recommendations, you talk about allowing
you to enforce the law, and that might mean that you actually
cooperate with Federal officials. If I understand your Keep
Washington Working law, the statute there, are you allowed to
hold someone with an ICE detainer?
Sheriff Wagner. We are not.
Mr. Biggs. Are you allowed to transfer someone if ICE
requests that you transfer them to their custody or--
Sheriff Wagner. According to the KWW, no. The State law
actually directly, not indirectly, not impliedly, it actually
directly implies Federal law, Federal statute.
Sheriff Wagner. That's what I understand, yes.
Mr. Biggs. Because the Federal statute says if you get a
detainer, ``you're supposed to hold,'' you're supposed to hold.
That's what the Federal law says, and you can't do that there.
Sheriff Wagner. Correct.
Mr. Biggs. How does that impact the safety of your
community?
Sheriff Wagner. Well, ours is impacted in a great way
because my jail has been closed for three years, and I find
that ironic in this situation as well. It impacts us in a great
way, because I believe--it was what Mr. Jordan was explaining,
putting people out onto the street and having them get caught
again becomes a bigger problem. We're not arresting on
immigration status. We're putting people in jail for crimes
they committed in our community and then ICE, because of public
records that are available and things like that, they have the
ability to find out who's in our custody, and where they are
and when they are released an all those kinds of things. They
are basically released to their custody in the opposite way,
similar to Denver, in most cases.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time has expired.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said in my opening, there are a lot of reasons why
States and localities have adopted policies to leave
immigration enforcement to Federal Government where it belongs.
For some, it is about fostering trust with local communities.
When immigrant communities know that calling 911 won't result
in deportation for themselves or a family member, they are
actually more willing to report and help law enforcement solve
crimes, which makes all of us safer.
For others, it is an important factor is legal liability.
Courts all over the country just to counter what my good
colleagues from Arizona said, have ruled that when local law
enforcement complies with civil immigration detainer requests,
and to be clear, an immigration detainer is a request and
continues to detain someone pursuant to a detainer when they
otherwise would have been released, it's actually an unlawful
detention, and it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Sheriff Wagner, I want to thank you again for being here
and for the work that you do to support your community. I
believe you when you say you want to keep all your residents in
Adams County safe. You can give me a simple yes or noes to
this, at any time since 2019, has the Adams County sheriff's
office given the Federal Government personal information of any
Adams County residents, like fingerprints, dates of birth, home
addresses or driver's license numbers?
Sheriff Wagner. I would say through--
Ms. Jayapal. Just turn your mike on, Sheriff.
Sheriff Wagner. We do have a program called Stone Garden.
Ms. Jayapal. So, just a yes or no is fine. It is a simple
question, do you give the Federal Government personal
information of Adams County residents like fingerprints, dates
of birth, home addresses, and driver's license?
Sheriff Wagner. I'm not aware of fingerprints. I do believe
we give public information to those people.
Ms. Jayapal. How often has your office done that?
Sheriff Wagner. It depends on what you are talking about.
Do you want yes-or-no answers, or do you want me to explain?
Ms. Jayapal. Well, on this one I am asking if you have
numbers for that.
Sheriff Wagner. OK, I don't have numbers, but we do a Stone
Garden program through the Border Patrol, which is funded
through the State as well.
Ms. Jayapal. OK. At any time since 2019, has the Adams
County Sheriff's Office held people beyond the release date to
facilitate their pickup by civil immigration enforcement
officers?
Sheriff Wagner. Not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Jayapal. You're following the Keep Washington Working
Act in that way and that's good to hear.
I want to go on to some questions for Major Franklin. Let
me turn to you. One of the studies that I submitted found that
mandatory information sharing between local police and ICE led
to a 16 percent increase in crime against Hispanics. Let me be
clear, that 16 percent increase means 1.3 million more crimes.
Can you help us understand this statistic why jurisdictions
with community trust policies in places experience less crime?
Why their residents feel safer?
Major Franklin. Yes, so to be effective and a good part of
my career was criminal investigation for quite a few years. We
first need to get people to report crimes before we can even
begin to investigate them. When there's no trust between the
police and the community, many people will not even report
crimes, and this hasn't just become evident with the immigrant
community, I grew up in West Baltimore, and I experienced times
in my neighborhood where we really had trust issues. Many of my
friends, many people that I knew, would not even report the
crime of a robbery, of being a victim of a crime.
Then we need witnesses. Once we begin to investigate a
crime, we need witnesses. You have to have that trust, that we
and the police, are going to do the right thing. The immigrant
community, if they believe, just believe that their immigration
status is going to be questioned, or maybe that of another
family member or that of a community member of which they are
friends with, they are not going to cooperate with us. We've
seen this time and time again. When you can establish that
trust. You see, we cannot be effective in solving crimes, and
most of the people who commit violence is a very small number.
Ms. Jayapal. Right.
Major Franklin. If we can get them, if we can focus on
them, get them convicted, charged and convicted, then we have a
great chance of reducing crime.
Ms. Jayapal. I just have a few seconds left here, but
jurisdictions that adopt a sanctuary policy experienced a 52-62
percent reduction in the domestic homicide rate for Hispanic
women. Does that track with your experience as a law
enforcement officer in jurisdictions with those policies?
Major Franklin. Yes. As creating the first domestic
violence unit in the Maryland State Police, as being the
President of Turn Around Incorporated, which was about domestic
violence in Baltimore City, shelter services and counseling
services, yes, those numbers are very familiar to me. There was
a great report out of--
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Jayapal. Usually, the witness can finish answering.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Tiffany.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. He did, the answer was yes.
Major Franklin. There was quite a bit more.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Major Franklin, there is an organization, or a publication,
safehome.org, they listed Baltimore as the deadliest large
city. Are you aware of that?
Major Franklin. I'm not aware of that report.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, they just last year in 2024 just
surpassed Memphis and Detroit.
Mr. Hauman, when a detainer has been issued, isn't that as
a result of someone committing a crime?
Mr. Hauman. Yes, generally, ICE is reaching out to them to
get them in custody and they are on the radar likely because a
crime was committed, that's why they are in that local jail.
Mr. Tiffany. Federal money flows to jurisdictions around
the United States at taxpayers' expense to try to fight crime.
Should taxpayers continue to fund sanctuary jurisdictions?
Mr. Hauman. No, not at all. If you are in defiance of
Federal law and you're not working with Federal law
enforcement, you shouldn't receive a darn dime. Again, there is
a lot of cooperative jurisdictions out there under President
Trump. The actual, the 287(g) agreements that we are seeing,
kind of the opposite of a sanctuary jurisdiction, has
skyrocketed since President Trump took office--those
jurisdictions should be rewarded and helped for acting in
accordance with Federal law.
Mr. Tiffany. Should Federal facilities be moved out of
jurisdictions that are sanctuary cities?
Mr. Hauman. If you're talking about detention facilities,
something like that, a lot of them--
Mr. Tiffany. Let me give you an example. I am going to ask
Mr. Chair to introduce this letter I sent to DOGE, would ask
unanimous consent to enter that letter.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Mr. Tiffany. Anyhow, I sent a letter. The SBA is moving
facilities out of Boston, which is a sanctuary city. I sent a
letter to DOGE saying would you look into Dane County,
Wisconsin, which is Madison; would you look into moving
facilities out of there if they're going to continue to be a
sanctuary county. Do you think that's appropriate?
Mr. Hauman. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Tiffany. Sheriff, so I mentioned Dane County,
Wisconsin, and there was a situation where a gang member from
Venezuela, Tren de Aragua gang member, he was charged with
false imprisonment and battery in Dane County last year. Went
on to Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, which is about a hundred
miles from Madison to Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, over on the
Mississippi River. This gang member was charged with domestic
violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and strangulation by the
Prairie du Chien Police Department.
Does this surprise you that another community is affected
when there is a sanctuary community that is not honoring ICE
detainers?
Sheriff Wagner. No.
Mr. Tiffany. Does it make it more dangerous for people
throughout the region; let's use this example of Dane County,
Wisconsin. Does it make for more dangerous for people
throughout a region as a result of having these sanctuary
policies?
Sheriff Wagner. The gentleman over here said earlier, I
think every situation is different, every location is
different, and every circumstance is different. I do think the
policies matter. The policies that we're faced with in
sanctuary policy, it's too hampering for the situation that
we're dealing with on the ground.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Carter-Walters, so you know that Wisconsin
is just North of you in Chicago. I just cited Prairie du Chien,
Wisconsin, is a hundred miles from Madison, Wisconsin; and
Kenosha, Wisconsin, is only 64 miles North of Chicago. Should
people in Wisconsin be concerned about the sanctuary policies
that are in Chicago?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Exactly. Because they don't just stay
in Chicago, they're in Indiana. They are all in the suburbs.
So, yes, they definitely should be afraid.
Mr. Tiffany. Why in the world do civic leaders like Mayor
Johnson want to advance policies like this that not only make
their own city less safe, but the entire region less safe?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Because we believe that that's how
they're funneling money and stealing our tax dollars. That's
why we are demanding a forensic audit on how--a breakdown of
how those funds were allocated. Because we have yet to received
anything of a breakdown to show how our tax dollars were spent.
So, yes, we believe that's how they're funneling the money, and
that's why we are asking for a forensic audit, and we want
arrests to be made.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, I think these witnesses make the
case so well; that it is not just the sanctuary community that
is being affected by these policies that they are implementing,
it's an entire region. Most of the people of Wisconsin are
affected as a result of what's going on in Dane County,
Wisconsin, and Chicago, Illinois. It is time for this to stop,
and there needs to be consequences for what is going on with
these sanctuary communities.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Major Franklin, you're famous in Maryland. Your career in
law enforcement has involved fighting violent gangs, drug
traffickers, illegal gun trafficking from other States that
have weaker laws than Maryland. You've also studied law
enforcement and worked on it, not just at the micro level, but
at the macro level.
I wonder if you can explain how this works. My colleagues
are talking about horrific, gruesome cases of undocumented
people who engage in murder or rape, serious crimes like that.
If someone is engaged in a crime like that and they have a
warrant for the person's arrest, and they bring it to a local
or State official whose got control over their custody, if
they're in their custody for another reason, doesn't the local
government have to cooperate with that warrant and turn that
person over immediately to the Federal authorities?
Major Franklin. Yes. On a warrant, yes, we do. I don't know
one case where we have not done so with a warrant.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I was searching. I couldn't find a single
case where there was any local government that did not
cooperate with a warrant that was to demand turning over the
body of a person who had engaged in a serious crime.
In fact, I saw an article about President Trump who has
been touting his ICE arrests; half of them were people who were
in local custody and he asked for them to be turned over. They
were being held for serious crimes or other kinds of crimes.
Then they were deported, and he got them based on a warrant.
If we're not talking about a warrant situation, right, then
I come back to my puzzlement about why my colleagues who
control the U.S. Congress right now are not engaged in trying
to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform package.
To give you an example, at the end of the last Congress, we
had a bipartisan deal on toughening up the border with more
officers, more patrols, more asylum judges, and lots of new
technology. The most conservative Members of the U.S. Senate on
the Republican side were championing it and advancing it. It
had bipartisan support in the Senate. Then, Donald Trump tanked
it, basically saying for political reasons he didn't want it.
He did not want a comprehensive immigration border solution. He
wanted a problem to run against. I see a lot of that in today's
discussion.
It's amazing to me that rather than engage in the hard
work, maybe not even so hard anymore, of coming up with a
bipartisan immigration solution, we would rather be beating up
on local governments for not doing the job of the Federal
Government.
Let's say that someone thought, OK, well, we really should
commandeer the resources, the personnel, the machinery of the
local governments, even though it's against the Constitution
and against the Tenth Amendment. Well, let's say they think
that, and they want to use law enforcement, not to turn over
murderers and rapists and so on, but for routine immigration
enforcement.
All right. Well, how would that work if, say, they came to
a particular city or county and say the vast majority of the
undocumented people here we know are working in hotels,
agriculture on farms, or the construction sector. Could a city
have the resources to say we're going to send in raids of
police on constructionsites, on farms, in hotels to arrest all
these people that we think are here illegally?
Major Franklin. We don't have the resources for that. We
don't have the people for that. We're struggling to find
people, to hire people, and we just don't have the resources.
We have calls waiting. We're call hopping 1 day after the next.
Mr. Raskin. The Federal Government's got a lot of money.
We've spent millions and millions of dollars just flying Donald
Trump down to Florida to Mar-a-Lago to go play golf while he's
crashing the stock market. Why doesn't the Federal Government
spend that money on a locality one might say. The cities are
pretty hard up for money, right? They don't want to be invading
all the hotels and constructionsites to go and look for
undocumented workers.
Do you think that's a fair request to put on the
localities?
Major Franklin. No, it's not.
Mr. Raskin. Well, it seems to me that the problem here is
we have people not doing their jobs in Washington, and they
want to blame local governments and put the pressure on them.
I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Slide.]
Chair Jordan. Sheriff, are you familiar with the Department
of Homeland Security Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action
Form? Are you familiar with these forms?
Sheriff Wagner. I've heard of them, yes.
Chair Jordan. Yes, OK. These forms, about halfway down the
page it says, ``It is therefore requested that you''--this is
going to local law enforcement--``requested that you notify DHS
as early as practical, at least 48 hours, if possible, before
the alien in your custody is released.''
All right. Is that partisan or is that just commonsense?
Sheriff Wagner. It depends on who you ask, but it is
commonsense.
Chair Jordan. Well, the Ranking Member said we need to
function in a bipartisan way. I don't think that's partisan.
That's just saying, hey, you got a bad guy, at least someone
who's been charged with crime in your possession, he's also an
illegal migrant. Can you give us a 48-hours head-up before you
release him to the streets?
Sheriff Wagner. Sure.
Chair Jordan. That makes sense to me, right? I don't think
that's partisan. I think that's just using commonsense.
Mr. Hauman, are you familiar how this form works, this
detainer process is supposed to work?
Mr. Hauman. Yes, I do.
Chair Jordan. All right. The next line says, ``Maintain
custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond
the time''--again, we're requesting you do this, not demanding.
We're just requesting you help us out. Law enforcement working
with other law enforcement to protect the safety of law
enforcement and, of course, the public at large--``beyond the
time when he or she would otherwise have been released from
your custody to allow DHS to assume custody.''
Again, that seems like commonsense to me. Sanctuary
policies prevent these two requests from taking place. Is that
right?
Mr. Hauman. Yes.
Chair Jordan. If you're a sanctuary State, sanctuary city,
you don't comply with these. You may give them a ``we're going
to give you a 10-minute notice or we're going to release them
and then tell you we already released them.'' That's how it
works in these sanctuary cities, in these sanctuary States. Is
that right, Mr. Hauman?
Mr. Hauman. That's correct, too. It's even interesting too,
under the Biden Administration, you have a lot of State and
local law enforcement who think that they're not going to
comply with ICE based on their experiences under the Biden
Administration. ICE had policies in place that made it so hard
for enforcement and removal officers to actually work with
these jails.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Hauman. They made it next to impossible. You have all
these jails that think, oh, I don't know if I'm going to
comply, I may get penalized if the State puts in an aggressive
restriction on that. Everything is going to be streamlined. If
they want to comply, it will be a good process.
[Slide.]
Chair Jordan. Yes. Let's put it up on the screen.
Are you familiar with the name Abraham Gonzalez, Mr.
Hauman? Do you know this guy, Abraham Gonzalez?
Mr. Hauman. I do not.
Chair Jordan. OK. This guy was released this year. On
February 28, 2025, he was released. Look at what the sheriff's
department put here. This is an ICE notification. They put the
stamp on there, ``being released to the streets.''
Now, this guy had been in custody for 345 days. ICE had
sent this very form asking, hey, can you give us a 48-hour
heads-up before this guy who was charged with aggravated
assault, charged with stealing an automobile, and charged with
menacing, can you just give us a heads-up? Guess what Denver,
sanctuary city Denver did? They called them one hour before,
and ICE couldn't get there, and they released this guy to the
streets, as they stamped on the form.
Now, what I find interesting--can we put that back up
again? What I find interesting is, under the section flag--see
it over there on the right-hand side--it says he's cleared.
Then look at what it says, ``violent to staff.''
The very people who released him to the streets knew this
guy--he'd been charged again with aggravated assault stealing a
car, but he'd also been violent to the very people in the jail
who were holding him, and they still wouldn't give notice to
ICE. Then, as I said in my opening statement, this guy is
released to the streets. ICE goes out to arrest him, and the
officer gets hurt. They had to tase the guy, so the migrant
gets hurt.
Tell me how that is not--tell me why we should have that
kind of policy happen, Mr. Hauman.
Mr. Hauman. Well, we shouldn't. It doesn't keep our
communities safer in any sense. Again, what they're trying to
do here, if they say, hey, at least we tried, an hour heads-up
or whatever. How can they look at that man to release him on
the streets knowing the crimes that have been committed,
knowing that risk? How can they say, hey, we'll see you later
as he goes off and could potentially commit another crime down
the line? Is it worth it to instill trust with the immigrant
community?
How about the citizens, and how about the harm that they
could face due to the unknown of releasing a dangerous criminal
alien to the streets?
Chair Jordan. They knew this guy had a propensity to be
violent to law enforcement because he had done it in their very
jail, and they can't give Federal law enforcement a heads-up.
Sheriff Wagner, would you have given them a heads-up?
Sheriff Wagner. I think in that circumstance I would.
Chair Jordan. Yes, you certainly would. For people who do
what you would do, you're now getting sued for that, right?
Your attorney general's coming after you.
Sheriff Wagner. As the gentleman over here said, we should
stay out of local business, right? So here I am with the State
Attorney coming down on me for trying to juggle the whole mess.
Chair Jordan. Because that's how law enforcement--you're
supposed to work with other law enforcement when you can and
not violating the Constitution. Just be in good commonsense way
to make sure people are safe, law enforcement's safe, public is
safe, and, frankly, as I said before, even the migrant is safer
when you do it that way, when you do it the commonsense way
versus the sanctuary city way.
That's what we really have to--that's really the decision
here. Commonsense or sanctuary city way. Commonsense wins out
every time.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, the Trump Administration, after
pardoning hundreds of violent criminals, has launched a
reckless, chaotic, and inhumane immigration policy that is
making our communities less safe. The administration, and as we
heard today, the Chair of this Committee, speak as if all
immigrants are criminals.
The administration is draining resources away from other
important law enforcement priorities and is even targeting
legal immigrants in vulnerable populations. It's no surprise
that many States and localities do not want to aid and abet the
President's extreme anti-immigrant agenda.
Recognizing that good policing depends on building trust
with their residents, many cities forbid their law enforcement
officers from questioning victims of crime or witnesses to a
crime about their immigration status. They do not share
immigration information with Federal authorities. They believe
that their communities are at greater risk when a victim of
domestic violence is afraid to ask the police for protection
from her abuser for fear of deportation or when witnesses to a
murder refuse to assist law enforcement in tracking down the
perpetrator because they're afraid their immigration status
will be discovered.
These cities have concluded that if they take on the
Federal responsibility to enforce immigration laws, it would
destroy trust between immigrants and local law enforcement,
which would make everyone less safe.
Major Franklin, why is building trust with all members of
the community so important to policing?
Major Franklin. You touched on something regarding the
importance of--it's not just for keeping members of the
immigrant community safe, because there's a very small number
of violent offenders also preying on people outside of their
community as well.
As soon as we can get the reporting of the crime, the
cooperation from witnesses to have that person arrested,
charged, convicted, and get them off the streets and hold them
responsible, the better, for not just the immigrant community
but the entire community.
Mr. Nadler. Is it fair to say, then, that in minority
communities, immigrants are really--any part of your community
feels unsafe going to the police, that it makes everyone in the
jurisdiction less safe, and can you complain why?
Major Franklin. Absolutely. Again, because of the
importance of that trust--and this isn't something new, by the
way. We've experienced the same thing with underserved
communities where there's no trust with the police, and we
failed to get an accuracy regarding the crimes because they're
not reported. There's no trust in reporting a crime because
they don't believe the police are going to do the right things.
In many cases, they believe the police may cause them some sort
of harm.
In the immigrant community, it's about being deported, and
not just the victim or the witness being deported, but that
victim or witness can be friends or a relative of someone else
who might be undocumented. They fear that deportation. There's
going to be limited, if any, communication, any cooperation at
all with the authorities.
It's not just about communicating with the police. It's
about fearing interacting with other positions of authority and
services within a city who believe they may have some sort of
relationship with law enforcement. They want to ensure that
they and their friends and families are not subjected to
deportation.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. One of the priority Republican bills
this Congress, H.R. 32, the so-called No Bailout for Sanctuary
Cities Act, which has been teed up for floor consideration in
the coming weeks, would gut billions in Federal funding for
States and localities, including funding for central programs
like public safety, education, and transportation, if States
and localities are not able to aid the Trump Administration in
Federal immigration enforcement.
Would cutting Federal funding from local and State police
departments help or hurt public safety?
Major Franklin. It will make public safety much worse.
Mr. Nadler. Can you talk about the real-world impact that
these cuts would have on the ability of law enforcement to
protect their communities?
Major Franklin. Absolutely. When I was in charge of
Baltimore City Human Resources, we had a special unit that
applied for Federal grants. Because we need the funding, we
need the resources, not just for law enforcement activities and
duties, but for other important things like youth programs,
which are extremely important. Other services and mental health
services. There are many types of critical services that our
communities need.
Mr. Nadler. OK. Thank you. As we've heard today, my
Republican colleagues talk as if all immigrants are criminals.
Could you tell us whether that's true and whether, in fact, the
studies show that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than
the crime rate among native-born American citizens?
Major Franklin. Studies show that among the immigrant
community it's lower for native born.
Mr. Nadler. Native immigrants are not criminals?
Major Franklin. Absolutely.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. Sheriff
Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I thank the panel
for being here.
Thank you, Sheriff Wagner. Those distinguished gentlemen
behind you, I want to thank you all for your service. I'll give
you a round of applause. Thank you for our county sheriffs.
[Applause.]
Mr. Nehls. We need them, we need them. They're supported.
Most of the crime--and I know, Mr. Franklin or Major
Franklin, you're talking about the distrust between the police
and the communities they serve. Let's be honest with each
other. You know where the distrust begins, right? It all starts
in these large cities across America.
I bet you if you asked one of those sheriffs, if we had
everyone come up here, they don't have a problem with trust
between their agents--or their deputies and the people they
serve. It takes place in these large cities. The San Franciscos
and the Chicagos.
When you look at Chicago--Ms. Walters, talking about
Chicago, you had Lori Lightweight [sic] there. Her approval
rating was in the toilet. What, a 22 percent approval rating?
She was the first incumbent to lose reelect. Why is it? Her
policies. It was the sanctuary city policy. She was horrible.
Absolutely horrible. All the antipolice rhetoric.
Would you agree with me that that's why Lori Lightweight is
no longer the Mayor in Chicago?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes. That's why Brandon Johnson has a
six-percent approval rating.
Mr. Nehls. Yes. You should consider running for mayor. I
think you're great.
Anyway, Sheriff Wagner, I was the sheriff in Fort Bend
County, a large county. Everybody that got arrested into my
jail--I had about 1,800 beds. When you get arrested, every
morning, every name, Mia, any name, didn't matter who it was,
would get sent to ICE. We'd send it to ICE in Houston. They
would scrub that list; they would then determine who a detainer
gets placed on.
I complied with every single detainer. It didn't matter. If
they said a detainer needs to be placed on this guy--we kept
our people safe. That's why I was a very popular sheriff and
never had to worry about a reelection because the people
supported what we did.
Then when you got some of these liberal States--your State
for a good example, Illinois and others--we created a law now
in the State of Texas. We had a crazy rogue sheriff in Austin--
go figure in Austin, Travis County--that wasn't complying with
these detainers.
We now have a law in Texas that says if you don't comply, a
county sheriff does not comply with ICE detainers, you'll be
charged with a crime and then you'll be removed from office.
Most sheriffs across the great State of Texas support that, and
I believe you would as well.
Sheriff Wagner. Yes, I would.
Mr. Nehls. It just keeps our people--it keeps our people
safe.
I want to thank you again, too. In 2005, I read your bio,
you were awarded a medal of valor for one of your deputies that
was shot by an illegal multiple times, I believe.
Sheriff Wagner. Correct. That is correct.
Mr. Nehls. Yes. Thank you for your service. You guys are
fantastic.
You're being sued by your Attorney General. I guess you're
putting your community at risk. Did you know that?
Sheriff Wagner. If I can answer some of that.
Mr. Nehls. Yes.
Sheriff Wagner. I know there's a lot going on. The reality
is this. You talked about the size of your agency and your
jail. I have a 28-bed facility that's been closed for three
years. We are not detaining on immigration status. We do share
information through the Stonegarden thing that we are a part of
and several other counties across our State are doing. The
State actually gives us the money through it. They're the ones
that take their cut and then give us the money. Yes, it is
exactly what you're saying.
Mr. Nehls. Some of the actions in a few of the sanctuary
jurisdictions, I want to ask if you think they're conducive to
public safety. In King County, Seattle, illegal alien named
Julio Cruz-Velazquez, custody in 2019, with priors for rape,
domestic violence, burglary, robbery, DUI, and drug possession
dating back to 2010. King County ignored the ICE detainers and
released him into the community. He was then arrested later on
for murder. It wouldn't have ever happened if you'd have just
complied with ICE. Does that sound conducive to public safety?
Sheriff Wagner. No.
Mr. Nehls. It doesn't. Of course, they're not. The stories
go on. Washington County, also in your State, illegal alien
Alejandro Maldonado-Hernandez was arrested for manslaughter and
a second degree for killing somebody while driving recklessly.
The county ignored an ICE detainer, released him into the
community, and he is still at large today. Does that sound
conducive to public safety, Sheriff.
Sheriff Wagner. No.
Mr. Nehls. Of course it doesn't. Let's go to Boston. April
this year, Boston released an illegal alien charged with
aggravated child rape rather than comply with an ICE detainer.
Does that sound like it is conducive to public safety?
Sheriff Wagner. No.
Mr. Nehls. Of course it doesn't. The stories goes on and on
and on.
Mr. Franklin, we are now going to Baltimore. April 24th,
Raul Calderon, a 25-year-old Guatemalan national, convicted of
fourth-degree sex and second-degree assault, despite ICE
detainer's request, Baltimore County released him after
suspending his prison sentence. Then, in 2024, another
individual, 25 years old, convicted of molesting two family
members, a 9- and 10-years olds. It just goes on and on and on.
Now, Baltimore has problems. You've got a lot of corruption
in Baltimore. Again, when you look at these major cities--
Baltimore, Chicago, everywhere--they're run by the far-Left
liberal Democrats and by Soros-funded DAs, and that's why
you're getting clobbered in elections. The American people are
sick and tired of it, and they're fighting back.
Ms. Walters, I salute you. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Ross.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Ranking Member
Jayapal. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today.
This hearing is extremely timely. The Trump
Administration's recent actions against our refugee community
are making people less safe, not more safe.
Recently, the administration sent emails to Ukrainians
escaping Putin's war of aggression, telling them, ``Do not
attempt to remain in the United States--the Federal Government
will find you.'' Then, a day later they said, ``sorry, we made
a mistake.''
Cutting off resettlement funds for Afghans who made it to
the United States after fighting side-by-side with American
troops. That's this administration's agenda. Turning their
backs on courageous Afghans who worked directly with our forces
and are desperate to reach our shores, but have to hide out
from the Taliban because we're not accepting refugees anymore.
Revoking all U.S. visas held by South Sudanese passport
holders because their government refused to accept a deportee
that the Sudanese Government said was Congolese, not South
Sudanese.
Then this administration claims to care deeply about
persecuted Christians while slashing Christian refugee entry by
78 percent in the first term and doing even less to help
Christians who are persecuted enter the United States today.
All these heartless and short-sighted actions by the Trump
Administration serve no discernible purpose besides bullying
those who escaped war, authoritarianism, and disaster. Again,
this bullying undermines the stature of the United States in
the eyes of the world and makes all of us less safe. It diverts
our law enforcement resources away from real threats to upend
the lives of honest, hardworking people in need of refuge from
the United States.
Now with that said, I want to turn to the issue of how
intentionally eroding trust of immigrant communities by local
law enforcement can impact public safety.
Major Franklin, just a couple questions for you. Can you
speak to how efforts by this administration to destroy
relationships between the immigrant community and local police
officers would be detrimental to public safety?
Major Franklin. Sure. It would be detrimental in a number
of ways. (1) I spoke earlier to being successful in identifying
victims of crime, having crime reported, being successful
during the investigation of those crimes so that we can hold
those violent offenders accountable. (2) It would be
detrimental in the loss of critical resources that we
desperately need among our law enforcement agencies around the
country.
Again, I want to speak to the uniqueness of every
jurisdiction. We should have the ability to develop our own
strategies that would work within those particular communities
that have their own special needs. A loss of critical resources
would devastate us in the law enforcement community in a number
of ways.
I took an oath, not just to the Constitution, but to the
people that I serve to protect everyone who's in my community
no matter what their status is. In order for me to do that and
my comrades to do that, you've got to have trust. You've got to
build trust if you're going to get the information you need, so
that people aren't fearful when they coming forward; they don't
want to be victimized. They don't want their friends and family
to be victimized. They want people held accountable, and they
want to be able to come forward and trust us and not fear them
or their friends being deported from the United States.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. Are you familiar with the U Visa, a
visa for victims of crimes who cooperate with law enforcement
or governmental officials in the investigation or prosecution
of criminal activities? If so, do you think that they're
helpful?
Major Franklin. Yes, I am familiar with it, and they are
helpful. Of course, the police officer has to take the
initiative in filling out the paperwork when we're dealing with
the victim to make sure that they're able to stay in the
community and in the country.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
Let's cut through all the noise, all the blur, all the
politics, and all the nonsense. Nobody on this side of the
aisle--because it was repeated again over there before--ever
said that immigrants are bad people. We love legal immigrants
that come here the right way. They are great Americans.
I will tell you a story really quick. I was picked up in a
taxicab the other day in Washington, DC. Young gentleman
driving the taxicab. I love to talk to people, started talking
to him. He's from Ethiopia. He came here legally. He always
wanted to be an architect. His cousin was an architect, and he
admired him so much, and his cousin had helped him. In
Ethiopia, they tell you what you're going to be. You don't have
that choice like you do in America. He was told he wasn't going
to be an architect. He legally immigrated here, worked his butt
off, gave it everything he had, worked multiple jobs, got his
degree, and was working still more because now he was getting
his master's degree.
He taught me, he said to me, ``for God's sake, protect your
country.'' All these illegal immigrants coming here are not
good. Legal immigrants are angrier about the illegal ones than
anybody else.
They did things the right way. They did it by the book.
They're good people. We love them. Let's be clear. Cut the
nonsense. I'm not directing that to you.
Let's also cut the nonsense because it costs money. There's
only so much money in this world, and we're going through a lot
of budgetary stuff right now. I make it clear, I'm fighting for
Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, many of us are on both
sides of the aisle.
When you're spending money on this stuff, it's less money
for our children, it's less money for our seniors, it's less
money for our veterans, and it's less money for our disabled.
Because we don't have an endless amount.
When you are spending tax dollars on that, our American
people in our cites and in our rural areas and everywhere in
between are getting hurt. Let's cut through the nonsense. We're
taking things away from them, and it's wrong.
You can't have a country without borders. You can't have
public safety without law enforcement. You can't have public
safety when you're releasing law breakers into the community.
They're not all illegals that have committed horrendous crimes,
but some have. We're not checking on it properly. There have
been murders, there have been rapes, and there have been
disfigurements. There have been all kinds of harm done. When
you create a sanctuary city or a State, you are compounding
that.
You know what? The only thing worse than the illegal people
when they come here, especially those that are violent, are the
people that condone that and give them benefits and help them
to stay here. How wrong is that? They're hurting everybody else
who voted for them.
I'll give you one example. My home State, State of New
Jersey, nationwide ICE is currently detaining nearly 48,000
illegals. It exceeds its funding capacity, which as you all
know, is 41,500 beds.
In the Northeast, particularly in New Jersey, we face a
severe shortage of beds. What did ICE do? They took action. In
New Jersey, they planned to open a thousand-bed facility in
Newark, in Delaney Hall, to relieve the pressure. Guess what?
Newark's mayor fought it. He sided with the people who were
illegal, the people who were breaking the law. He doesn't want
to help law enforcement. By that, then you're breaking the law
as an elected official. The elected official is a lawbreaker,
and it's wrong.
We know what happened to Laken Riley. We know what's
happened to so many people. We're trying to clean up the chaos
that was left behind.
Bottom line, I have a couple of questions here. I want to--
Sheriff Wagner, you've faced legal threats for doing what
you're doing. Could you tell us a little bit about that really
quickly?
Sheriff Wagner. Yes. Right now, we're being faced with a
lawsuit from the Attorney General of Washington State on, in my
view, some--
Mr. Van Drew. They're suing you for trying to uphold the
law. What a crazy world we live in. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
interrupt you.
Sheriff Wagner. No, that's OK.
Mr. Van Drew. I know how awful that is.
Sheriff Wagner. That's OK.
Mr. Van Drew. No, because it pisses me off.
Sheriff Wagner. Yes, I get. It pisses me off. The reality
is that. It's some of the circumstances that has been very
political. It's politically driven, and it's unfortunate that
we're in that position. Like I said before, we've had a jail
that's been closed for three years. I'm not housing people. I
use outside entities to do that. I don't have the resources and
manpower to go out and surround people up out in the fields.
Not only that, the other mentions, the person that was here
earlier. Look, we're a small community, and I do have the trust
of my community. I have a two-thirds Hispanic population in my
workforce at the sheriff's office. I have guys that less than
5-6 years ago, maybe 10 years ago, that were illegal, got their
citizenship, and they work for me. I understand the process and
I understand how these people are affected.
The whole fear-mongering is coming from both sides, quite
frankly. It does come, and it tries to hit our community
because we are a Hispanic population of 34 percent.
Mr. Van Drew. There's the truth.
Sheriff Wagner. That's the truth. We, unfortunately, are
dealing with a nationwide problem where the border is the
Southern border, not the Northern yet. My community is affected
because, guess what, we fit the mold that needs to be in
politics apparently right now.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you for what you do.
I yield back.
Sheriff Wagner. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I have a UC request. This one is
from Newsweek, ``Donald Trump Pardon Recipients Are Being
Charged With New Crimes Since Their Pardons.'' This is NPR ,
January 30, 2025, ``January 6 rioters pardoned by Trump had
criminal records.''
Mr. McClintock. Without objection. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chair McClintock.
Another day and another hearing to distract the country
from the dumpster fire of the Trump Administration, instead of
talking about how Trump and Musk are destroying our economy,
busting unions, gutting Social Security and Medicaid, stealing
people's private information, and trampling on civil liberties.
Republicans are here to--surprise, surprise--scapegoat
immigrants once again.
The Republican playbook on immigration is dishonest and
cruel. Republicans have lifted up some tragedies that involved
immigrants committing a few crimes. This is the exception, not
the rule. I live in an immigrant neighborhood in Chicago. I
know what it's like.
The anecdote to dishonesty is truth, and that's what I'm
going to talk about. The truth hire is that there's significant
evidence that welcoming jurisdictions have lower crime rates,
lower poverty rates, lower reliance on public assistance, and
lower unemployment rates. This is from a stakeholder, someone
who lives day in/day out. Do I want to live in a dangerous
neighborhood? I have a wife, I have children, and I have
grandchildren.
Welcoming jurisdictions have had to do this for a good
reason. The truth is that the courts around the country have
repeatedly upheld welcoming policies like the ones in Chicago,
Cook County, and Illinois. They've also held that forcing
States and localities to participate in immigration enforcement
violates the Constitution.
The truth is that welcoming policies increase trust between
community and law enforcement. That's why forcing States and
localities to be an instrument of ICE is opposed, not only by
local law enforcement leaders, including Chicago, but also by
many crime victims' groups, like the National Task Force to End
Sexual and Domestic Violence.
Despite all this, Republicans are championing a bill that
would gut--cut billions of Federal funding for essential
programs like public safety, education, and transportation, if
States and localities do not sign up to enforce Steven Miller
and Tom Homan's reckless, racist, and illegal immigration
agenda.
Major Franklin, thank you for being here. Let me ask you,
would cutting funding for these essential programs help or harm
public safety, in your opinion?
Major Franklin. Cutting the funding for those programs
would definitely harm. It's no doubt about it. The services are
extensive. That's one of the things that the Law Enforcement
Action Partnership helps communities do, cities and towns, is
to manage their limited resources and find other ways of
dealing with community issues and problems other than law
enforcement.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. In your experience, how do welcoming
policies affect domestic violence survivors and other crime
victims?
Major Franklin. Outside of my law enforcement experience
when I was with the Baltimore Police Department, I was also the
President of an organization called TurnAround, Incorporated.
That was an advocacy organization for victims of domestic
violence and child sexual assault and so on. Working with that
organization for four years opened my eyes quite a bit as to
the importance to have welcoming policies for the immigrant
community as it relates to domestic violence and ensuring that
they get the services they need, especially since it is very
difficult for them to come forward when they are victims or
their family members are victims. You've got to have that trust
built between those communities and the
police.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
It's quite clear to me that Republicans are not interested
in public safety or crime victims, tragically. If Republicans
cared about public safety, they talked about the obedience of
the NRA and Red States having the highest rates of gun deaths
and homicides. If Republicans cared about public safety, they'd
support investments and evidence-based public health approaches
that are proven to reduce violence. If Republicans cared for
public safety, they wouldn't be criminalizing immigrants,
kidnapping people, or disappearing them to El Salvador. If
Republicans cared about public safety, they would never have
supported Donald Trump, a man whose greed and cruel actions
makes us all less safe.
I'm proud to have helped shape Chicago's first welcoming
measure in 1985 in the face of lies and cruelty.
Mr. Chair, before I yield back, I do request unanimous
consent.
Mr. McClintock. The Chair would remind Members that the
kind of personal attacks directed at the President are not
permitted on the House floor, and they will not be permitted in
this Committee.
Mr. Garcia. Can I submit, Mr. Chair?
Mr. McClintock. I said without objection.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I would like to submit for the
record a study, ``Immigrants Do Not Commit More Crimes in the
U.S., Despite Fearmongering.'' Another article, ``Immigrants
are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born Americans,
studies find.'' A third article, ``Study finds that no crime
increase in cities that adopted sanctuary policies, despite
trump's claims.''
Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. I'd be very interested in reading those.
Without objection. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration border crisis,
illegal aliens flooded sanctuary cities, overwhelmed their
infrastructure, and maxed out their budgets. According to the
New York City Mayor, Mayor Eric Adams, by the end of the Fiscal
Year 2025, the city had spent more than $12 billion on illegal
aliens for their city. A study also shows that, for Denver, one
study estimated that this city had spent $356 million on
illegal aliens.
Ms. Walters, according to the report, the Mayor of Chicago
spent $638 million in vendor contracts for illegal aliens since
2023.
Ms. Walters, have you seen your taxpayers' dollars being
used to benefit illegal aliens instead of the American
citizens?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes. Actually, after he spent all that
money, he then came back and tried to propose a $300 million
property tax on the American citizens. Not only did he take our
tax dollars and spend it on people who--and let me just say
this. When you come across that border illegally, you have
broken the law, therefore, making you a criminal.
The 20 million people who cross this border are criminals.
Let's just get that--so get that straight right now. That's why
we trust President Trump, because he is listening to the
American citizens. The Democrat Party, that's why their rating
is, what, 26 percent, because they refuse to listen to what the
American citizens want.
Mr. Moore. Ms. Walters, I think you're really right, and so
do you--is that how you see Chicago flipping Red? Is it an
immigration issue? I know that was a big issue in this
election. I agree with you, people come across the border
illegally, they are lawbreakers by definition.
We're not a sanctuary city in Alabama. I'll tell you this,
I had a 14-year-old girl drugged into a restroom in Wetumpka,
Alabama, and raped by an individual who he had claimed to be a
minor when came to the U.S. He was 31 years old. The Biden
Administration didn't bother to do a background check, turned
him loose into our community.
We're not a sanctuary city. I cannot imagine what these
sanctuary cities are having to deal with. These law enforcement
officers, when they're trying to just, for public safety
purposes, catch people and then not even notify ICE because
they just want to release them back into the community.
Tell me, so you think this issue of just--the very people
who supported the Democratic Party are being left in the cold,
in my humble opinion. Is that how you're seeing Chicago flip
Red because of the Democratic policies and what they're doing
to those communities they're supposed to be protecting?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes. Chicago flips Red established
because of that. We're going to make it our business because we
have seen the destruction that the Democratic Party policies
have done to our communities and our city.
It's funny that Mr. Garcia is from Chicago, and he cannot
tell you what's happening in our community. Because if he came
into our community, he would see all the gang graffiti, the
Tren de Aragua signs, and the MS-13. He would see that across
the street in a park and where they are putting the shelters at
that--all the needles that's in the park. All night, all we
hear is music all night, the drinking, and the defecating on
the streets. All the illegal restaurants that are allowed to
operate on the residential--on our corners.
Mr. Moore. So, Ms. Walters, in some ways you feel almost
like a prisoner in your own community because of the policies
of the administration prior to Trump?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes. Then they can't lock them up. My
husband just retired. He's a police officer. They cannot lock
them up. They weren't reporting the numbers. If an illegal
alien committed a crime, they weren't reporting it. Then you
didn't know--
Mr. Moore. That's what they say, oh, there's less crime by
a lot of the illegals because they're not bothering reporting
the crimes that illegals are actually committing in those
communities.
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes.
Mr. Moore. I gotcha. Hey, really quick question--and you
can finish up on this. Democrats really, they attack
Republicans often. They call us racist because of our
opposition to sanctuary jurisdictions. What is your response to
that when they say, we're here trying to make communities safe
and they're calling us racist? What is your response to that
sort of rhetoric?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Well, I say call me a racist. I don't
want anybody who cross over here illegally unvetted, I don't
want them in my community. You call me racist. Because let me
say, the Democratic Party is so far from reality. They go in
their gated communities--I don't see any of those people that's
advocating to keep these people here. I don't see them in their
house and in their communities. They don't have them around
their children or their husbands. Yet, still they're advocating
for us to allow this in our communities around our kids and our
families.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Ms. Walters. I got to yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
I just want to clarify that usually when we talk about
racism and the Republican Party, it has to do with things like
deleting the history of Jackie Robinson, deleting the history
of Harriet Tubman, or deciding that the Tuskegee Airmen should
be deleted, or maybe just defunding the African American
Museum. The list kind of goes on and on and on, but I am not
here to talk about why they are racist. I am here to talk about
some other things as it relates to immigration. Let's get to
that.
It's interesting because we've got all these theories. I
don't know why we put up with getting data and facts if we just
going to sit here and talk about how we feel. Maybe we can
inject some facts into these feelings. I'm not really sure.
As somebody who has actually practiced criminal defense--I
don't know if there is anybody else in here who has--I can tell
you that I have handled thousands of cases, not hundreds of
cases, thousands on the State level in Texas, Arkansas, and the
Federal level. I can tell you that, you know what, if I had to
look at the vast majority of the cases that I was representing
criminal defendants on, the vast majority of them just didn't
happen to be immigrants. These are just the facts of my
experience. Maybe the immigrants went to somebody else. I don't
know. I can tell you in my actual experience in real life, in
reality, and not in this fallacy world that y'all are making up
where you hate everybody.
My Republican colleagues are here using today to continue
pushing this false narrative of sanctuary cities harboring
criminals. Yet, right here in D.C., we have a 34-count felon
being harbored in the White House. The hypocrisy coming from
your side of the aisle over concerns regarding lawlessness is
outrageous.
Right now, House Republicans are conducting townhalls with
constituents lying about our legal system that, quote, ``There
is no due process if you come here illegally because you
violated the law.'' That immigrants, quote, ``are not entitled
to due process.'' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that.
We all want to live in a country where we respect the law.
I'm a bit surprised that Republicans aren't up in arms with
Trump detaining and deporting U.S. citizens and people who are
lawfully present here in the United States. What Trump and ICE
are doing is a disgrace, and it's all being done without
respect for our laws.
For example, Mr. Neri Alvarado, a Dallas-based baker, was
arrested and deported to El Salvador prison for having an
autism awareness tattoo in honor of his 15-year-old autistic
brother. This was done despite never having been to El
Salvador, despite having no gang affiliation, and despite
having no organized crime connection. He was deported because
ICE agents have been detaining, quote, ``All Venezuelans with
tattoos.''
To be clear, this type of racial profiling isn't just a
one-off. In fact, the ACLU, using DHS' own data mind you, found
that at least 65 percent of the States and local agencies
voluntarily working with ICE have records of racial profiling
and civil rights violations.
Mr. Franklin, first, let me--and, Sheriff, let me thank you
for your service too.
Sheriff Wagner. Thank you.
Ms. Crockett. Because I appreciate law enforcement. I just
want to put that out there.
Mr. Franklin and Major Franklin, you're a decorated law
enforcement officer. Yes or no, in your experience, does
racially profiling people make communities safer?
Major Franklin. No.
Ms. Crockett. Yes or no, does ICE forcing State or local
law enforcement to detain people make communities safer?
Major Franklin. No.
Ms. Crockett. It's interesting because we've already--and
we're going to do Groundhog Day a couple of times seemingly
here. Actually, let me give you the facts really quick before I
go to that.
In fact, the report from the American Immigration Council
found that cities that didn't enforce ICE detainers have 35.5
percent lower crime rates, 2.3 percent lower poverty rates, and
relied less on public assistance, including 4.9 percent less
for children under 18.
I do want to be clear. Right now, ICE is trying to work
with the IRS, because we actually take in billions of dollars
because of immigrants in this country, and now they're going to
try to get them out.
I'm going to tell you that the biggest issue that we have--
I really don't think this should be a partisan issue, so I'm
going to agree with my Republican colleagues. I think that we
all should want to be safe in our communities.
The problem that we have is that we have an incompetent
administration, that everything that they touch turns to shit.
Because what they do is they take a wide-sweeping brush, and
they have decided that the enemy is now going to be immigrants
instead of taking a scalpel. That's all we're asking is to be
exact in what you're doing instead of taking a sledgehammer to
everything.
Thank you, and I will yield.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Democrats keep using the phrase ``Constitutional
crisis.'' The world constitutional crisis is sanctuary city
mayors, DAs, and judges who are defying Federal law and
preventing a President from doing the job that he was elected
to do by the American people.
It is the job of the Federal Government to keep Americans
safe. When violent gangs are taking over American cities like
Chicago, that is an invading army. When you can't live
peacefully in an apartment in Colorado, that is also an
invading army.
No judge, DA, or liberal mayor should be able to usurp the
power of our Commander in Chief who was elected by 77 million
Americans. Now the Supreme Court agrees.
Since the Democrats do not like the result of the election,
you would think that they will be focusing on the midterms
coming up, but instead they are engaging in a judicial coup
d'etat.
The reason they are not focused on the midterms is because
they are not confident that they can take back control of the
House of Representatives in two years because they have no
leader, and they have no valid message. The Democrat Party has
a 21 percent approval rating with voters in this country. Why,
because their only message is Trump is bad.
They've gone so far as to attack people for driving
electric vehicles. They openly admit that they are DEI hires,
and they claim that the reason they're not popular with voters
right now is because they are not opposing Trump enough. That's
the reaction to their failure. Their solution is to become more
extreme and more unpopular with their policies.
This question must be asked, does the Democrat Party hate
President Trump more than they love our country and more than
they love the safety of my fellow Americans?
This might explain why they are willing to overtly defend
members of Tren de Aragua, MS-13, rather than stand up and clap
for a child with a terminal brain cancer illness, or for a
young man admitted to West Point, my alma mater, or for a
family of a gentleman who was murdered in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Trump derangement syndrome is real. It's a real thing.
Sanctuary policies are harming my fellow Americans, as my
witnesses have testified here today. This U.S. Congressman is
tired of seeing mothers, daughters, and wives of Americans
raped, maimed, and murdered by Tren de Aragua and MS-13, and
other violent criminals that have snuck across the border to
destroy this great Nation.
All of us should support the ICE raids, the hard work of
Tom Homan, Customs and Border Protection, and the policies of
our duly elected Commander in Chief.
Ms. Carter-Walters, thank you for being here, ma'am. I
really appreciate your testimony earlier. In your experience,
specifically in Chicago, are communities of color
disproportionately impacted by illegal migrants getting special
privileges? If so, how?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes. They are placed in our
communities. They are not placed anywhere else but in our
communities. They are taking over our schools, so you already
have overcrowded schooling. You might have 20 to 1 class, now
you have 40 to 1 class. Then they don't speak English. Now,
that's taking away from the child already who is in an
overcrowded classroom.
Then, you have where now we can't even--they took over our
parks. Where you'll have a sink--grandmoms and things--kids--to
keep the kids off the street, they house illegals into the
field houses. They took over our field houses.
Then, now apartments, whereas because our Mayor is paying
so much money for illegals to house them, now we have tenants
that can't even--the landlords that won't even rent to American
citizens because they're renting to illegals because they get
paid more for illegals.
Mr. Hunt. Let me ask you this next question, ma'am. You've
been Black for a pretty long time, right?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes.
Mr. Hunt. Me too. I've been Black for my entire life. Just
want to acknowledge that. Basically what you're saying, do you
view yourself as a different American or do you just care about
the safety of our community? Does anybody--are you a racist for
feeling this way.
Ms. Carter-Walters. No.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you very much.
Sheriff Wagner, thank you so much for your service. I
really appreciate all you've done for this great country.
You've been a hostage negotiator, detective, patrol sergeant,
and sheriff. Your accolades are unbelievable.
My question for you is this: What are the Democrats in your
State doing to prevent you from doing your job? Do you expect
more of this or are you not allowed to enforce the law?
Sheriff Wagner. It's come down to I'm not allowed to or
else. That's really what we're faced with. We have an Attorney
General that goes by his marching orders, whatever you want to
call it, and coming after our little agency to serve as a
message to the rest of the State of Washington.
If you look behind me, that's why these sheriffs are here
today. They all feel the heat. They feel the situation is
bearing down on us. We're only 39 sheriffs in our State. Our
State needs sheriffs, believe it or not. They keep trying the
attack constantly, constantly, constantly.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you. As somebody that has worn the uniform,
I understand the importance of leadership, and it starts at the
top. Thank so much for you what you've done for our great
Nation.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Jayapal. I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Hunt. I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Ms. Jayapal. There was no time remaining.
Mr. McClintock. Go ahead.
Ms. Jayapal. I have a unanimous consent request to enter
into the record an article about a U.S.--it's entitled, ``U.S.
Citizen Sues Department of Homeland Security Following Three
and a Half Years in Immigration Detention.''
I have another article entitled, ``Marine veteran was among
U.S. citizens detained by ICE, ACLU says.''
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I've got one more UC request. This
will be interesting to the Members. Just breaking news:
``Trump-appointed Federal judge blocks all deportations from
Southern District of Texas under Trump's Alien Enemies Act
proclamation.'' You know it was moved from D.C. to Texas.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I have a UC request as well. This
is actually laying out--this is, ``Setting the Record Straight
on Local Involvement in Federal Civil Immigration
Enforcement.'' The facts and the law. It lays out multiple
settlements because of violations of people's constitutional
rights.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are fiddling while Rome burns. Our country is in danger
of losing the democracy that we have valued for so many years.
We look forward to the 250th Anniversary of our Constitution in
our Nation, when the Constitution that James Madison drafted is
being torn apart by this administration. Powers that are given
to the Legislature, powers of the purse in Article I to
Congress are being surrendered to the Executive.
The ability to eliminate offices that have been funded by
Congress has been given to the Executive. There are checks and
balances in our Constitution, precious checks and balances that
make us different from countries, authoritarian countries,
where the ruler is like the king and does whatever he or she
wants, and we are destroying those checks and balances.
Congress is supposed to check the Executive. They are not
doing it. They are taking our powers. They are destroying
offices that were created like the Department of Energy and the
Department of Education. The peace institute, which was set up
as an independent group, not part of Congress, not part of the
Executive, and they have gone in DOGE with police officers from
D.C. and taken it over and they are trying to eliminate it.
There are all other kind of offices like that, that they are
trying to eliminate. Our country is in danger right now.
Immigration is important, but if we don't have a country and
immigration isn't an issue. I am astonished at how many people,
particularly on the other side of the aisle, are surrendering
their power to Trump and letting him do whatever in the hell he
wants.
We had a continuing resolution, there were community
projects authorized by each Congressperson, I think almost all
had community projects in there and we wiped them out. Article
I says we're in charge of purse and we come up and make
recommendations and rather than include them in a
congressionally ordered continuing resolution, we eliminate
them. That makes no sense. We have given up our Article I
powers. Trump is just doing whatever he wants and we don't even
question him or challenge him.
I wrote a letter to Kristi Noem on February 14th. I have
not gotten a response to it. I served with her, I should have
gotten a response. I wrote her that I inquire that the
Department of Homeland Security's immigration and enforcement
policies, priorities and communications. I let her know in the
letter that I agree with her that we should get the worst of
the worst. She called it the worst of the worst. There have
been conflicting reports on who ICE is picking up and
detaining. I would appreciate her letting me know who they
picked up, how many of those were child sexual abusers,
homicides, or rapists. Where those individuals were apprehended
and where they were previously in custody of another law
enforcement agency and how many went to Guantanamo Bay and
whatever.
I'd appreciate her clarifying the number of immigrants. If
she would, who were the worst of the worst of those who have
been convicted for murder, rape and child sexual offenses. This
was February 14th. I have not heard from her. It is now two
months. She has had plenty of time to put on her cowboy
britches and her cowboy hat and ride on a horse, fortunately
not shooting any dogs on the way. She has had time to pose in
front of people in prison in El Salvador, dressed as she does
with her Rolex watch and looking whatever talking and using
them as a prop. She doesn't have time to answer a congressional
request to State who have they arrested and who are the worst
of the worst and are they getting the worst of the worst. I
have to presume her failure to answer is that fact that they
are not getting the worst of the worst.
On CNN the other day, they showed a graph and I don't know
their stats, but at least they are giving stats that show that
most of the people that were sent to El Salvador were not
convicted of any crimes in this country, any felonies. They
were not the worst of the worst. They might have had a bunch of
ugly tattoos on. I don't know who they were you, but they had a
right to due process. When we come into office, we take an oath
to support the Constitution and to support the Constitution of
our country against all enemies, domestic and foreign. That's
not an oath we take just when it is easy. Saying that these
people were all tattooed and maybe they are members of this
gang, I don't know. Nobody hardly knows. That may not be easy
in this climate. Due process is important all the time. It is
most important when it is in the worst circum-stances, the most
difficult circumstances to stand up and I abide by your oath. I
appreciate everybody here in uniform and thank you for what
you're doing in protecting the laws of this country. The fact
is our country is at risk right now and we need to stand up,
support our oath and keep the powers of the Congress as they
have been intended and stop this President from a coup d'etat
and an authoritarian takeover.
Yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The more things change, the more they stay the same,
unfortunately. When I first got to Congress two years ago, the
former Ranking Member said at our first immigration hearing
that we Republicans were imagining a border crisis.
Ms. Carter-Walters, are you imagining a border crisis? How
would you respond to that?
Ms. Carter-Walters. That's why President Trump almost--we
almost had a Red wave in the United States because we are tired
of the lies, the gaslighting from the Democrat party, all while
they are--everything they are saying right now that Trump is a
threat, everything is a threat. No, they are the threat. The
Biden-Harris Administration allowed 20 million people to cross
that border unvetted and illegally. No, we're not imagining
anything. When I go outside my house and I look from side to
side and across the street and I see what I see and see the
gangs and see the--everybody that's not--well, let me say this,
let me just--people who I know that's not from my community and
people who I know that's not from here. When I see that
invasion in my community, then I'm not imagining anything. No,
I'm looking at that with my own eyes.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for sharing that.
Sheriff really quick to you, in your law enforcement
experience, it's pretty customary to work with your State and
Federal law enforcement officials on any number of issues. Is
that a fair characterization?
Sheriff Wagner. Yes. Actually, we've done that for years,
yes.
Mr. Fry. In any given scenario, you back them up, they
might provide you with resources. There is esprit de corps, if
you will, between the law enforcement community to work
together on crimes that are happening in your community and in
your State.
Sheriff Wagner. It should be and should not be political in
any way.
Mr. Fry. The interesting thing in your State is that you
now have a State Attorney General who is presumably the Chief
Law Enforcement Officer of the State that is impeding your
ability to do your job. Have you ever seen something like that
before? Not necessarily on immigration or sanctuary policies,
but have you ever seen a State official like that impede local
law enforcement to the degree you have right now with these
sanctuary policies?
Sheriff Wagner. Not in the years that I've been in law
enforcement until the--probably the last 10 years, things in
the State have changed.
Mr. Fry. Mr. Hauman, are you familiar with 8 U.S.C. 1373?
Mr. Hauman. Yep.
Mr. Fry. What is it? Just to paraphrase, what does it say?
Mr. Hauman. Well, it's a critical statute when it comes to
immigration enforcement and something that Democrats obviously
ignore and disregard, like they do every other part of
immigration law.
Mr. Fry. The statute basically says that you cannot
restrict communication between State and local entities and
Federal immigration authorities. Is that correct?
Mr. Hauman. That is correct.
Mr. Fry. That's what's happening here.
Mr. Hauman. They are not only restricting communications,
let's get another example, sanctuary jurisdictions are beyond
simply complying with retainer requests. You have an example
like Newark, New Jersey, you have a Mayor, Ras Baraka, who is
refusing to even allow a detention facility of 1,000 beds to
open. He is doing a permitting nonsense. They don't only want
to comply with detainers, they don't want to detain, even in
critical urban areas that are key hubs for removal.
Mr. Fry. What's remarkable about this is why would they do
that? What would be the policy reason, the logical reason that
they would do that?
Mr. Hauman. It's all by design. Again, it's all these urban
areas. You're going to start seeing it too again. It's not
just, hey, we want to keep you in the shadows, we want you to
do as you please, live as you please. They want to make each
jurisdiction in a flagrant abuse with a middle finger to the
White House when it comes to enforcing our law. That's what
they are doing. They are dismantling detention and immigration
enforcement. When it comes down to it, there is preventable
crimes. We are going to keep seeing them. Until adequate
funding is provided to President Trump and ICE to do mass
deportation and everything, it's going to be in our hands too.
Mr. Fry. Well, maybe we can start with some funding by
restricting the ability of these cities. If we're giving them
grants what are they going to or we are giving them money, but
they are not actually cooperating or helping. I think to the
sheriff's point earlier, it's really alarming to me that
sanctuary cities even think that it is acceptable to exist,
right? This is a policy that is not based in reality that is an
emotional response to the big orange man is a bad guy in the
White House. That is kind of where they seem to be going. That
we would not allow the sheriff to do his job to work with our
Federal partners. The Congress absolutely has a role here. We
absolutely should work to shut this practice down, because as
Ms. Carter-Walters talked about earlier, she sees it in her
community, it is no longer safe.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Knott.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Major Franklin, just so I'm clear, I haven't been in for
the entirety of the question and answers, but I want to ask
you, do you believe that illegal immigration is a problem for
the country?
Major Franklin. Oh, it definitely is a problem, yes.
Mr. Knott. Do you believe that the 10-15 million or even 20
million people of the last four years is a problem for the
country?
Major Franklin. Yes, I do. There is no doubt that we have a
border problem, and we need policies--because you've heard--
Mr. Knott. Yes.
Major Franklin. --what we are dealing with at the local
level once they get to our cities and towns. That's real.
Mr. Knott. Yes.
Major Franklin. Then we have to make decisions on how we
best manage it for us in our communities and what we see is as
public safety. This really pains me to not be able to see both
sides come together and work within the brackets of the
Constitution to come up with sound border policy and processes
so people can become legal. It is a huge issue, but we are
dealing with it at the local level, and Sheriff Wagner and the
other sheriffs here, it is a problem. You said it, sheriff, the
politics, it's difficult. It's painful.
Mr. Knott. Well, let me just stop you there. Our side of
the aisle is not for legal immigration. Our side of the aisle
is for welcoming millions of people here and then trying to
offer them legal status without any process or recognition of
the existing legal immigrants that we have. The problem that I
have with sanctuary cities like yours in Baltimore, where I
personally had experience with detainers not being honored or
respected.
In your experience, what is Federal detainer? Do you
support exercising those?
Major Franklin. Detainers become a problem for--
Mr. Knott. As you understand it, what is a Federal
detainer? I have issued them as--
Major Franklin. A detainer is pretty much a notice to local
law enforcement that they want a particular person and give us
notice when they are going to be released.
Mr. Knott. Who's already in custody.
Major Franklin. Who's already in custody.
Mr. Knott. That means by extension they have already
committed a crime or been arrested for a crime, correct?
Major Franklin. Absolutely.
Mr. Knott. Those detainers, when they are not honored,
those people are released without Federal law enforcement
effectuating an arrest, correct?
Major Franklin. I've never experienced that, no.
Mr. Knott. Well, that's what the detainers--that's what the
sanctuary policies are built around, you're not honoring a
Federal detainer.
Major Franklin. Because under my command, the notice went
out in a timely fashion and the Federal authorities, be it ICE
or another Federal agency, are then waiting for that person to
be released. By law, we could not hold them with a detainer. A
warrant? Yes. A detainer, no.
Mr. Knott. Just to cut to the chase, you don't honor the
detainer. You have someone in your custody who is illegal,
you're notified by Federal law enforcement they are here
illegally, the detainer says, ``please hold.'' Sanctuary policy
does not honor the detainer, correct?
Major Franklin. Correct. If it's a warrant, we hold them.
Mr. Knott. Exactly, exactly. You have people who have been
arrested at the local level, there's a Federal instruction to
hold them, an illegal immigrant criminal and you prioritize
releasing them rather than working with Federal law
enforcement. It's your opinion that this serves your local
community, correct?
Major Franklin. They paid their debt.
Mr. Knott. Releasing someone illegally who has already been
arrested.
Major Franklin. We're required--
Mr. Knott. I'm asking the questions, sir.
It's your testimony that releasing an arrested illegal
immigrant criminal effectuates a safety or a safe policy for
your community.
Major Franklin. When they are released by the order of the
court on a specific date and time--
Mr. Knott. This is what I call an evasive answer.
Major Franklin. That's what we are required to do.
Mr. Knott. Someone has been arrested in your town who is
here illegally, and you want them to be released, rather than
to work with Federal law enforcement.
Major Franklin. We work with the Federal law enforcement.
Mr. Knott. It's your testimony that this makes your
community--
Major Franklin. According to the law--
Mr. Knott. Safer, safer.
Major Franklin. We work according to the law.
Mr. Knott. Do you think that being here illegally is
consistent with the law?
Major Franklin. With the Federal law is--
Mr. Knott. Federal law. No. When they commit a crime, and
they get arrested by your law enforcement agency.
Major Franklin. It's a civil process you're talking about.
Mr. Knott. It is not a civil process. They are not brought
into your jail by civil action.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Knott. I will not.
Major Franklin. The local police do not have the authority
to enforce that Federal law.
Mr. Knott. They have the authority to hold someone when a
Federal detainer is issued and that you're skirting the issue.
They were in your custody for some other action, correct?
Major Franklin. Which they've served their time for, yes.
Mr. Knott. For some other action. When you issue a hold, it
is a sanctuary policy to let them go, correct?
Major Franklin. Sanctuary policy? I'm talking about what I
know to be a legal policy.
Mr. Knott. My time has expired. I think that the point was
made.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. McClintock. I'm sure you do.
Ms. Jayapal. Should I go ahead?
Mr. McClintock. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. OK, great. I'd like to enter into the record
an article, ``Police say ICE tactics are eroding public trust
in local law enforcement.''
Mr. McClintock. It's from NPR?
Ms. Jayapal. From NPR.
I have another unanimous consent request to enter into the
record an article entitled, ``Immigrant Sanctuary Policies and
Crime Reporting-Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis of Reports of
Crime Victimization to Law Enforcement, 1980 to 2004.'' I have
another unanimous consent request to enter into the record an
article entitled, ``The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime
and the Economy.'' A final one--not a final one, some more--to
enter into the record, ``Can Sanctuary Policies Reduce Domestic
Violence?'' Another one, ``The local effects of Federal law
enforcement policies evidence from sanctuary jurisdictions and
crime.'' These are all supporting the very real data that shows
that cities and towns and States across the country with these
policies are safer.
Mr. McClintock. The Unanimous consent, without objection.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
witnesses' time and being here today.
It's an easy issue for most of us, at least it is for me,
as a matter of principle, Federal laws says these folks once
convicted and subject to removal as a matter of Federal law, we
ought to have cooperation and communication among the various
levels of government to effectuate the purpose of Federal law.
That's not a particularly difficult concept.
I recognized, I was a State official for two decades. I
recognize what's essentially a States' rights argument on the
other side the anticommandeering doctrine and the theory or the
idea of the legal principles that there are limits on what the
Federal Government can do to compel States to do things they
don't want to do. I've always thought in this space, the way
I've looked at it is that States and locals probably, as a
general matter, have the ability to stand by and not be
terribly helpful. They don't have the ability to actively
impede, either by action or omission, the enforcement of
Federal law.
Sheriff, you're in the middle of the bull's eye right now
as all this intersects. Do you look at it in a similar way or
how do you draw that line?
Sheriff Wagner. Yes, I look at--it's very similar. The
problem that we face in Washington State and sanctuary
policies--we talked about Chicago. I'll go back to Chicago. We
had an illegal immigrant come to Chicago with his wife and kill
her in our county, right, a few years ago. It affects us on a
huge scale to not be able to communicate with another law
enforcement entity. We've got to stop these things; it is
called defund the police. Now because one side has control or
whatever, now all of a sudden we have a situation where ICE is
the bad guy and now we've got to get rid of ICE. We're a
Federal, State, local, Federals should be working together on
all these for law enforcement perspective to find solutions for
our communities.
Mr. Schmidt. Amen, sheriff. I feel for you. I've been
there. I've shared with this Committee and the Full Committee,
t was just a few weeks ago a case we had a number of years ago
where an illegal alien convicted of DUI in California a number
of years earlier and then came to our jurisdiction and some
years later drove drunk again and killed a Sheriff's Deputy in
the course of that. I went back and double checked prior to
this hearing and sure enough, there is at least no record that
the California authorities released that fellow from their
State jurisdiction or local, I don't know what it was, had ever
communicated with ICE. There was no retainer detainer request
and no record. What happened in California didn't stay in
California. It came to my State and killed a young law
enforcement officer. We have an interest in each other's
handling of this. It's perhaps a profound interest.
I want to ask you a question. I'm lucky I live in a State
that's--my situation was just opposite of yours. While I served
as an Attorney General, I had some local jurisdictions that
wanted to become safe and welcoming as they euphemistically put
it. I wound up working with our legislature. We got a statute
enacted that preempted all that local authority and in fact
affirmatively obligates them to comply with Federal law and
communicate with Federal agents. We fixed our problem, but I
empathize you are not in a posture to even get that done.
I want to ask you about the other side of the coin. This is
a little out of scope, so I will start with Mr. Hauman and if
we have time Mr. Wagner. It just strikes me there's a strange
juxtaposition here. On the one hand, the Feds are limited in
how we can put guardrails around State decisions in terms of
becoming sanctuaries, noncooperation. On the other hand, the
Federal Government has almost entirely preempted States that
want to cooperate, that want to enforce their own State law as
to immigration, consistently not in conflict with Federal law.
We said, ``you can't do that.'' There's Supreme Court cases on
point, largely. That's not a constitutional function; that's a
function of decisions made by this body. It's statutory
preemption. I'm wondering if sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander. As we're trying to figure out how we fix the
sanctuary problem, should we also be talking about easing up on
preemption so that States or locals that want to be helpful in
immigration enforcement, enforcement of Federal law, parallel
enforcement enactment, and enforcement of State laws should be
able to do that. Mr. Hauman, what do you think about that?
Mr. Hauman. Again, under President Trump, one of the key
things he's done--it's not a new or unique authority that would
expand, but again, 287--
Mr. Schmidt. I know but it's not the same. The 287(g)
requires a partnership, an agreement between the Federal
Government and the States so when you have a hostile Federal
administration they just stop agreeing.
Mr. Hauman. Right.
Mr. Schmidt. I'm talking about actually easing some of the
presumption provisions that are in the I&A so that States that
want to enact and enforce laws that are--
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, at this time we just need to be
consistent. We just need to be consistent, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady--
Ms. Jayapal. You just need to be consistent, Mr. Chair. If
you're going to cutoff my witness, then I expect that you
would--
Mr. McClintock. I have been trying to enforce the rules
as--
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I've just got a UC request.
Mr. McClintock. Go ahead.
Mr. Raskin. These are five District Court Opinions which
say that it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to
hold someone beyond the term of their sentence on a mere
detainer as opposed to a warrant.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. [Audio malfunction.] America is so
generous in terms of the number of people we allow in our
country. I don't think it's pointed out enough we have anywhere
over the last three years an average of about 860,000 people
every year who are naturalized citizens who are sworn in as new
citizens and did things the right way. That's in addition to
letting about 470,000 people on student visas, about 900,000
people who aren't citizens on work visas, so we are very
generous.
Nevertheless, we just got through a four-year period in
which we had a President, and I have sympathy for people as
they are kicked out of the country because they might have been
listening to our President at that time. Our President in
essence encouraged 10 million people to enter the country over
the last four years, knowing that eventually if we had a law
abiding President who respected the law, we're going to have to
remove these 10 million people in which we should do because
it's an insult, it's a slap in the face to anybody who came
here legally, as they will quickly tell you. You're going to
get too much of a quick change in America. Our culture will
change, if you will allow that many people in the country that
quickly.
In any event, one of the things that concerns me is the
mind-set of people who really encourage breaking of the law. We
the problem in Wisconsin where we have a Governor, we have a
mayor in Milwaukee who is not being helpful to ICE like they
should be. Do any of you folks--I guess we can start with Mr.
Wagner at the end--have you had any experience with these
people who apparently want us to ignore our immigration laws
and what goes on in their contorted mind? Why can't they just
say, 850,000 a year, get in line, and do it legally.
Sheriff Wagner. Yes, I can't speak to someone's mind,
obviously, but I can tell that you we do. We have those
conversations within my employment. My people that work for me
that have been through the process that have family members and
come here, some of them potentially their parents or relatives
before illegally and they are generational now. There's a lot
of those kinds of discussions that happen and there is some
insulted people that have done it the right way that don't feel
that this is correct.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Mr. Hauman, have you come across these
rather bizarre people who have been encouraging people to break
the law and bizarre public officials who don't want these
people removed? Can you imagine what's going on in their minds?
Mr. Hauman. [Audio malfunction.] The Left, obviously, have
the immigration lawyer, industrial complex that is really
licking their chops over everything that's going on right now.
It is interesting to see that even on social media or every
public debate arena, all these lawyers and activists and
everything all they seem to care about is the body art and
other things like that as defending them from being unable to
be removed and stuff, blasting obviously conditions in other
countries. It is just everybody on the other side either has a
financial interest in it or their interest when it comes to
their extreme world view of transforming our country.
Mr. Grothman. We do have--I hate to say businessmen in my
own district who want a lot more immigrants above the legal
amount because they don't want to give their employees a raise.
That's a motive that's going on out here, because they know if
we get a lot of people here illegally, they'll be able to work
for less and they won't have to give the average American a
raise. That's a motivating factor too.
We have got to get the view from Chicago. Ms. Carter-
Walters, do you have a view as to why these people want to
encourage people to break the law?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Well, we believe that because the
Democrat party have a 21 percent approval rating, they need
voters, first of all. It is disgusting to hear that they are
advocating for a people who broke the law to get here. To hear
them talk about their rights, all while infringing on our
rights as true American citizens is disgusting. That's why,
``We the People,'' trust President Trump, because he listens to
us. He's a President of commonsense. Who in their right mind
will be pushing--now, they see that 80 percent want mass
deportation of everybody. Like you said, when you allow
millions of people to come over here illegally, saturating
America, then that means that we have to get them out of here
and then bring them back--and let them come in the correct way.
Under the Biden-Harris Administration, they opened the border.
Under President Trump, he's fixing the problem.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Carter-Walters. We the American citizens, we are OK--
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Carter-Walters, I'm sorry to cut you
off, but the Ranking Member has quite insisted on this point.
Ms. Jayapal. Fairness in the Committee is appropriate.
Mr. McClintock. I will have to ask you to conclude and
recognize Mr. Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to for all the
witnesses here today.
Lless than a week after I was sworn in as a new Member of
Congress, one of my 18-year-old constituents was sexually
assaulted on a Lyft ride, which was driven by an illegal alien
who had overstayed his tourist visa. Only five days later, this
same illegal alien again kidnapped and assaulted another one of
my constituents, this time while driving an Uber. Thankfully,
our local St. Charles County, Missouri Police Department
arrested him two days later, and this violent illegal alien
faces multiple felony charges, including second degree sexual
assault and third degree kidnapping. While he is being held on
a $250,000 bond, ICE could issue a detainer requesting St.
Charles County P.D. to notify ICE before he's released from
custody so that ICE can take him into custody. I have no doubt
that in St. Charles County the Police Department will
cooperate.
In addition, Missouri has a law, which I actually passed in
2008, banning sanctuary jurisdictions and at the same time
requiring police, local police, to cooperate with ICE and
enforcement of our immigration laws. Of course, that's why
we're here today.
In other States and jurisdictions some police departments
routinely deny these ICE detainers, returning violent illegal
aliens like this rideshare driver back into our communities.
Sanctuary cities are dangerous because they release safety
threats back into our communities and of course Tom our new
immigration--Tom Hauman recognized that he will make fighting
this a priority.
Mr. Hauman. If a sanctuary city ignores or denies an ICE
detainer, does ICE eventually apprehend the criminal alien?
Mr. Hauman. It obviously depends on the situation.
Obviously, ICE has resource constraints in their ability to
comply with the issue every request and how it works. The
operational roadblocks that ICE is currently hitting based on
the accounts that are running dry, the money they have in the
backfill--
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Hauman. They are not even close when it comes to
capability at the moment.
Mr. Onder. That would be sometimes called an at-large
arrest. Why is that more dangerous to ICE officers, and the
aliens, to the aliens, and to the community than if the
jurisdiction simply honored an ICE detainer?
Mr. Hauman. Because they have to go out in the field and
conduct a removal effort that is complex. You are already
seeing it too, the other side of groups on the Left we are out
there leaking pending operations of them going to raid a house
because they don't want it to happen when they are putting them
at risk. Every enforcement operation that happens out there is
at risk for them. Ninety-eight percent of illegal aliens are
currently roaming free. We can't even track them with a
monitoring device, or they are not even in our custody. We are
just--by going out into the abyss and trying to find these
people and putting their lives at risk. It's dangerous.
Mr. Onder. Do these illegal aliens who are released, do
they sometimes reoffend?
Mr. Hauman. Oh, of course, absolutely. There's the thing
too, when it comes to any crime that's committed by an illegal
alien, it's 100 percent preventable. We could have prevented
every single one. You cannot compare them to U.S. citizens
crime rates, it's impossible.
Mr. Onder. Proponents of sanctuary jurisdictions sometimes
argue that honoring ICE detainers, cooperating with ICE will
erode confidence in the community and the local law
enforcement, many people afraid to come forward and report
crimes. What do you say to that?
Mr. Hauman. Show me one example of it. I want to hear one
example of a person that was arrested for reporting a crime. We
have legal immigration pathways that do protect witnesses and
things like that. Show me one example of it. I still have not
heard one from any law enforcement officer.
Mr. Onder. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, without objection, I would like to offer for the
record three studies. One quote, ``Another Fatally Flawed Study
on Illegal Alien Crime from the Cato Institute.'' Another
``SCAAP data suggests illegal aliens commit crime at a much
higher rate than citizen and lawful immigrants.'' Third, ``Cato
Institute's analysis on illegal alien crime latest in a long
history of poor scholarship.'' There is sometimes this
narrative that illegal aliens are more law abiding than
citizens. That is truly false, indeed false.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this
hearing.
I think Ms. Carter-William--Walters, excuse me, said it
best that we had a secure border under President Trump. In his
first term, Joe Biden opened the floodgates and now President
Trump is cleaning up Joe Biden's mess. That was very well said.
I'd like to begin with Major Franklin. Thank you for being
here. Do you know what percentage of illegal aliens reside in
sanctuary cities, roughly?
Major Franklin. No, I don't.
Mr. Gill. It's about 56 percent, rough numbers.
Is it your testimony and I've got your written testimony
here that local law enforcement should not dedicate time and
resources toward information sharing and detainer requirements?
Major Franklin. It's about--generally speaking, this is
about the context.
Mr. Gill. It's about the context, so I will take that.
Major Franklin. The specific circumstances, yes.
Mr. Gill. Some criminal illegal aliens, they should--
Major Franklin. I think it is more about having good
policies on how when the communication--
Mr. Gill. OK. We'll come back to that.
Let me ask you, do sanctuary city policies en masse illegal
immigration help American citizens enter the labor force? Yes
or no?
Major Franklin. I don't know. That's not my area of
expertise
Mr. Gill. OK, you don't know.
Do sanctuary cities en masse illegal immigration lower
housing costs? Yes or no? You don't know?
Major Franklin. Not my area.
Mr. Gill. Do they help reduce the strain on public services
or public benefits? You don't know?
Major Franklin. I--
Mr. Gill. OK. Do you think that illegal aliens, you're
saying that they should have safe harbor essentially in our
cities. Should they have free access to medical care?
Major Franklin. They should have access to medical care.
Mr. Gill. Should they have taxpayers subsidized access to
medical care?
Major Franklin. It depends on the circumstances, I guess. I
don't know.
Mr. Gill. What about taxpayer subsidized education?
Major Franklin. It's not my area of expertise.
Mr. Gill. OK. Public housing?
Major Franklin. Not my area of--
Mr. Gill. You don't know. You're inviting them to come into
our cities, but you don't have a position on what should happen
to them then, other than that, illegal aliens shouldn't be
detained?
Major Franklin. I'm not inviting anyone.
Mr. Gill. Well, you essentially are actually. Would you
describe Baltimore as a safe city?
Major Franklin. What's your definition of safe?
Mr. Gill. I'm asking you, is Baltimore a safe city? Is that
the kind of city that you would want to raise a family in,
maybe go jogging in without having to be worried about being
murdered or raped?
Major Franklin. I grew up in Baltimore. My family is in
Baltimore. My mother still lives in the same house in West
Baltimore 60 plus years so the answer is definitely yes.
Mr. Gill. Is it a safe city? You think Baltimore is a safe
city?
Major Franklin. Of course it is.
Mr. Gill. OK. Do you know what the homicide rate is in
Baltimore?
Major Franklin. Exactly, no.
Mr. Gill. It's about 35 per 100,000. Do you know what the
homicide rate is in the rest of the United States?
Major Franklin. No, I don't.
Mr. Gill. I can tell you that the homicide rate in
Baltimore is about five times the national average.
Do you know how Baltimore's robbery rate compares to the
rest of the United States?
Major Franklin. At the moment, no, I don't.
Mr. Gill. You don't. It is about 8.4 times the national
average.
Do you know who Baltimore's assault rate compares to the
national average?
Major Franklin. No, I don't.
Mr. Gill. It's about 3.4 times. Does that sound like a safe
city to you?
Major Franklin. Safe to me and my family members.
Mr. Gill. Is that safe to you? Thirty--excuse me, five
times higher than the national average for homicides, that's a
safe city?
Major Franklin. Perception.
Mr. Gill. It's what? Excuse me?
Major Franklin. I said it is what the--for instance, it's
perception. It's what you feel as a resident in Baltimore City.
Mr. Gill. If you're murdered, I don't think it matters what
you feel. Do you? Is it your testimony that it depends on how
people feel.
Major Franklin. To me, Baltimore City is--to me, Baltimore
City is a safe city.
Mr. Gill. To you it is a safe city. I don't think it is
safe for the people who are being murdered every single weekend
there.
Let me ask you, I'm picking up on Mr. Knott's questioning,
do you think that it's appropriate for local law enforcement to
not honor immigration detainers and to release criminal illegal
aliens into our cities?
Major Franklin. We go by what the courts dictate.
Mr. Gill. Well, I'm asking you if you think that that's an
appropriate response. You arrest an illegal alien for a crime,
that person has an immigration detainer, you think that it is
appropriate to release them. Yes or no?
Major Franklin. When the courts say release them, yes.
Mr. Gill. Do you think that this keeps Baltimore safe?
Major Franklin. If it's done appropriately, yes.
Mr. Gill. So, you do.
Major Franklin. Yes.
Mr. Gill. You think that's a good way to keep--all right.
Major Franklin. When it is done appropriately according to
the law. We cannot sidestep the law because we carry pages, we
have to go by the law.
Mr. Gill. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. McClintock. Is he Googling, I assume.
Ms. Jayapal. Yes, yes, because there are a lot of things
being said on the other side that aren't true so I wanted true,
so I wanted to--
Mr. McClintock. OK. You have the unanimous consent?
Ms. Jayapal. --colleague who asked for one case where
somebody was arrested for reporting a crime.
Mr. McClintock. What is the Unanimous consent request?
Ms. Jayapal. Here is one from the Detroit Free Press, it is
entitled, ``She Told Michigan Cops She Was Attacked. Now She
Faces Deportation by the Feds.''
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Ms. Jayapal. This is exactly what we're talking about. When
you undermine public trust.
Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady chided me for allowing our
Member.
Ms. Jayapal. Yes, because I to sway beyond an introduction.
It's true, Mr. Chair. Correct, correct.
Mr. McClintock. I'm going to enforce the rules--which
requires me to limit your comments.
Ms. Jayapal. Yes. I hope we do--to the unanimous consent
request--
Yes, I appreciate that.
Mr. McClintock. You have made without objection is so
awarded.
Ms. Jayapal. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I have just been
frustrated by the lack of uniform enforcement of our
Committee's rules. In the Full Committee, if somebody goes over
on the other side--
Mr. McClintock. I did enforce those rules.
Ms. Jayapal. --allows the other side to go over and you
cutoff my witness so yes, I'm annoyed by that.
Mr. McClintock. When the gentlelady--objected to our Member
straying beyond biographical details on introduction--
Ms. Jayapal. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, you
did.
Mr. McClintock. I sustained her objection--
Ms. Jayapal. Yes you did. That's what I've always believed
about you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. Called the Member to order.
Ms. Jayapal. That's exactly why I--
Mr. McClintock. Now, the gentlelady violates exactly the
same rule for herself--
Ms. Jayapal. Well, it seems that it's only being enforced
in certain ways.
Mr. McClintock. --inconsistent to me.
Ms. Jayapal. I'm yielding back, but I do want to register
my formal frustration the way that the Chair has been enforcing
the rules in this.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection. Well, I'm trying, I'm
trying to enforce the rules since you are breaking them, madam.
Ms. Jayapal. I yield back, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection, the unanimous consent is
requested.
Major Franklin, where did you currently live?
Major Franklin. I currently live in Florida.
Mr. McClintock. Oh, in Florida. I can't say that I blame
you.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Carter-Walters, where do you live?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Chicago.
Mr. McClintock. You are living with the problems educated
by the policies that have been advocated by officials like
Major Franklin who has since fled those conditions. Do I pretty
much have that correct?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Yes, it's funny because most of the
people who leave Chicago they usually leave and go to the Red
State, but yet and still they advocate for--
Mr. McClintock. Well, as Major Franklin has. You testified
that Chicago has cut law enforcement to divert those funds to
support the illegal population. Ms. Carter-Walters, why do
people in Chicago put up with that?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Well, I think that we know that--we can
see what's happening and we know something is wrong, but people
are just so used to the corruption in Chicago, and we just
usually say that's just how it goes in Chicago. Now, we have
Chicago Flips Red, who's standing up to the corruption saying
no more.
Mr. McClintock. The Democrats say that a city that refuses
to enforce Federal law should nevertheless continue to receive
Federal law enforcement funds, presumably so that they can
divert them to support the illegal population. Does that make
any sense to you?
Ms. Carter-Walters. No.
Mr. McClintock. To me either.
Sheriff Wagner, we've heard from the Democrats and their
witness that sanctuary laws make our communities safer by
releasing criminals back into our communities rather than
obeying the Federal law that requires deportation. What's your
professional opinion?
Sheriff Wagner. It's wrong. We need to assist each other.
Mr. McClintock. Do these sanctuary laws make our cities
safer or less safe?
Sheriff Wagner. Less safe.
Mr. McClintock. The Democrats say that the people in the
immigrant community are more likely to report crimes in
sanctuary jurisdictions. If I knew a criminal that I'm
reporting is going to be released right back into my
neighborhood after I've reported the crime, I would be a lot
less likely to report it, not more. What's your view?
Sheriff Wagner. I agree.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Carter-Walters, what's your opinion?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Excuse me?
Mr. McClintock. Do sanctuary laws make our cities more safe
or less safe?
Ms. Carter-Walters. Less safe.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Hauman, how about you?
Mr. Hauman. It's not even a question, sanctuary policies
put the American people in danger. They undermine the rule of
law. They must be stopped at full speed ahead.
Mr. McClintock. All right. The Democrats and their witness
tell us that we are safer if we release criminals back into our
communities. Republicans and their witnesses say the opposite.
I think I'll just let that speak for itself.
Sheriff Wagner, the Democratic witness testified that
honoring and ICE detainer is unduly burdensome. Do you agree?
Sheriff Wagner. I don't believe they are.
Mr. McClintock. How does honoring an idea detainer differ
from having to track down and arrest a criminal alien once
they've been released under these sanctuary policies?
Sheriff Wagner. You pretty much explained that. They get
released and it is just harder to get them, harder to go after
them and a lot more dangerous, obviously.
Mr. McClintock. The ICE detainer simply basically requires
a phone call to ICE saying we have got this individual in our
custody, they are about to be released, you have got 48 hours
to come and get them.
Sheriff Wagner. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. That takes about what, 15 seconds?
Sheriff Wagner. I couldn't time it, but--
Mr. McClintock. Then, once that individual has been
released because that phone call was not made because of these
sanctuary laws, what's involved in apprehending that criminal
at that point?
Sheriff Wagner. Well, it depends on who the criminal is
obviously, what they are wanted for, and those kinds of things.
Any time you go outside and give a person and avenue of escape
or a determination not to be caught or taken into custody, you
inherently take on a huger risk. That's just a reality of what
we deal with in law enforcement. Not just ICE agents, everybody
in law enforcement.
Mr. McClintock. Obviously, it risks the lives of our law
enforcement officers. What does it do to innocent bystanders?
Sheriff Wagner. It's increased for everybody. That's just
the reality.
Mr. McClintock. That 15-second phone call is too burdensome
to these woke public officials.
Sheriff Wagner. I'll let you comment on that.
Mr. McClintock. The Ranking Member tells us that the
association that represents big city police chiefs supports
sanctuary policy. Sheriff Wagner, who appoints these big city
police chiefs?
Sheriff Wagner. As far as I'm aware, they are done by a
mayor or a council.
Mr. McClintock. Basically, woke Democratic officials.
Sheriff Wagner. Correct. Well, I shouldn't say correct on
the woke.
Mr. McClintock. Well, great. Anyway, thank you very much
for your testimony. That concludes my questions and that
concludes the Committee's questions. That in turn concludes the
Committee hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by the Members of
the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and
Enforce-
ment can be found at the following links: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118126.