[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6455-H6459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
is recognized for one-half of the remaining time until midnight, or, by 
the Chair's calculation, 37\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
the House this evening on an issue of concern I think to me and to many 
people in this country.
  The best way to introduce the topic I think is to discuss what 
happened here on this floor not too long ago when, on June 24, I 
offered an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill that 
would have prohibited any appropriated funds from going to any city 
that has an official policy of prohibiting its police officers from 
cooperating with immigration law enforcement. Such policies are in 
clear violation of existing Federal law, yet that amendment was 
defeated.
  It was really one of the most bizarre episodes I think that I have 
been involved with since I have been in the Congress, when you propose 
a measure that simply says that the States and cities in this country 
should actually abide by the law, and, that if they do not, there would 
be some penalty attached to the violation of that law. That is really 
all it said. And yet the amendment failed.
  Now, let me back up and explain a little more about this whole thing 
and how it occurred, because it tells us something about where we are, 
I think, as a Nation, certainly where we are as a Congress, in our 
attempts to try and bring some sanity to the issue of immigration and 
immigration reform. We are a long way from that desired goal.
  Let us start with this. The Federal law being violated by cities is 
section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act. A long title. It says the following: 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a 
Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit 
or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending 
to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or 
unlawful, of any individual.''
  Now, that is a lot of words. That is the legalese way of saying the 
following: Look, the Federal Government operates immigration policy for 
the lands. That is our unique constitutional role. The State 
governments, city governments do not have any responsibility and have 
no authority to get involved with immigration policy.

  You can certainly argue, and I do, that the Federal Government has 
been AWOL, if you will, on enforcing its own laws, and that is 
undeniably true. But that does not really in any way, shape or form, 
give leave to cities and States across the Nation to develop their own 
immigration policies, which is exactly what has been happening.
  So this law that was put in place in 1996 says, you know what, 
States, cities? You cannot do that. You cannot establish your own 
immigration policy.
  Now, the amendment that I was going to offer that evening was an 
amendment to the Homeland Security Act; it was the appropriations bill 
for homeland security. It was an amendment that simply applied if a 
State is in fact violating this law. Again, I have to go back and say 
this law is on the books today. I did not create it. I was not even 
here in the Congress when it was passed. But it is on the books.
  There is one tiny problem with this law, and that is that there is no 
enforcement mechanism. So it says you should not do this, but, of 
course, there is nothing that is bad that will happen to you, city, 
State, locality, if you violate the law.
  So I was going to take the opportunity during the passage of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill to say that we are going to put 
some teeth into this law, and that if in fact a State or local 
government violates the law, they should pay some penalty; that we in 
fact as a Congress should say to the Nation that the laws of the Nation 
should be upheld. That was it, pure and simple.
  Now, as I say, I knew at the time that the amendment would probably 
not pass, and I was not surprised by its defeat. But it is important 
for this body and the Congress to understand what is at stake when we 
talk about these so-called sanctuary policies and the impact of these 
policies on public safety.
  Now, let me explain what sanctuary policies are and sanctuary cities. 
Cities across the land, because of local pressure, because of a variety 
of reasons, have passed laws, statutes, provisions that restrict their 
own employees specifically and often the police departments from 
sharing information with the INS. They say if you in fact stop or 
arrest someone and determine that that person is here illegally, you 
cannot tell the INS about that. You cannot aid the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service in upholding the law and enforcing the law, 
telling actual police departments to not aid in the enforcement of our 
law. This is bizarre, it is incredible, but it is happening. And they 
call themselves sanctuary cities.
  Some of these cities, by the way, actually allow people to vote, even 
if they are not citizens of the United States, even if they are here 
illegally. All they require is that you show some proof of residency in 
that city. That is all. Bring your utility bill and you can vote. There 
are places in Maryland, there are places up and down the East Coast. 
Again, pretty bizarre stuff, but absolutely true.
  Now, this House and this Congress must act to bring these cities and 
other jurisdictions into compliance with the law. That is why I will 
continue to offer this amendment on other legislation. A recent Zagby 
poll revealed that over 70 percent of Americans wanted our immigration 
laws enforced. I assure you that the same Americans want criminal 
aliens off the streets and out of our country.
  My amendment did not require any city to do anything other than obey 
existing Federal law. More than a dozen major cities and the State of 
Oregon are now acting in open violation and defiance of the 1996 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Control Act. These cities 
are Los Angeles; San Francisco; San Jose; San Diego; Seattle; Houston; 
Durango, Colorado; Chicago; Portland, Maine; and Portland, Oregon. 
These cities and the State of Oregon have adopted official policies 
ordering law enforcement officials to not obey the law.
  Can you believe that? Let me repeat it. The leaders in these cities 
take an oath of office just like every Member of this body, a solemn 
oath to support and

[[Page H6456]]

defend the Constitution of the United States and to uphold the laws of 
the land. Yet these same local officials are directing their law 
enforcement officers to ignore the Federal law and to not cooperate or 
communicate with immigration authorities.
  Now, I can understand the argument that is heard from some local 
officials and indeed from some law enforcement leaders. They say a city 
does not want to have its police officers using all their time to 
assist immigration officers in locating and arresting every single 
illegal alien residing in their locality. In many cities, the local 
police would have no time left for routine law enforcement or 
apprehending thieves, murderers or rapists. I can understand that 
concern, and I can understand them blaming the Federal Government for 
allowing so many illegal immigrants to enter this country.
  But all the amendment said that I introduced, all it said was that 
cities could not prohibit its law enforcement officers from contacting 
and cooperating with immigration authorities. The amendment does not 
require every local police officer to call the Bureau of Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement for every arrest or traffic stop. In fact, my 
amendment does not require anyone to do anything. It merely says cities 
cannot prohibit their law enforcement officers from communicating with 
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they see a valid 
law enforcement reason for doing so.
  Local law enforcement officers need to have that freedom to access 
and use immigration data in the performance of their routine duties. We 
are not suggesting that local police departments become mere adjuncts 
of the immigration service. We are, however, suggesting that law 
enforcement agencies do have an obligation under existing Federal law 
to identify criminal aliens and turn them over to the 
immigration authorities for deportation.

  Why is this so important? It is important because there are over 
80,000 criminal aliens loose on the streets; and these sanctuary laws, 
as they are called by their proponents, prevent local police from 
apprehending these criminals until after they have committed another 
crime.
  I am not talking now about all of the 9 to 13 million illegal aliens 
in the country. I am only talking about the illegal aliens who are 
already on the ICE list. ICE is the acronym for Bureau of Immigration 
and Custom Enforcement. They are on the ICE list for deportation.
  I am only talking about the approximately 375,000 absconders, aliens 
who are here illegally, who have been issued a final order for removal, 
that is deportation, by a Federal judge. Those names are now on the ICE 
immigration violators file, and that information is now available to 
law enforcement officers through the NCIC database, the National 
Criminal Information Center, which all law enforcement agencies use.
  I am most concerned about the 80,000 illegal aliens on this list of 
absconders who have been ordered deported because they have already 
committed crimes against our citizens. Why should local law enforcement 
officers be told by politicians to not identify these people when they 
come across them in the course of their routine duties? Why should 
local law enforcement officers not arrest and detain these criminals 
before they can commit another crime?
  I think law enforcement does want these people to get off the 
streets. It is the politicians who are putting handcuffs on them, and 
it is up to us to remove those handcuffs.
  Cities that have these policies are showing contempt, not only for 
Federal immigration law. They are showing contempt for the rights of 
their own citizens and for the citizens of neighboring towns and 
villages. They are saying in effect we care more about the rights of 
criminal aliens than the rights of our own citizens.
  Let me tell you how this practice works. When a police officer, 
sheriff's deputy, or State highway patrolman makes a traffic stop or 
otherwise has cause to question an individual whom he suspects of 
committing a crime, the officer routinely runs the individual's name 
through his on-board computer.
  Now, through this computer he has an instant access to the National 
Criminal Justice Database, called the NCIC that I mentioned before. If 
there is a criminal warrant outstanding for this person's arrest from 
any agency elsewhere, either Federal, State or local, the person is 
normally arrested and booked.
  With regard to identifying criminal aliens subject to deportation, 
until recently a law enforcement officer would have to place a 
telephone call to the INS data center, law enforcement support center, 
and the center would tell the officer if the individual's name is on 
the INS list for detainer. A detainer is an official request from one 
law enforcement agency to another that the person be held in custody. 
In a sanctuary city the police would not be allowed to make that call 
to the center, and the criminal alien would go free.
  Now, the good news is that very soon the police officer or deputy 
will not have to make that separate call. Information will be in the 
computer via the NCIC. Moreover, local jurisdictions can get partial 
reimbursement for the cost of holding the illegal alien in a jail 
through a Federal program called SCAAP, all these acronyms, I am sorry 
for that, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  The sanctuary city phenomenon presents an amazing paradox. Under our 
legal system, under the rule of recall that is the bedrock principle of 
our Nation, any person of any rank or any amount of wealth can be 
arrested if he has a warrant outstanding. A Congressman? Yes. A 
nationally renowned sports hero? Yes. A veteran who holds the Medal of 
Honor? Yes.
  If there is a warrant outstanding, each of these citizens is subject 
to arrest by the lowest ranking police officer in any jurisdiction of 
this Nation. But in any city that has a so-called sanctuary policy, if 
you are an illegal alien with a felony record and a deportation order 
signed by a judge, you will not be questioned about your immigration 
status and you will not be arrested.

                              {time}  2300

  This is incredible. It is just absolutely unbelievable. But it is the 
state of affairs in this country.
  If you are an ordinary, tax-paying citizen of Portland, Oregon, or 
Chicago, or Houston, and you fail to make a court appearance, you will 
have an FTA on your record, and you will be arrested for failure to 
appear. But if you are an illegal alien who has committed two felonies 
and are under a detainer from Immigration and Customs because of your 
criminal activity, you will not be arrested. If you are stopped and 
questioned in these cities, the police officer is not allowed to 
communicate with ICE to find the information or use that information.
  Why is this so important? It is important because there are over 
80,000 criminal aliens loose on our streets, and these sanctuary laws, 
as they are called by their proponents, prevent local police from 
apprehending these criminals until after they have committed another 
crime.
  Now, I am not talking now about all of the 9 million to 13 million 
aliens in the country illegally; I am only talking about the illegal 
aliens who are already on the ICE list for deportation. I am tonight 
talking only about the approximately 375,000 absconder aliens who are 
here illegally and who have been issued a final order for removal; that 
is, deportation by a Federal judge. Those names are on the ICE 
immigration violators file, and that information is now available to 
law enforcement through the NCIC. I am most concerned with the 80,000 
illegal aliens on the list of absconders who have been ordered deported 
because they have already committed crimes against our citizens.
  Now, the shocking truth is that there are tens of thousands of 
criminal felons serving jail or prison time in these sanctuary cities 
who will not be turned over to ICE because the political leaders of 
those cities have a policy that law enforcement cannot cooperate with 
the INS and cannot share information with immigration authorities. 
Criminals will be released instead of being picked up by ICE and 
deported. This will happen not because ICE does not have the resources 
to detain them; that happens too often in too many places, but that is 
another issue. It will happen because the politicians in those cities 
have determined that this is a politically correct thing to do.

[[Page H6457]]

  Now, I am coming to a very important point about the numbers. There 
are two different numbers we need to understand when talking about 
illegal aliens who are criminals and subject to deportation. Again, the 
number 80,000 that I and most lawmakers have been using for the past 
year is not a true number of illegal aliens who are dangerous 
criminals. The 80,000 number is the number of felons among the 
approximately 375,000 individuals on the INS absconders list. But, tens 
of thousands of illegal aliens with felony convictions are released 
from State and local correctional facilities every year and never get 
on the absconder list. They are theoretically placed on a detainer 
list, but these people are not always picked up after they are released 
from jail. This happens because there is a tragic lack of coordination 
between correctional authorities and ICE. This is a gap in our criminal 
justice system, and it must be fixed as quickly as possible.
  To paint the picture in the cleanest possible terms, I have collected 
the following data from several State penal systems. Here are the 
estimated numbers of illegal aliens in some of the State correctional 
facilities of a few States with these sanctuary cities. California 
prison population, 160,000; estimated illegal, 18,697. Colorado, 
illegal aliens out of a population of 18,000 in prison: 748. It goes on 
like that. The percentage of prisoners who are illegal aliens with 
detainers in these 6 States ranges from 4 percent in the States of 
Washington to 11.6 percent in California. The weighted average is about 
9 percent. If the percentage is adjusted for the documented INS 
undercount of deportable aliens, the percentage is 50 percent higher. 
Thus, the average percentage of illegal aliens in our State prison 
population in these States is about 14.5 percent. That means that for 
the country as a whole, it is safe to say that at least 10 percent of 
the Nation's State prison population consists of deportable criminal 
aliens.
  When these criminals are released from incarceration, they are 
subject to deportation, and when identified by the INS, their names are 
placed on the detainer list. The problem is that this does not always 
happen, as I say, and, in fact, it happens less than 50 percent of the 
time. Thus, the alarming reality is that at the present time, thousands 
of these criminal aliens are released back into our society and will 
not be deported until they commit another crime, if even then. There is 
no effective system in place to take them into custody as they finish 
their prison terms and deport them. In other words, the absconder list 
neither contains the thousands of additional criminal aliens who have 
detainers, but have not yet had a hearing and received a final order to 
qualify them for the absconder list, nor the additional thousands of 
criminal aliens who have never made it onto the detainer list in the 
first place.
  Fortunately, there is some good news. The Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement is now implementing a new database management 
system that will close the gap between the NCIC database for criminals 
and the immigration database for illegal aliens who have been ordered 
deported. The NCIC system used by local law enforcement will now 
include the names of criminal aliens from the immigration violators 
file and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If the name 
of the individual is in the immigration violators file, it will also be 
in the NCIC. The officer can then arrest and detain the illegal alien 
as a criminal whom a judge has ordered deported. The police officer 
will not need to place a separate telephone call to the immigration 
system and waste precious minutes or hours waiting for a reply. 
Information will be right there at his fingertips through the NCIC.
  As I explained, there is a huge gap in the system for identifying 
criminal aliens and getting them listed into the NCIC database. Whether 
those gaps are policy issues, they need to be fixed, but at least there 
is now a way for local law enforcement to readily access immigration 
violators file.

  Today the critical policy issue we in Congress must settle is should 
the local police officer have that information. Should the local police 
officers be able to arrest and detain criminal aliens who have 
committed crimes in this country and they are on the list for 
deportation, or should cities be allowed to say, no, we do not want our 
officers to have that information; we want those criminal aliens to go 
free.
  What are the consequences of allowing cities to be so politically 
correct that they can thumb their nose at the immigration law 
enforcement? The consequences are that we will have a growing list of 
victims of criminal aliens who should have been removed from our 
streets before the crime was ever committed. Whose side shall we choose 
to take? The rights of the criminals who, by law, are subject to 
deportation to be free to roam our streets, or the rights of citizens 
to be free from criminal attack? It is really purely that simple.
  In the 19th century this idea that a State or locality, to interpose 
itself between the citizens and Federal Government was known as the 
nullification doctrine. It died in 1865. But it has been reborn not to 
protect the rights of slave owners, but to protect the privileges of 
criminal aliens. The last time I looked, the immigration policy was the 
province of the Federal Government, not the city of Los Angeles or the 
city of Chicago or the city of Portland, Maine, and it is the 
responsibility of this House and this Congress to remind those cities 
of this fact. But if these cities want to have their own immigration 
policy and provide sanctuary for criminal aliens, then they should not 
look to the American taxpayer to subsidize their efforts.
  There is good reason to take a special look at these so-called 
sanctuary cities like Los Angeles, because it is the largest city in 
the largest State of the Nation. A few years ago, the INS found that 40 
percent of illegal immigrants go to California, and other cities have 
shown that a third of their illegal aliens go to Los Angeles. Thus, 
what happens in Los Angeles directly affects the rest of this country.
  It happens that in 2000, the County of Los Angeles did a thorough 
study of the impact of criminal aliens on the Los Angeles County jail 
system. They recently shared a copy of this report with me. Among other 
things, they found that, first, during the decade of 1990 to 2000, the 
number of illegal aliens in the county jail system doubled from 11 to 
23 percent. The cost impact on the county jail system also doubled from 
75 million to 150 million. This is only the cost of jail administration 
and does not include the cost of routine police patrols and 
investigative activities.

                              {time}  2310

  The Federal SCAP program, that State Criminal Assistance Program that 
reimburses local jails for the cost of detention being held for 
deportation does not adequately cover all on the costs. The recidivism 
rate among criminal aliens deported is 40 percent. That means 40 
percent of them return and commit more crime. There are a significant 
number of Federal prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles 
against recidivist criminal aliens. Only 350 such cases were prosecuted 
in 1998 compared to 2,400 in San Diego and 3,000 in Phoenix, which is a 
much smaller city.
  A GAO study in 1997 concluded that the INS process for identifying 
and processing criminal aliens in jail and subject to deportation was 
so flawed and underfunded that more than half of the criminals who 
should be deported are not, and they are released back into society. 
The percentage of jail inmates in Los Angeles who are deportable aliens 
rose from 11 percent to 17 percent in June 1995 and 23 percent in 
January of 2000.
  One INS study cited by the Los Angeles County report showed that INS 
identified only 65 percent of the inmates who were, in fact, subject to 
deportation orders and thus placed on a detainer list. That means that 
all of the numbers of inmates on the whole list need to be adjusted 
upward by one half to get to the true number of aliens in the penal 
system who are subject to deportation.
  It is fair to extrapolate that out of the approximately 145,000 
prisoners released each year by the Los Angeles County jail system 
about 35,000 are deportable aliens. And if INS deports less than half 
of those, that means that from Los Angeles alone over 18,000 criminal 
aliens are released into society instead of being deported. Over the 
past decade that is 180,000 criminals released and not deported.
  It is fair to speculate that for the Nation as a whole this number is 
over

[[Page H6458]]

500,000 over the past decade, a half million criminal aliens who should 
have been deported but instead were released into society to commit 
more crimes.
  Now, I have brought with me tonight a few examples of the crimes and 
their victims. Before I turn to those victims, I wanted to make one 
further point. It is not just the citizens of Los Angeles or Chicago or 
Houston that have their rights in jeopardy by these so-called sanctuary 
policies. You might say, well, the citizens of Chicago make that choice 
if they let their city officials make that policy; let them live with 
the consequences. But all we know is that we have an open and mobile 
society. If a criminal is stopped and questioned and released in 
Chicago because his immigration status was not checked, tomorrow that 
criminal alien may be in Cincinnati or Nashville or St. Louis. Next 
month he may be in Tulsa or Topeka or Springfield. I believe, and I 
believe that the people of the United States think that the political 
leaders of Chicago and Los Angeles and Houston do not have the right to 
make that decision for them, to turn criminals loose on the city of 
Topeka or Tulsa.

  Now, I want to show my colleagues some recent examples of the 
failures of immigration law enforcement. These are victims of criminal 
aliens who should have been deported but were not or they were deported 
and came back through our porous borders. Now, I think it is important, 
what I have done tonight is provide an awful lot of statistics and I 
know that is pretty boring. People glaze over at that kind of thing, 
too many percentages and that kind of thing.
  So what I would like to do here is put a human face on these 
statistics. We have talk about the fact that we have people in the 
United States being victimized by criminal aliens here and that it does 
not happen just once or twice. These are not isolated incidents, not 
just aberrations. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people 
in this country who have been victimized by illegal aliens. They were 
victims really of our porous borders. They are victims of the policy we 
run in this country that allows people to come into the country at 
their will.
  Let us look at Tanee Natividad, 16-year-old Phoenix high school 
student murdered by Max LaMadrid who escaped across the border into 
neighboring Mexico. A Phoenix television station tracked him down 
without difficulty. They found him enjoying a drink in a bar, 
unconcerned about Mexican law enforcement. Like most victims of illegal 
aliens, young Tanee was an American citizen of Mexican decent. The 
television news reporter who located the murderer in Mexico found over 
100 similar cases of violent criminals from the Phoenix area alone who 
have fled into Mexico.
  Why do they go into Mexico? Because Mexico will not extradite to the 
United States. They say they will not send someone back here to face 
the death penalty. Now they say they will not send back here to face 
life in prison. They call it cruel and unusual punishment. Let me tell 
you, 20 years in a Mexican prison compared to life in prison in the 
United States, anybody would take the life in prison. It is ridiculous 
to believe that the country of Mexico cares so much about the rights of 
these criminals. They are really doing it frankly as a way to get at 
the United States. They are still negotiating the issue of amnesty for 
illegals, and here they want to use this as a negotiating ploy. So they 
refuse to send back criminals who fled to Mexico, who see Mexico as a 
haven, who are able to escape our laws and thumb their noses at our law 
enforcement people and at the relatives of the victims they leave 
behind.
  David March, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy who was killed in 
2002 after pulling over a car on a routine traffic stop in the suburban 
Los Angeles community of Irwindale. The driver was a dangerous Mexican 
drug dealer, Armando Garcia, who had been deported twice and had a long 
history of violent crimes including two attempted murders, had been 
deported twice, came back across our porous borders, came back to kill 
this law enforcement officer. Shot him once in the stomach as he walked 
up to the car. Then he got out, Mr. Garcia got out of the car and shot 
him twice in the head.
  Mr. Garcia should have never been in the country. Remember, he had 
already been deported twice. Guess where he is? He is back in Mexico. 
All 50 State attorneys general have written to Attorney General 
Ashcroft and Secretary of State Colin Powell demanding that this 
country negotiate a new extradition treaty with Mexico to allow 
criminals like Garcia to stand trial in the United States for their 
acts. So far their pleas have gone unheeded.
  These are real people. They were victims of illegal immigrants in 
this country. They leave behind families who are mourning to this day. 
I met with Mrs. March last month. I saw the tears in her eyes. I stood 
at a memorial, a wall that was built on this curb in Irwindale, 
California, in an industrial section of town. Probably 99 percent of 
people that go by do not really see it. It is relatively small, but 
Mrs. March sees it when she goes by to put a new flower on the grave 
and to kneel down beside that grave and to say a prayer for her 
husband, and to ask for some justice because she knows her husband's 
killer is living in Mexico. They know where he is. The Mexican 
authorities know where he is.
  These are the real faces. These are not statistics.
  Sister Helen Chaska, murdered in the summer of 2002 by being 
strangled with her rosary beads. She was also raped, as was another nun 
who accompanied her on her walk. She was in Klamath Falls, Oregon, 
doing missionary work. Her accused murderer is Maximiliano Esparza. 
Esparza had been convicted in 1988 of robbery and kidnapping in Los 
Angeles, served 3 years of a 6-year term and was paroled in 1992. By 
law this man should have been deported after serving time for a violent 
felony. But the INS allowed him to remain in our country. The INS has a 
responsibility for Sister Helen Chaska's death. And if there were a way 
to bring a suit to bring some criminal action against the INS, I wish 
that the survivors, that the friends and relatives of these people 
could do it. Because I am telling you right now that I believe our 
government has the responsibility and the blood of these people is to 
an extent on the hands of this government for its policy of allowing 
illegal aliens to enter this country over and over and over again 
without fear of being arrested, without fear of being returned to their 
own country and especially without fear of being stopped as they try to 
get back into the United States.

                              {time}  2320

  Jennette Tamayo, a 9-year-old San Jose, California, resident who was 
kidnapped on June 6 from her home at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. A 
surveillance video helped identify the kidnapper's car, and the 
abductor was apprehended a few days later after young Tamayo walked 
into a Palo Alto video store and asked for help. The accused kidnapper 
has used aliases, among them Enrique Alvarez, and had been identified 
as an illegal alien.
  These are just four that I bring to the attention of the body 
tonight, just four. There are thousands, in fact, there are hundreds of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of victims of our open borders policy. 
These are just four, and night after night, when I have the ability to 
address the House, I am going to bring more of these stories. I am 
going to introduce these faces to more of my colleagues and to those 
people who may be watching C-SPAN tonight because I want them to 
understand that the picture of illegal immigration that is portrayed by 
most of the media, that illegal immigration is nothing more than just a 
hardworking family coming here looking for a good life, same thing that 
all of our grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, 
the same thing that they came here for.
  That is one picture. That is one picture of illegal immigration, and 
certainly a vast majority of people who are coming do, in fact, fit 
that profile, but it is only one picture of illegal immigration.
  Here is another that is not shown to the general public, that no one 
wants you to know about. They want to keep these people isolated, 
separated, so that people think this is only an aberration, it only 
happens here or there, and yes, is it not too bad and, yes, it was an 
illegal alien that perpetrated the crime.
  You cannot make any generalizations after that. You cannot really

[[Page H6459]]

think about immigration policy just because these people were killed by 
illegal immigrants in this country, people that most of them have been 
deported more than once for committing other crimes in this country, 
and then you have cities in this country passing laws, telling their 
police officers, telling their law enforcement personnel that they 
cannot enforce the law.

                          ____________________