U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–080 PDF 2015

EXAMINING THE ADEQUACY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF OUR NATION’S IMMIGRATION LAWS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Serial No. 114–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 7 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .............................. 8 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Paul Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County, Florence, Arizona 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

Jan C. Ting, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 60 

Marc R. Rosenblum, Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program, Migration Policy Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 69 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 6 

Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 11 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 17 

Material submitted by the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 96 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 105 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 108 

Material submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 134 
Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable David N. Cicilline, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Rhode Island, and Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 141 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 152 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Question for the Record submitted to Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy 

Studies, Center for Immigration Studies ........................................................... 168 

Response to Question for the Record from Jessica M. Vaughan, Director 

of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies ............................................ 170 
(1) 

EXAMINING THE ADEQUACY AND ENFORCEMENT OF OUR NATION’S IMMIGRATION 

LAWS 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Issa, Forbes, 

King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, 

Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Bishop, Conyers, 

Nadler, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, 

DelBene, Jeffries, and Cicilline. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian and General Counsel; Dimple Shah, Counsel; George Fishman, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, 

Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief 

Counsel; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. 

And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on examining the 

adequacy and enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws. And 

I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

When President Obama announced unilateral changes to our immigration laws with a wave of his pen and cell phone on November 

20, 2014, he indicated that he would allow millions of unlawful and 

criminal aliens to evade immigration enforcement. He did this with 

the issuance of new so-called priorities for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens. 

Under the Obama administration’s new enforcement priorities, 

broad categories of unlawful and criminal aliens will be immune 

from the law. This means that these removable aliens will be able 

to remain in the United States without the consequence of deportation. 
2 

To make matters worse, even the most dangerous criminals and 

national security threats can cease being a priority for removal if 

there are undefined, compelling, and exceptional factors. 

On the same date, President Obama effectively announced the 

end of Secure Communities. Despite the fact that the President 

claims he took action to prioritize immigration enforcement against 

criminal aliens, he is scrapping a tool that identifies criminal aliens 

booked in jails across the United States so that Federal law enforcement officials can prioritize their removal. 

Secure Communities, created in 2008, is a simple and highly successful program to identify criminal aliens once arrested and jailed. 

It protects Americans from those who are a danger to their communities. 

As the Department of Homeland Security has said on numerous 

occasions, Secure Communities simply uses an already existing 

Federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that helps to identify criminal aliens 

so that ICE can take enforcement action. 

As of August 2014, the Administration indicated that over 

375,000 aliens and 121,000 level-one convicted criminal aliens, who 

the Obama administration deems the worst of the worst, were removed as result of Secure Communities. 

Based on the Obama administration’s new policies announced on 

November 20, 2014, we have learned that the average daily population of aliens in detention facilities has declined to approximately 

27,000 beds. This has occurred despite the statutory mandate in 

current law that ICE maintain a 34,000 ADP in detention facilities. 

Many factors have contributed to this decline, including the collapse of issuance and compliance with ICE detainers because of 

ICE’s own detainer policy issued on December 21, 2014, ICE’s failure to defend its detainer authority, ICE’s immediate implementation of its new enforcement priorities on November 20, 2014, and 

the demise of the Secure Communities program on this same date. 

Detainers are notices issued by ICE and other DHS units that 

ask local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies not to release suspected removable aliens held at their facilities in order to 

give ICE an opportunity to take them into its custody. Detainers, 

often called immigration holds, are a primary tool that ICE uses 

to apprehend the suspects it is seeking. 

Irresponsible policies have led to a drop in the number of detainers issued by ICE. And given that ICE refuses to defend its detainer authority, many jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with ICE 

on detainers out of fear of civil liability. The results are distressing. 

ICE developed a methodology to track the number of detainers not 

honored by local law enforcement jurisdictions. 

From January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2014, over 10,000 detainers were not honored. Through September, the recidivism rate 

for these aliens was 25 percent in just a 9-month period. There 

were over 5,400 subsequent arrests and 9,300 criminal charges. 

The end result of these policies: The number of unlawful or criminal aliens that ICE has removed from the interior of the country 

has fallen by more than half since 2008. 

Given this Administration’s failure to enforce our immigration 

laws, we could line Border Patrol agents shoulder to shoulder at 
3 

the southern border and it would not matter. Why? Because once 

apprehended by the Border Patrol, many of the children, teenagers, 

and adults arriving at the border simply game our asylum and immigration laws that the Obama administration has severely weakened. 

The Administration has done little to deal with this problem 

other than ensure that these claims be heard years down the road. 

In the meantime, these aliens can abscond and eventually fail to 

appear for their hearings. The Wall Street Journal just reported 

that the Justice Department has a special date reserved for thousands of immigrants awaiting their day in court, the day after 

Thanksgiving in 2019. 

If word got out that bogus credible fear and asylum claims were 

not being rubber-stamped and that claimants were not rewarded 

with almost certain release into the U.S. along with work authorization, the vast increase in claims might quickly abate. In the end, 

it doesn’t matter how many aliens are apprehended along the border if apprehension itself becomes a golden ticket into the country. 

Successful immigration reform must enable effective interior enforcement. This is an integral piece of the puzzle. We can’t just be 

fixated on securing the border while undoubtedly an issue of paramount concern. 

We must focus on interior enforcement or, more precisely, what 

to do with unlawful immigrants who make it past the border and 

legal immigrants who violate the terms of their visas and thus become unlawfully present in the United States. 

One reason why our immigration system is broken today is because the present and past Administrations have largely ignored 

the enforcement of our immigration laws. If we want to avoid the 

mistakes of the past, we cannot allow the President to continue 

shutting down Federal immigration enforcement efforts unilaterally. 

In the coming weeks, this Committee will hold hearings and address legislation that deals with the problem of the Administration’s failure to enforce our immigration laws. We will not only provide the Administration with the tools it needs, we will also act to 

ensure that the President cannot unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement in this country. 

Only then will immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. have an incentive to obey our Nation’s immigration laws. We must ensure enforcement of our immigration laws so that we can then move on to 

address other broken aspects of our immigration system, such as 

high-skilled visa reform and addressing our broken agricultural 

guest worker program. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

As we convene our first hearing of the 114th Congress, I continue 

to hope, as I have in past Congresses, that we will be able to work 

together in this Committee to address important challenges and 

advance the cause of justice. But as we look to the future, we must 

first remember where we have been particularly when it comes to 

the issue of immigration. 
4 

In 2013, the Chairman began the very first hearing this Committee held by saying, ‘‘This year Congress will engage in a momentous debate on immigration.’’ Unlike the Senate, which engaged in that momentous debate and passed a bill with strong bipartisan support, the House never had the opportunity to hold that 

debate. 

Bipartisan reform bills in the House and Senate received no action at all. Instead, we just voted again and again to take Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, away from young people to 

deny due process protections to children fleeing violence and to 

block other sensible administrative reforms. 

Although the first hearings held by this Committee in each of the 

last two Congresses has dealt with immigration, the titles of the 

hearings and the witness lists could not be more different. In the 

last Congress, the hearing was titled ‘‘America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of 

Laws Against Illegal Immigration.’’ We discussed the need for immigration reform, including reforms to our legal immigration system. We even discussed the important question of how we treat the 

millions of undocumented people who are living in our communities 

today. 

The title of today’s hearing, ‘‘Examining the Adequacy and Enforcement of our Nation’s Immigration Laws,’’ focuses only on the 

issue of enforcement. And reading the testimonies submitted by our 

witnesses and the majority’s press releases, it is clear that this 

hearing will not address opportunities for legal immigration. Instead, this hearing will address only claims that our immigration 

laws are, against all the evidence to the contrary, somehow not 

being adequately enforced. 

From the endless list of grievances, it is even hard to know what 

the focus of the hearing will be. Here are just a few of the topics 

that the majority and its witnesses plan to discuss today: The legal 

authority for the Administration’s executive actions on immigration, the elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

program, the need to eliminate the credible fear process and tighten asylum laws designed to protect people from persecution and 

torture, the security of our borders, and the Administration’s decision to set priorities when enforcing immigration laws in the interior. The list goes on, but I think I made the point that I wish to 

make here. 

We also know that this hearing sets the stage for a number of 

legislative hearings that the Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security will be holding over the next 8 days—two legislative hearings on four bills that would make our immigration system more dysfunctional and unfair, not less so. 

Finally, the irony is not lost on me that the majority will spend 

the next several hours attacking this Administration for not taking 

enforcement seriously, but they are now threatening to shut down 

the Department of Homeland Security for the second time in just 

15 months. 

Just last week all three former secretaries of Homeland Security, 

including two appointed by President George W. Bush, urged Congress not to jeopardize the Department’s funding. 
5 

They wrote, ‘‘Funding for the DHS is used to protect our ports 

and our borders; to secure our air travel and cargo; to protect the 

Federal Government and our Nation’s information technology and 

infrastructure from cyber attacks; to fund essential law enforcement activities; to guard against violent extremists; and to ensure 

the safety of the President and national leaders.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter that letter into 

the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
6 
7 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

I hope we can get serious about legislating real solutions for our 

businesses, families, and national security. 

I thank our witnesses for being present and joining us today. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, the 

gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The consensus, Mr. Chairman, in this country is our current immigration system is broken, unworkable, and, frankly, not in the 

best interest of our fellow citizens. It is also the consensus that the 

current system is not being enforced, which undercuts the very 

foundation of this Republic, which is respect for and adherence to 

the rule of law. 

Previous attempts at immigration reform proved to be insufficient because, if they had been sufficient, we wouldn’t be having 

another hearing or another national conversation about immigration reform. Decisions by Administrations, frankly, from both parties, to selectively enforce our immigration laws have had a negative effect on our system. In addition, both parties, through the selective enforcement of laws, have undercut the most fundamental 

of American virtues. 

Simply put, while most Americans realize the current system 

does not work, they are also skeptical that Congress will actually 

do what it is supposed to do or that this or future Administrations 

will actually enforce what reforms do pass, and this cynicism is 

well earned. 

An oft-repeated statistic bears mentioning again, Mr. Chairman: 

About 40 percent of those who are in the country unlawfully originally entered through lawful means. So while real and verifiable 

border security is critical, immigration reform cannot and will not 

be done without real, verifiable, and robust border security. 

A sovereign country should never apologize for having a secure 

border any more than this Congress or this Capitol apologizes for 

having metal detectors at every single entranceway. 

But just as border security is a condition precedent, so, too, is enforcement of our internal immigration laws if we are going to have 

a system that works and has any credibility in the eyes of both the 

American public and those who wish to legally emigrate here. 

This Administration, Mr. Chairman, has in the past claimed to 

have removed record numbers of unlawful or otherwise removable 

aliens from the United States, but ICE’s own report indicates just 

last year more than two-thirds of all removals claimed by ICE involved aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border 

or intercepted by inspectors at ports of entry. 

At the same time, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion, the 

Administration has handcuffed Federal immigration officers by— 

and I want you to note the irony, Mr. Chairman—telling law enforcement officers not to enforce the law. Therefore, a sustainable 

immigration solution needs to have mechanisms to ensure that the 
8 

President, whether the one we have today or the one we have 10 

years from now, cannot simply turn off the switch on enforcement. 

State and local law enforcement have a role in every single facet 

of law enforcement. So why can’t we give them a role in immigration enforcement? We trust State and local law enforcement officers 

to enforce every category of the law from murder, to child sex 

cases, to narcotics trafficking, to child pornography. 

Mr. Chairman, they even have primary responsibility to patrol 

and enforce something as inherently interstate as the interstate 

highway system. But, yet, we can’t seem to muster the confidence 

in them to give them a role in enforcing our immigration laws. So 

we trust them with murder cases. We just can’t muster the courage 

to trust them with immigration cases. 

So I want to know why we can’t grant States and localities the 

specific congressional authorization envisioned by the Supreme 

Court that allows them to play a supporting role in the enforcement of our immigration laws. 

There are 5,000 ICE agents that have the responsibility for enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws, but there are 730,000 State 

and local law enforcement officers. And let’s remember that those 

State and local law enforcement officers are subject to exactly the 

same constitutional restrictions as Federal law enforcement officers. 

So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we want a long-term sustainable solution, we have to address interior enforcement. Selective 

enforcement of the law is destructive to our system. Ignoring laws 

simply because we wish they weren’t laws is destructive to the system. And the result has been a pervasive sense that our law, frankly, just doesn’t matter anymore. 

So the American people rightfully expect and deserve the laws 

we pass to actually be enforced. It would be a good idea if the Congress had the same expectation. 

With that, I would yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for her opening 

statement on behalf of the Subcommittee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for the yielding. 

I have always held the proposition that, in the Judiciary Committee, we are tied to the facts. And I think it is important as we 

begin this oversight again that we make note of the fact that President Obama’s administration has in the last years, in 1 year, detained a record 429,247 people. 

He has, in essence, removed 1,570,510 in one term, almost as 

many as President Bush did in two terms. The facts is what is 

going to make this hearing, again, over and over again, a relevant 

hearing. 

I think it is important also to note that ICE, in 1 year, detained 

and removed 216,000 of those individuals to be deported who had 

been convicted of crimes in the United States, an all-time high. 

So I hope that our hearing this morning casts the wide lot of telling the truth. The purpose of this hearing appears, again, to criticize President Obama’s administration that they failed to enforce 

the law in the interior and at the border. 
9 

I have noted my good friend mentioning the idea of State law enforcement officers and, constitutionally, what is yielded to the Nation is yielded to the Nation. Collaboration is always good, and we 

have done that over the years. 

But, as you know, we are nearly a year and 8 months removed 

from having passed out of the Judiciary Committee several immigration bills, none of which have seen the light of day on the House 

floor. The bills were agriculture, border security, employment, and 

workplace compliance. But, since then, nothing, Mr. Chairman, no 

Rules Committee hearings, no floor action. 

In addition, the Senate acted by passing a bipartisan immigration bill, S. 744, the ‘‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and 

Immigration Modernization Act,’’ as a comprehensive immigration 

reform that included provisions on border security, interior enforcement, employment eligibility, verification, and work site enforcement, legalization of unauthorized aliens, immigrant visas, not immigrant visas and humanitarian admissions, a bill that has never 

seen any activity on the floor. 

I have a bill, as I heard the Chairman mention about the delay 

in immigration resolution of their cases, H.R. 77, that I would hope 

this Committee would take up that calls for the appointment of 70 

additional immigration judges. That, I think, would answer some 

of the concerns that have been raised to process these cases. 

Our Judiciary Committee colleagues on this side of the aisle understand how important it is for the United States to have in place 

an effective strategy that secures the Nation’s borders and commands broad bipartisan support from both parties. So it is timely 

that we are talking about border security immigration reform. 

Unfortunately, neither bill that the Judiciary Committee plans to 

take up, nor H.R. 99, the border security bill that voted party-line 

votes—the Republicans voted for it in Homeland Security—is the 

best legislative vehicle. 

If House Republicans are serious—or were serious about immigration reform, they would bring to the floor H.R. 15, a bipartisan 

comprehensive immigration bill introduced in the last Congress. 

And if our friends in the majority were serious about border security, they would bring to the floor for a vote the highly praised 

and critically acclaimed bill that was favorably and unanimously 

reported last session out of the Homeland Security Committee, 

H.R. 1417. 

Having recently visited the border in California—and there were 

several other visits that I have taken, from Arizona, to New Mexico, to my own State and many other States—asking questions 

about the issues of border security, we found that, when we work 

together collaboratively, we can solve our problems. Casting accusations are not the solution. 

The President’s executive actions that we are probably going to 

scrutinize again had to do with enforcement with the idea of 

prioritizing because of limited enforcement resources. Obviously, 

the shutting down of the Department of Homeland Security will 

not help that situation. 

House Republicans are focused on ending DACA and blocking 

these executive actions with the ultimate goal of deporting 
10 

DREAMers and ripping parents away from their U.S. citizen and 

lawful permanent-resident children. 

The President’s executive actions are meant to focus our efforts 

on deporting felons, not families. Proposals championed by Judiciary Republicans, like the SAFE Act, are meant to turn families into 

felons. 

We have educators in the audience, and I know they understand 

the importance of educating all children. We are simply trying to 

have a regular orderly system that these children can be statused 

so they can be educated and contributing to American society. 

At the same time, House Republicans are refusing to fund this 

Department. And I wonder what the 9/11 committee that brought 

together this bipartisanship over an enormous tragedy of 9/11 and 

created the Homeland Security Department as the front lines of securing this Nation—what would they think of us shutting them 

down? 

So, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that the Border Security Results Act of 2013 provided the Department of Homeland 

Security with a road map that contributes to some of the answers 

that will be responding to the questions that have been raised by 

my colleagues. It asks for a national plan, a situational awareness, 

metrics and results, independent verification. 

This is the approach that we should take, a collaborative effort 

to ensure that we work together on behalf of the American people, 

not in contrast, H.R. 399, that undermines the very structure of 

leadership of the Homeland Security department and, in actuality, 

has been criticized by Border Patrol agents. This is not the way to 

go. 

I hope this hearing today will be constructive, not carrying a 

message of attack without information, because, in actuality, we 

will not be able to provide for a rational, real response to immigration or a rational, real response to border security without the collaboration and the input of people concerned about the American 

people and not making political points. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would like to ask unanimous consent to add 

to the record a Wall Street Journal article entitled ‘‘U.S. Delays 

Thousands of Immigration Hearings by Nearly 5 Years,’’ and an 

Associated Press article entitled, ‘‘US: immigrant families fail to report to agents.’’ 

[The information referred to follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas 

seek recognition? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 

enter the following statements into the record from the following 

organizations: Women’s Refugee Commission, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and 

the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. I ask unanimous 

consent. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, they will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We welcome our distinguished panel today. If 

you would all please rise, I will begin by swearing in the witnesses. 

Do you and each of you swear that the testimony that you are 

about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

Sheriff Paul Babeu is the sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona, where 

he was named America’s 2011 Sheriff of the Year, as selected by 

his colleagues in the National Sheriffs’ Association. 

Since being elected to his first term in 2008, he has since acted 

decisively to disrupt cartel activities along the southern border and 

has emerged as a national leader on border security. 

Babeu holds an associate’s degree in law enforcement from the 

Arizona Law Enforcement Academy, a bachelor’s degree in history 

and political science from Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, 

and a summa cum laude master of public administration degree 

from American International College. 

Mr. Jan C. Ting currently serves as a professor of law at the 

Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he teaches immigration law, among other courses. 

In 1990, Mr. Ting was appointed by President George H.W. Bush 

as Assistant Commissioner for the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service of the U.S. Department of Justice. He served in this capacity until 1993, when he returned to the faculty at Temple University. 

He received an undergraduate degree from Oberlin College, an 

M.A. from the University of Hawaii, and a J.D. from Harvard University School of Law. 

Ms. Jessica Vaughan currently serves as the Director of Policy 

Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. She has been with 

the Center since 1992, where her expertise is in immigration policy 

and operations topics, such as visa programs, immigration benefits, 

and immigration law enforcement. 

In addition, Ms. Vaughan is an instructor for senior law enforcement officer training seminars at Northwestern University’s Center 

for Public Safety in Illinois. Ms. Vaughan has a master’s degree 

from Georgetown University and earned her bachelor’s degree in 

international studies at Washington College in Maryland. 

Dr. Marc Rosenblum is the Deputy Director of the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. immigration policy program, where he works on 

U.S. immigration policy, immigration enforcement, and U.S. regional migration relations. Dr. Rosenblum returned to MPI, where 

he had been a senior policy analyst, after working as a specialist 

in immigration policy at the Congressional Research Service. 

Dr. Rosenblum earned his B.A. from Columbia University and 

his Ph.D. from the University of California, San Diego, and is an 

associate professor of political science at the University of New Orleans. 

Your written statements will be entered into the record in their 

entirety. And I ask that each of you summarize your testimony in 

5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yel-
34 

low, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light 

turns reds, that is it. Your time is up. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL BABEU, 

SHERIFF OF PINAL COUNTY, FLORENCE, ARIZONA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sheriff, welcome. We will begin with you. 

Sheriff BABEU. Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you for welcoming us today. 

Paul Babeu. I serve as sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona. Where 

we are located, 5,300 square miles, larger than the State of Connecticut, sandwiched in between metro Tucson and metro Phoenix. 

We have had the unfortunate title of being one of the largest smuggling routes for drugs in humans in the entire Nation. 

We experience in Arizona, just in the Tucson sector, one of the 

nine southwest border patrol sectors, anywhere from 88,000 to 

123,000 illegals that have been apprehended, and that is just in recent years. And 17 to 30 percent of those, depending on which leader of the Border Patrol you talk to, have a criminal record already 

in the United States. 

And according to the GAO, 56 percent of the border is not under 

operational control like the Yuma sector is. And regardless who you 

speak to—and everybody seems to have their own facts—but this 

clearly shows that the border is not more secure than ever. 

Our county led the largest drug bust in the history of Arizona, $3 billion against the Sinaloa Cartel. In 1 day, we arrested 76 

members of the Sinaloa Cartel, carrying 108 weapons, not just 

handguns—these are scoped rifles and AK-47s—two of which were 

traced back to Fast and Furious operation. This is in my county. 

Drug cartel scouts. Last year we arrested—we continue to pursue 

them as we speak—scouts. These are lookouts on mountaintops in 

my county over a 50-mile swath of area along Interstate 8 and 10, 

where they have binoculars and they are looking out. 

And they occupy these high-terrain features for 30 days at a 

time, resupplied with food and water, have all electronics, 

encrypted radios, that we don’t even have, and they have solar panels to recharge all this equipment. And every time a drug load 

comes by, they get paid $100. And this is over this entire swath 

of area. 

When I tell a story like that, having served a tour in Iraq and 

commanded soldiers in the Army, it almost appears I am telling a 

story of some war-torn area. This is on American soil. And that is 

what is so disruptive, is the fact that here, as the sheriff where our 

primary job is to answer 9/11 calls, how on Earth did we get here 

to this place that local law enforcement is leading the effort to fight 

criminal syndicates from a foreign nation on American soil? 

Mass prison break. I want to talk to you about that. February 

23, ICE—this is again in my county, where we led this effort to expose what had happened—we had a release of 400-plus criminal 

illegals. Now, these are the ones that—everybody has their own 

opinion about the 11-plus million illegals who are here and what 

we should do. 

Everyone, at one point, including the President, had agreed that 

these 34,000 beds that this Congress has authorized—which, to correct respectfully the Chairman, there is not 27,000 in there. I was 
35 

updated last week there is 24,000 currently in beds in these facilities—that we had a mass release 2 years ago of criminals that had 

everywhere from rape charges, two that were charged with manslaughter, convictions for child molestation, financial felony crimes, 

aggravated assault against law enforcement, and armed robbery released into my county. 

I demanded the information—the names and the criminal history 

of this information. It has been refused to this date. I, as a sheriff, 

who swore an oath to protect the people of my county, should have 

a right to that information. 

Five, 10, 14, 16 times, these are the illegals that—don’t be 

scratching your head why they keep coming back. My deputies are 

arresting them for State crimes. This one had been arrested 16— 

now it is the 17th time. In law enforcement, we call these clues. 

Right? This is a clue that there is no enforcement. This is this past 

year, folks. 

Six-page memo from Secretary Johnson, the very night that the 

President gave a speech. President said 5 years or longer, deferred 

action. In reality, the truth of this is January of 2014. If you have 

been here from that date and before, you get deferred action. 

Thirty to 50 criminals released every day in my county from ICE 

facilities, and this was told to me from the director for Arizona for 

ERO, John Gurley. He is not going to be happy that I shared this 

information. Two separate phone calls. 

These were the people that everybody, including our President, 

said were the bad actors, that, if anybody, the ones who have committed serious violent felonies or multiple misdemeanors have to be 

sent back to their country of origin. Then, how is it okay now that 

we are releasing 30 to 50 of these individuals a day right now? 

And I would urge this Committee and this Congress to stand up 

as a lawmaking body to enforce the laws, just as you expect me and 

every other law enforcement officer locally to do, and secure the 

border. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Babeu follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Sheriff. And my apologies for not 

getting your name pronounced correctly. 

Sheriff BABEU. That is all right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But we will improve on that. 

Sheriff BABEU. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Professor Ting, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF JAN C. TING, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY BEASLEY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. TING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all Members of the 

Committee. 

I have submitted written testimony. 

And in part I of that testimony, I discuss the basic question of 

whether we are going to have a limit on immigration in the United 

States or, alternatively, whether we are going to have no limit or 

whether we are going to enforce the limit. 

In part II, I discuss various initiatives that amount to abandonment of deterrence in our immigration law enforcement and the 

consequences thereof. 

In part IV of my written testimony, I discuss what I think is the 

primary reason for having immigration law, which is to protect the 

jobs and wages of American workers from foreign competition. 

But I want to discuss with you part III of my written testimony, 

which is ‘‘Asylum Abuse and Expedited Removal.’’ 

When I last testified in this hearing room about a year ago, I 

suggested that making asylum claims has become commonplace as 

a path to an immigrant green card for aliens without other alternatives and that false asylum claims have become common and 

often deceive U.S. asylum adjudicators into granting asylum status. 

The perception that false asylum claims often work and at least 

delay removal of illegal aliens from the United States, sometimes 

for long periods, adds to the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis, which is attracting additional illegal immigration into the 

United States. 

Convictions for and exposures of false asylum claims are very difficult and expensive to attain. The difficulties are compounded 

when the number of asylum applications is increasing. And I have 

submitted some statistics documenting that. 

The concept of ‘‘credible fear’’ was instituted by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service as an informal screening-out device for the large numbers of Haitians interdicted on boats on the 

high seas headed for the United States after the Haitian coup of 

1991. The idea was that people interdicted on boats who could not 

articulate a credible fear that could qualify them for asylum would 

be repatriated to Haiti without further deliberation. 

When Congress enacted ‘‘expedited removal’’ in 1996 for certain 

arriving and recently arrived aliens who lacked documentation, it 

incorporated the concept of ‘‘credible fear’’ into the statute in the 

hope that it could also be used as a screening-out device for aliens 

making asylum claims. 

Unfortunately, what has happened is a high approval rate for 

credible fear claims—the stories have spread as to how to achieve 

a credible fear—and the resulting backlog in the immigration court 

system, which the Chairman has referred to, have meant that, in 
42 

practice, ‘‘credible fear’’ has served to screen into the United States 

undocumented aliens who don’t really have an asylum claim, but 

can meet the ‘‘credible fear’’ test, the low threshold. 

That explains why so many illegal border-crossers don’t run from 

the U.S. Border Patrol, but instead seek them out to make their 

‘‘credible fear’’ claims subject to that low threshold. 

Congressional intent in enacting ‘‘expedited removal’’ has been 

frustrated by the presence of this low-threshold ‘‘credible fear’’ 

screening-in device. But Congress can and should amend the immigration laws to remove the role of credible fear in frustrating expedited removal. 

All Border Patrol and other Customs and Border Protection 

agents should be mandated to receive training and asylum law as 

part of their basic training. Such trained agents should be authorized to make asylum adjudications as part of the expedited removal 

process. Expedited removal was created by Congress. Congress can 

amend the law. All references to credible fear in further hearings 

by an immigration judge should be removed from the expedited removal statute. 

The statute could then be amended to read, ‘‘If an asylumtrained officer determines that an alien does not have a well-founded fear of persecution pursuant to Section 208, the officer shall 

order the alien removed from the United States without further 

hearing or review.’’ That is not that different from the statute the 

way it reads now. 

Additionally, just as the credible fear standard may have—and 

let me just say I think that is the single most effective change to 

facilitate immigration enforcement that can be made, is strengthening the expedited removal process at our border. 

Additionally, just as the credible fear standard may have lost 

value as alien smugglers game the system and spread the stories 

that work, so the asylum statute itself, 208, while a useful addition 

to our immigration law when added in 1980, may have lost value 

as the stories have spread that work in convincing an adjudicator 

to grant asylum. 

How did we meet our obligations before 1980 when 208 entered 

our law? We had a statute, withholding of deportation, that prevents the removal of aliens if the alien’s life is threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. 

I would like to see Congress consider enhancing the withholding 

of removal statute by adding to it some of the benefits of asylum 

with the goal of having a single enhanced withholding of removal 

statute for the protection of refugees. That statute has and will 

have a higher burden of proof than the asylum statute and should, 

therefore, be less susceptible to fraud. 

I thank the Chairman and the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ting follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Professor Ting. 

Ms. Vaughan, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF 

POLICY STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Good morning. And thank you for the opportunity 

to testify. 

Currently, immigration enforcement is in a state of collapse. The 

vast majority of illegal aliens face no threat of deportation, regardless of when or how they arrived. New illegal arrivals continue 

from land, air, and sea, and the size of the illegal population 

stopped declining several years ago. We now know that millions of 

these illegal aliens and short-term visa-holders have been issued 

work permits outside the limits set by Congress. 

The Obama administration’s deliberate dismantling of enforcement has imposed enormous costs on American communities in the 

form of lost job opportunities, stagnant wages for native workers, 

higher tax bills to cover increasing outlays for social services and 

benefits, compromised national security, and needless public safety 

threats. 

One of the most urgent tasks now before Congress is to restore 

integrity to our immigration laws by ending the massive catch-andrelease scheme put in place by the Obama administration. This has 

to include the establishment of more effective deterrents to illegal 

settlement and tools for more efficient enforcement. 

But it has now become clear that, even if those improvements 

are made, just as the Border Patrol’s good work in apprehending 

illegal border-crossers is undercut by policies that result in their 

release, good work by ICE can be undercut if those same illegal 

aliens that they arrest in the interior are simply released and 

issued a work permit. That is a benefit. That is not prosecutorial 

discretion. 

Statistics published by the DHS show clearly that, over the last 

several years, even as illegal border crossings have grown and the 

number of over-staying visitors is large, the number of deportations 

has plummeted and the number of illegal aliens allowed to stay 

and work in the United States has increased. 

Apprehensions, which are generally considered an indicator of 

the number of people trying to enter illegally, have increased by 43 

percent since 2011, and this is largely due to the increase in unaccompanied minors and family units who arrived last summer. 

Those arrivals are continuing, by the way, and the numbers for 

unaccompanied juveniles are still about double the rate of 2 years 

ago. The apprehension statistics are concerning enough, but they 

don’t tell the whole story. CBP has yet to disclose how all these 

cases were disposed of, specifically how many of those apprehended 

were released into the United States instead of removed and how 

many of them may have been issued a work permit. 

From other government data, we do know that only a few hundred of the surge arrivals have been deported. While it is generally 

accepted that 40 percent of the illegally residing population is comprised of over-stayers, they are not a high priority for deportation. 

In 2013, only 3 percent of ICE deportations were classified as 

overstays. The most concerning aspect of the thoroughly dismal en-
59 

forcement numbers are the interior numbers, which are important 

because they have a direct effect on American communities. ICE 

deportations from the interior have dropped nearly 60 percent since 

2009, and they are already down another 20 percent from last year. 

Despite Administration claims of a focus on felons, criminal alien 

deportations are down, too. Criminal alien deportations are down 

30 percent over last year at this time and 40 percent since 2012, 

and this is despite the fact that ICE is able to identify more criminal aliens than ever before as a result of the Secure Communities 

program. 

The Administration’s so-called prosecutorial discretion policies 

that are responsible for this lawlessness have public safety consequences. We learned earlier this year that ICE released more 

than 36,000 convicted criminal aliens from its custody, many with 

serious convictions, and now we know that a large number of them 

have been arrested again for subsequent offenses. 

In 2014, ICE released another 30,000 convicted criminal aliens. 

It is bad enough that they are released, but ICE has cut back on 

the supervision as well. More and more are released on bond or recognizance, and there have been tragic consequences, as recently 

happened in Arizona, where an illegal alien who was a convicted 

felon on burglary charges was released by ICE without supervision 

and then, while waiting for his deportation hearing that still is unresolved 2 years later, murdered a 21-year-old convenience store 

clerk over two packs of cigarettes. 

So it has been reported that this Committee is hard at work on 

legislation, and I look forward to seeing the results. But I again 

want to emphasize that, unless Congress acts immediately to rein 

in executive abuse of power, specifically the issuance of work permits and catch-and-release, all of the good work that comes about 

as a result of enforcing the laws is for naught. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. 

Dr. Rosenblum, am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. ‘‘Rosenblum.’’ Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. ‘‘Rosenblum.’’ Okay. Well, I am only two for four 

here today, but we will work on that. 

And welcome. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF MARC R. ROSENBLUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY PROGRAM, MIGRATION POLICY 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you. 

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

In any immigration system, illegal immigration depends on three 

factors: the economic, social, and demographic drivers of my migration flows; the laws that define who may enter legally; and immigration control measures to enforce these rules. When the drivers 

of migration exceed the legal limits, the result is illegal immigration, unless adequate enforcement measures are in place to prevent 

it. 

In the U.S. case, large-scale illegal immigration began in the late 

1960’s after two legislative developments: Congress eliminated the 

U.S.-Mexico Bracero Program, which had admitted 450,000 guest 

workers per year; and it passed the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which imposed the first numerical limits on permanent 

migration from Mexico and Latin America. 

These changes occurred as America’s transition to a post-industrial economy boosted demand for low-skilled, low-wage workers 

and as demographic changes resulted in a growing prime-age workforce in Mexico and an aging workforce in the U.S. 

Congress held hearings on illegal immigration starting in 1970, 

but didn’t pass legislation until 1986, and serious enforcement only 

began in the mid-1990’s. With strong migration drivers, limited 

legal visas, an inadequate enforcement system, the unauthorized 

population increased from fewer than 2 million in 1970 to 12.4 million at its peak in 2007. 

The story is different in the post-9/11 period and particularly in 

the last decade. Following passage of the Secure Fence Act, DHS 

has installed over 650 miles of border fencing covering every part 

of the border the Department has identified as appropriate. 

The Border Patrol has virtually eliminated the use of voluntary 

return for border-crossers. The proportion of border apprehension 

subject to voluntary return fell from about 95 percent during the 

1990’s, to 82 percent in 2005, to less than 10 percent today. 

Following implementation of the Streamline program and other 

efforts to expand border prosecutions, almost one in four people apprehended at the border now face criminal charges, up from just 

3 percent in 2005. Perhaps the biggest change since 2005 is with 

respect to interior enforcement. 

Removals from within the United States increased from fewer 

than 50,000 per year to 188,000. Criminal removals have more 

than doubled, from 91,000 in 2003 and just 30,000 in 1995, to 

207,000 in 2012. And overall removals have averaged 406,000 per 

year since 2009, the 6 biggest years in U.S. history. 
68 

So one point I want to emphasize is that the changes since 2005 

have produced results. As I describe in my written statement and 

in two recent MPI reports on deportation policy, which I ask also 

be entered into the record, new resources and strategies have had 

a dramatic impact. 

When you look at what we know about the proportion of bordercrossers being apprehended, add smuggling fees, add recidivism 

and deterrence, it is clear that the costs of illegal immigration have 

increased and that tough enforcement influences people’s migration 

decisions. 

So what we have seen is that apprehensions of Mexicans at the 

southwest border fell from 1.6 million in 2000 to 226,000 in 2014. 

That is an 86 percent reduction in 15 years and the lowest level 

we have seen since 1969. 

Most importantly, the total unauthorized population has fallen 

by 1 million people since 2007, the first time we have ever seen a 

drop in this number other than through legalization. And the latest 

numbers I have seen say that it is still falling, that it is down to 

11 million in 2013. 

The other point I want to emphasize that these gains have not 

come cheaply. The United States has spent $208 billion on immigration enforcement since 2001. We spend more money on immigration enforcement than on all other Federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined. Immigration now accounts for 47 percent 

of all cases in Federal, district, and magistrate courts, crowding out 

other issues. 

Hundreds of cities and counties, along with three States and the 

District of Columbia, have passed legislation limiting how local law 

enforcement can cooperate with DHS because they believe aggressive enforcement endangers their communities. 

And more than 3.6 million deportations since 2003, including 

more than 1.3 million of people living inside the United States, 

have had a huge impact on U.S. families and communities. A growing number of Americans rejects this approach. 

We know what it would take to design a more efficient and sustainable enforcement system. Illegal immigration is a three-dimensional issue based on the underlying demand for migration flows, 

the supply of visas, and enforcement. Yet, for 40 years, U.S. policy 

has focused almost entirely on enforcement. By failing to address 

the structural roots of immigration flows or the policy roots of illegality, we have battled illegal immigration with one hand tied behind our back. 

I urge this Committee to support a more balanced set of policies 

that also address these supply-and-demand issues that are the root 

causes of illegal immigration. Balanced policies in the long run will 

be more efficient, more effective, and more humane. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenblum follows:] 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Dr. Rosenblum. 

I’ll recognize myself first for questions. 

Professor Ting, I was particularly taken by your statement, 

which I agree with, that the primary purpose of our immigration 

laws is to protect the jobs and wages of American workers. 

Would you elaborate on that and tell us whether you think that 

the current Administration is fulfilling that purpose. 

Mr. TING. Mr. Chairman, it seems like every month we have new 

employment figures come out and the Administration does a little 

victory lap celebrating the increasing number of jobs. 

But, as everyone knows, wages have remained stagnant in the 

United States and a lot of American workers are suffering from either unemployment or underemployment, working multiple parttime jobs, trying to string a life together. I think it is clear that 

we haven’t recovered from the recovery. And, yet, the stock market 

seems to be hitting highs every month, record highs. 

And I think it is not a contradiction that the stock market keeps 

hitting highs and American workers keep suffering from low wages 

and underemployment. I think there is an effort underway to facilitate immigration, legal and illegal, into the United States in order 

to suppress the wages of American workers. 

And I think there is a lot of talk about rising economic inequality 

in America. I am concerned about that. And I think, you know, 

dealing with illegal immigration is part of doing something for 

American workers, protecting their jobs, protecting their wages. 

In Philadelphia, we have got fast-food workers and baggage han- dlers at the airport demanding a raise to $15 an hour in 2015. 

Good luck with that. Because the President has already announced 

he is going to add 5 million illegal immigrants to the legal workforce in 2015, and every employer knows that. 

So, you know, I don’t think our American workers are going to 

get the raise that they want and need. And I think we have to look 

at the reason why, with rising numbers of jobs, wages don’t go up. 

If you believe in market theory, wages should be going up. They 

are not. It has something to do with immigration. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. 

Let me say to Dr. Rosenblum I appreciate your enthusiasm for 

the success of this Administration, but the facts tell a different 

story. 

When you look at actual ICE interior removals from 2009, the 

first year of the Obama administration, through 2014, they have 

dropped from 237,941 to 102,224 last year. I think that is a dramatic representation of what is really happening with regard to enforcement of immigration laws. 

And, Sheriff Babeu, I would like to ask you if you could comment 

on what you are experiencing right there in the field along the border in terms of what is happening with immigration into this country. 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

I can tell you that the day after, when we had 1070, the Supreme 

Court had a ruling that said local law enforcement was not for— 

under the Supremacy Clause, to be involved in that particular case 

on that ruling. 

We had immigration—— 
93 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the next day the Obama administration removed Arizona from participating in the program altogether, didn’t 

they? 

Sheriff BABEU. Correct. We were the one State that was actually, 

I believe, punished for that. 

And the situation, as I outlined a little bit, in terms of the smuggling routes that are occupied largely by the Sinaloa Cartel, Homeland Security has even said publicly 75 to 100 of these lookout 

posts that have been identified. There is far more than that. They 

are not all occupied at the same time. So this is what we see, this 

robust effort that still is ongoing. 

I have literally hundreds of press releases here. There have been 

cases, 30 to 50 illegals that are running through neighborhoods in 

the western part of my county. Largely, we are a pass-through 

county. So they are oftentimes transported by vehicles. And many 

times we see them make a 3- to 5-day march that is very dangerous through very treacherous, high-temperature desert. 

We often find ourselves that are—responding to emergencies because they are targeted for all kinds of crimes, anything from robbery to—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me interrupt you because my time is running down. 

But isn’t a major component of this not just what is done along 

the border, but having interior enforcement where, instead of what 

is occurring today, which appears to be a policy of catch-and-release, to actually have laws that make sure that people who nowadays are—I was down on the border last year and I saw them 

turning themselves in voluntarily—— 

Sheriff BABEU. Right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. And then claiming all kinds of 

things that allow them to remain in the United States. 

Is reforming those laws and allowing the ICE agents to do their 

job a critical part of an enforcement? And is that occurring with 

this Administration right now? 

Sheriff BABEU. That is not, Mr. Chairman. As I pointed out, the 

countless cases we see 5 times deported, 10 times, 12 times—in 

that one case, 17 times—I am proud to admit, and it is confirmed 

by the Border Patrol that they have been deported. So if there is 

no catch and release, how are they coming back? And it stands to 

reason that that is not as many times as they actually came into 

the country illegally. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

The gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Rosenblum, would you care to respond to the Chairman’s 

question that was posed to you? Do you recall it? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. 

We recently analyzed ICE’s administrative removal records and 

were able to analyze their interior removals and their border removals. And what the data we have looked at show is that interior 

removals increased from 73,000 in 2008 to—I am sorry, from 

150,000 in 2008 to 188,000 in 2011. And then they had declined to 

131,000 in 2013. 
94 

But what you also see in the data is that criminal removals from 

the interior have increased over this period. So, in 2008, there were 

only 81,000 criminal removals from the interior versus 114,000 in 

2013. So we have seen a little bit of a quantity versus quality 

tradeoff where the Administration appears to be focusing, you 

know, as they have said in their formal description of their policy, 

to be focusing on criminal removals from the interior and focusing 

on border enforcement. So we have seen the border removals numbers go up and the interior criminal removals go up. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Let me ask you about a comment that Sheriff Babeu made in his 

written testimony—that ‘‘the failure to secure the border after the 

Reagan amnesty got us where we are today with 11 million or more 

illegals in our Country.’’ 

I think you addressed this point in your written testimony. Could 

you give us a response here before the Committee? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Sure. Thank you. I mean, there is no question 

that illegal immigration has increased since the 1986 IRCA. And 

one reason is that IRCA was a flawed bill strictly from an enforcement perspective. Its biggest shortcoming is that the employer 

sanctions provisions are mostly unenforceable. So IRCA left in 

place the jobs magnet that continues to attract most unauthorized 

immigrants. 

And in fortifying the border, IRCA started a trend of raising the 

costs of crossing the border, which has increased. But at least for 

the first 10 or 20 years, what social scientists who have studied the 

border have found is that it increased the cost enough to discourage circularity so people who arrived stopped going home, but it 

didn’t increase the cost enough to prevent people from coming. So 

IRCA and the border enforcement in the 1980’s and 1990’s tended 

to trap unauthorized immigrants within the U.S. 

But the most important thing that IRCA failed to do was address 

any of the drivers of illegal immigration or any of the disparity between the supply and demand of visas. So IRCA failed to provide 

visas to satisfy the demand for labor flows that existed. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Sheriff Babeu, I wanted to see if you could direct me to the 

memo in which Secretary Johnson showed ICE would no longer enforce the law against the 11 million people in the country or that 

it would grant deferred action to 20 million people. Do you have 

those documents? 

Sheriff BABEU. Absolutely. Through the Chair—this is a memo 

dated November 20. And it is from Secretary Jeh Johnson to—he 

has 22 subagencies. And he outlines in great detail the six-page 

memo. And I will point you to page number 4, section C,that if they 

had been present in the United States continuously since January 

1st of 2014—and on that page, it is outlined in great detail about 

prosecutorial discretion. And you don’t have to be a lawyer to figure out that that wasn’t intended for an entire class of people or 

to just arbitrarily waive the law as has been done here. 

It is for certain—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I am going to have to—I see the lights on here. 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes, sir. 
95 

Mr. CONYERS. Dr. Rosenblum, do you have any comment to the 

response that we have from the sheriff? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. What I understand from the memo—I have 

looked at that memo from 2014. That memo defines the Department’s enforcement priorities and also describes within each of the 

different priority levels the criteria for making an individual determination, looking at the totality of the circumstances about, you 

know, whether or not ICE and other enforcement agents are directed to consider discretion in a case. But I don’t read the memo 

to categorically describe a whole class. 

Mr. CONYERS. Let me go to my last question. 

In recent years, critics of the Administration have begun to add 

removals and returns together in an attempt to argue that the Administration is not enforcing our immigration laws like it used to. 

What do you think of that criticism? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Well, Congress in 1996 created the removal 

process. And it is designed as a tougher form of enforcement that 

carries with it bars on admissibility and criminal penalties for people who reenter. 

What we have seen over the years is that the total number of 

deportations, removals plus returns, maps very closely to the total 

number of apprehensions. They are correlated at .94. So it is almost the same number. 

And the trend that we see in the last couple of decades, and especially the last decade, is that within the total body of deportations, the share of the removals has increased sharply. It is now 

about three-quarters. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

Before we go to the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from 

Virginia sought recognition. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I think the memo that the Ranking 

Member asks speaks for itself pretty much and I am sure he would 

want it made a part of the record. 

So, without objection, I hope we will admit that memo as part 

of the record and then I think everyone can read it for themselves. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The Chair now recognizes the past Chairman of the Judiciary 

Committee, the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sheriff, let me direct my first comment and question to you and 

that is thank you for what you are doing in your good work in protecting the lives and property of the residents of the county you 

represent. And I hope they appreciate that too. 

You mentioned in your testimony that we are not even using the 

facilities we have now to detain dangerous individuals. In fact, 

there are I think 10,000 beds that are going unused right now. And 

yet you combine that with this Administration’s decision to release 

thousands of dangerous illegal immigrants who have been charged 

with such crimes as manslaughter and armed robbery. I have no 

idea why the Administration wants to do this to the American people. 

But I would like to ask you what solutions you would propose so 

that we can stop this kind of policy that does destroy lives and 

property, all of which could be prevented. 

Sheriff BABEU. First, Congressman Smith, through the Chair, it 

is outrageous what has been allowed to happen. And if I had a 

mass jailbreak in my county and let out hundreds, if not thousands, of violent criminals, many of them, I would be arrested. And 

this has to stop. We saw—— 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. In effect, the Administration has ordered 

the largest jailbreak in American history. 

Sheriff BABEU. The largest jailbreak in American history has occurred right under our noses. And nobody is talking about it. 

The information, I demanded this information, even spoke to 

Senator McCain. He said, Sheriff, Sheriff, I promise you I am going 

to get you those names. 

Well, I am still waiting for the names of those criminals, and we 

will never get it. We will never get these names. And the reason 

why is because we will then connect 2,228 criminals to new crimes 

that have been committed against our citizens all across this country. And who should be held responsible and answer to these victims except this Administration and those people who have knowingly released and intended for this harm to take place. 

Here is one of these cases. This illegal that Ms. Vaughan spoke 

about, Altamirano, who is 29, from Mexico, it wasn’t just robbery 

that he pled guilty to. He kidnapped a woman for over a week and 

sexually assaulted her, according to the victim. We are in America;you believe the victims. 

This guy executed this 21-year-old young man who worked as a 

store clerk in a QuikTrip convenience store and shot him, murdered him over a back of cigarettes. 

And ICE won’t even answer to—and all we are hearing is excuses in how this guy was released. And we are outraged in our 

State. And this just underscores the fact of what is going on, that 

these people aren’t held accountable, serious, violent offenders. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. There is absolutely no excuse for this Administration to perpetuate those policies that result in American 

lives being lost or property damaged or injuries that have occurred. 

I couldn’t agree with you more on that. 
103 

Professor Ting, I just wanted to thank you for your testimony. I 

don’t have a question. But I want to point out that Chairman Goodlatte, in his opening statement, emphasized what you also said and 

that is that apprehensions along the border no longer necessarily 

result in individuals being sent home. Oftentimes it is a golden 

ticket to come into the country and establish legal residence. And 

that is largely because of people gaming the asylum laws or largely 

because of the Administration not enforcing the asylum laws, again 

a travesty that results in basically ignoring and undermining current immigration law. 

Ms. Vaughan, let me go to you for my next question. This is quite 

amazing. Under this Administration, we have seen illegal border 

crossings go up. We have seen deportations go down. We have a 

million people in the country here illegally who have been ordered 

removed who still are in this country. You wonder how bad it has 

to get before this Administration decides to enforce current immigration laws. 

Now, you have done a lot of research on those individuals who 

have been either charged with or convicted of serious crimes and 

a lot of research on the recidivism rate. Would you go into more 

detail about how many of these individuals were released? How 

many have committed additional crimes? And we might make the 

point that the recidivism rate is over a year or two. Long term, a 

lot more will commit additional crimes, all of which would have 

been avoidable had this Administration done what it should have 

done and that is send a lot of these individuals home. 

But would you elaborate on some of your research in that regard? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Sure. I would be happy to. What we know from 

the 36,000 convicted criminal aliens who were released in 2013 is 

16 percent of them were subsequently re-arrested by local law enforcement agencies, 16 percent of them. And only a portion of those 

were taken back into custody by ICE. 

This Committee has also commissioned research based on actual 

records that found a very high recidivism rate. I believe it was 

something like 56,000 new crimes committed by criminal aliens 

who were released instead of removed under the Secure Communities Program. 

What I am told by ICE officials and have been told on a number 

of occasions what they believe from their internal data is there is 

a recidivism rate of about 50 percent of criminal aliens who are released by ICE or released—— 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Fifty percent? Half will commit additional 

crimes against innocent Americans? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Right. And that is both criminal aliens released 

by ICE and also those criminal aliens who are released by local law 

enforcement agencies that want to obstruct immigration enforcement through not honoring detainers—50 percent is too high a risk 

to the public. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. All of which could be avoided. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Right. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Texas. 
104 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman and I thank the Chairman. And as I started out in my remarks, I really do hope that this 

can be a constructive process where we truly do look to find solutions. 

I would offer to say that not one of us—I will count Republicans 

and Democrats—would hold to the tragic and horrible killing of the 

constituent in your jurisdiction, Sheriff, none of us. And we would 

want the individual immediately brought to justice. 

I take issue, however, to condemn public servants, ICE officers, 

of whom I know that you have probably had deep and abiding professional relationship with, as being at fault for any of these 

charges that are being made here today. 

I do want to say that not funding the Department of Homeland 

Security for this year and beyond is certainly not the answer. 

We need to ensure that we are paying Border Patrol agents, 

PSOs, ICE officers, and the array of individuals who are responsible in many different ways of securing the border. 

What I do want to raise a question in order to try to understand 

a little better, you had an opportunity at an event dealing with an 

election of a Governor in the State of Arizona to announce that a 

bus or buses of unaccompanied children would be showing up in 

Oracle, Arizona. And the public pronouncement, which I would 

offer to say that the responsibilities of law enforcement officers are 

to be protect and serve, no matter who comes into the territory, as 

long as they are innocent, provoked a despicable scene of individuals who were anti-immigration and then, of course, those who 

were supporting it. 

It so happens as it has been recorded—and I ask unanimous consent to put an article, dated July 15, 2014, in the record from the 

Republic. 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
105 
106 
107 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It was reported that as these bus loads of children came, it was determined that these children were youngsters 

going to a YMCA Triangle Y Camp. 

Is that the case, Sheriff? 

Sheriff BABEU. Through the Chair, no, that is not the case. A 

person who was running for Congress made a scene and believed 

that that was the case. In reality, there was, in secrecy, 40 to 50 

Central American juveniles who were, in fact, delivered to the Sycamore Canyon Ranch. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But do you think it is appropriate, no matter 

whether those kids came at this time—are you denying this, that 

you did not say that there was not a scene with these youngsters? 

Did you provide protection for these youngsters going to the YMCA 

camp? 

Sheriff BABEU. Absolutely. And through the Chair and Congresswoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you send us an article that shows that 

you provided protection to those youngsters? Because it is indicated 

that your expression provoked a scene for youngsters who were, in 

fact, going to a YMCA camp. 

If you have the ability to rebut that, I would appreciate it if you 

would submit it into the record. I am going to go on to another 

question. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record 

‘‘The ACLU Obtains Judgment Against Arizona Sheriff on Officer’s 

use of the S.B. 1070, ’Show Me Your Papers’ Law.’’ 

I ask show unanimous consent to put this into the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
108 
109 
110 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This indicates that an individual by the name 

of Ms. Cortes, who was a victim of domestic violence, which this 

Committee takes very seriously, was stopped by some of your officers and, rather than allowing her to show her papers, was immediately put into detention, I guess along with her children. 

Do you have knowledge of that? 

Sheriff BABEU. That is not true. She wasn’t put in detention with 

her children. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then why would you obtain a judgment? Let 

me say this—did you,was the judgment obtained against the—— 

Sheriff BABEU. Through the insurance carrier for $25,000 to settle a frivolous lawsuit, they did, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you for that and move on to the 

next question. 

Let me ask, Dr. Rosenblum, on this question of laws like S.B. 

1070 and juxtapose it against the fair Executive action that the 

President has authority to do but the Executive actions are 

prioritizing enforcement and deal with DACA family members, as 

opposed to a law like S.B. 1070, which, in the instance, you may 

not have heard me, it deals with an individual who was stopped 

and papers were not asked for, and they were detained. And they 

were a victim of domestic violence. 

Mr. GOWDY. You may answer the question. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you. Certainly my understanding is that 

one of the intentions of the President’s Executive actions announced in 2014 would be to focus enforcement more on criminals 

and recent border crossers and less on families and people who 

have children in the U.S. 

And the intention of S.B. 1070, I think, is more focused on identifying potentially deportable noncitizens, you know, by authorizing 

State and local law enforcement to query them about their documents. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Does it have a successful impact—— 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sheriff, would you pronounce your name again? 

Sheriff BABEU. Babeu. 

Mr. CHABOT. Babeu? 

Mr. BABEU. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. I will probably just call you ‘‘sheriff.’’ 

First of all, would you like any additional time to clear up or 

clarify anything that my esteemed colleague on the other side of 

the aisle may have brought up? 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes, sir. Through the Chair, I thank you, Congressman. This case with the suspect who was stopped for a violation of traffic enforcement, there was actually, we had custody 29 

minutes, including the time to transport to our U.S. Border Patrol. 

Now, the call—Senate Bill 1070 says, required by the Supreme 

Court, we shall—we don’t have an option—law enforcement shall, 

if we have a reasonable suspicion somebody is in the country illegally, inquire and determine, and we called ICE and Border Patrol. 

They said, Bring that person to us. We did. And including less than 
111 

a half an hour, that person was held for 5 days by the Border Patrol, not by us. There was no children, as the Congresswoman represented in her statement. And that was, was that entire case. 

The case, talk to Carl Shipman, the director, with the case of 

close to 50 unaccompanied juveniles who were apprehended in your 

State of Texas and were flown to my State of Arizona. I have a 

problem with that. 

And the fact that you had Jeh Johnson testify before this Congress who said there would be transparency, that we would—under 

oath, he said that he has directed and required all of his administrators to call and coordinate with State, local and county officials 

when they send any of these unaccompanied juveniles to their jurisdiction. 

That never happened. It was done in secrecy. When this was 

learned and this information was put out, now it is somehow my 

fault that the Administration has done this under secrecy? I have 

a problem with that. And so that is what happened in reality. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Let me go to another line of questioning here briefly, Sheriff. 

Could you discuss the morale relative to the men and woman 

that serve under you when you have devoted your time to law enforcement, protecting the public and enforcing the law, and then 

you see the very people that you have picked up under appropriate 

circumstances time and time again back out there, especially when 

a fairly considerable number of those apparently are criminals who 

50 percent of the time are committing more crimes against American citizens, what does that do to the men and women under you 

and having to do that on an ongoing basis? 

Sheriff BABEU. Congressman, through the Chair, that this appears to be an endless battle. And you rely on us to enforce the 

law. You write the laws. We carry them out. We enforce them. 

When it comes to immigration, it appears there is no law because 

there are no consequences largely—as pointed out, what has gone 

on in my county. 

And so this acts like a neon flashing sign on the border that if 

you get to the border, you are home free. And that is, in effect, 

what has happened. 

The morale, because we are professionals, is always professional. 

We maintain a high level of morale just in the fact that we continue the fight. And, in fact, if the Federal Government won’t do 

the job, we will gladly step up. 

Yet what we ask for is for the Federal Government and for this 

Congress to carry out and make sure the laws are enforced and empower your Federal law enforcement officers to actually be able to 

do their job that they are trained to do and sworn to protect our 

country. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I have got a little over a 

minute left. And I would like to divide this between the professor 

and Ms. Vaughan here. 

Both of you had mentioned about the effect that illegal immigration and particularly this Administration’s lack of seriousness 

about dealing with it, but really it has happened over previous Administrations as well, what effect that has had on American jobs, 

on the fact that wages have been stagnant for such a long time? 
112 

Even though, Professor, as you indicated, the stock market has 

been going up, wages really haven’t. My colleagues on the other 

side like to talk about the middle class. Well, those are the folks 

that are being hurt, I think, most by illegal immigration and the 

competition there. 

Could you each address—now I have got about 30 seconds, so 15 

each. 

Mr. TING. I think it is a national scandal, this rising inequality 

in America and people’s willingness to ignore the role of immigration in that phenomenon. You know, the Administration says jobs 

are going up every month. They are taking a victory lap on that. 

But wages are not going up. 

Why aren’t wages going up? Market theory says wages should go 

up if demand for workers increases. And people are just ignoring 

the role of immigration. 

Indeed, the President bringing 5 million illegal immigrants into 

the legal workforce in 2015, giving them work authorization and 

saying, Go out and compete with American workers for jobs. And 

it is actually illegal to discriminate against these work-authorized 

aliens in favor of American workers. 

So, you know, I think we have to recognize there are victims 

here, and the victims are American workers trying to get by on 

part-time jobs and having to compete with increasing numbers of 

work-authorized illegal immigrants to the United States. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. Vaughan, quickly. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. There is not an economist in this country who will 

tell you that we have a shortage of unskilled labor. And this is 

what is causing the stagnant wages. And it is also that people 

are—you can’t just look at the unemployment rate. You need to 

also look at the underemployment rate out there and the fact that 

people are forced into jobs that they don’t want. 

Just 2 days ago, I spoke with a man who told me that he had 

worked for 15 years in masonry in Rhode Island and can no longer 

get a job. His boss had to close the company because they have 

been completely displaced by companies that hire illegal workers, 

and he had to get a job washing cars. That is a job. He is not unemployed. But it is not what he was trained for. It is not what he 

has skills in. And these are real stories of real Americans who are 

being harmed by the Administration’s refusal to enforce the law. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Gowdy. 

Professor Ting, you talked about income inequality and correlated it to this immigration situation. 

Don’t you think income inequality has a lot more to do with 

maybe the tax structure we have in this country, the lack of a minimum wage, lack of public spending to create jobs on infrastructure? Isn’t that more important? 
113 

Mr. TING. Well, I am all for tax reform. I also teach tax. I am 

all for closing the carried interest loophole. I am all for narrowing 

the gap between income from capital and income from labor. 

Mr. COHEN. You don’t think hedge funds guys up in Manhattan 

should pay the tiny taxes they do on what they do on—I am being 

facetious. I agree with you. 

Mr. TING. Well, yeah, I think it is outrageous that Warren 

Buffett pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Sheriff Babeu, first of all, I want to thank you for your service 

to our country, serving in Iraq and all. You have an amazing story. 

And there are so many issues we could get into that I find of interest. 

In your testimony, you talk about drugs being brought through 

your county and it is one of the major—is that mostly marijuana? 

Sheriff BABEU. Through the Chair, Congressman, largely marijuana is a cash crop. But there is methamphetamine. The largest 

importer into the United States is Mexico for meth. Cocaine, heroin, black tar—— 

Mr. COHEN. But marijuana is the number one drug that comes 

through there. 

Sheriff BABEU. In terms of size and volume, yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you think, in your experience, if possibly this 

country had a different policy or laws concerning marijuana, that 

we would have less likely cartels shipping marijuana into our country if we had either decriminalized it or something like that? 

Sheriff BABEU. No. And every Arizona sheriff, the majority of us 

are Democrats, have voted against even the medicinal marijuana, 

nevermind the proposed recreational use of marijuana. And we do 

not believe that by legalizing or allowing some recreational use will 

somehow collapse the cartels. It is about a criminal syndicate that 

is driven by money and power. And they will do anything—— 

Mr. COHEN. But if they are growing marijuana legally in Washington and Colorado, they don’t need the cartels to give them marijuana. So if you had it to where some way it could be, that would 

take away their market, wouldn’t it? 

Sheriff BABEU. No. It is different. If you want to talk about the 

taxation and the incentive there for the Government. But in terms 

of the street value, it is far cheaper to buy marijuana from Mexico. 

And it is very different, when you look at the strains that the medicinal marijuana provides for certain illnesses, from glaucoma to 

pain and other things, it is all synthetic in many regards; it is 

strains and far more powerful. 

So the relative inexpense of marijuana that is coming in and the 

cash crop, they even build in 10 to 20 percent loss of apprehensions 

from law enforcement into there. 

Mr. COHEN. You are against medical marijuana, like children 

that need Charlotte’s Web or they call it—I think, Rachels in 

Israel—where they are combining this non—— 

Sheriff BABEU. Again, in Arizona, it is the law. So we enforce the 

law. I don’t have a problem with the fact that there is medical 

marijuana in Arizona. And I have spoken out publicly about this. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this—— 
114 

Sheriff BABEU. It is the abuse of it. Because we have seen people 

drive vehicles, show up at work, and operate equipment, and so 

forth. That is the concerns that we have had. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

You were on some radio show that is Political Cesspool, which is 

appropriately named, I think, having read about it. 

You regret having done that, do you not? 

Sheriff BABEU. Through the Chair, that was probably 4 years 

ago. We had no idea of their background and that they had made 

statements that appeared bigoted or racist. I don’t associate with 

that. And we immediately disavowed any of their beliefs or past 

statements. That has nothing to do with me. 

Mr. COHEN. Good. Good. And you have become, I guess, more 

careful about what shows you are on? 

Sheriff BABEU. We have been on probably as many as you, if not 

more. And so I have a staff member that vets everybody. And 

somehow, at that point, that slipped through. And we immediately 

ensured the public knew that, in fact, we reject those people if— 

anybody, whoever they are—have those beliefs. 

Mr. COHEN. I thank you for that. And I know people can make 

mistakes. As a matter of fact, I think one of our colleagues, who 

I respect greatly, went on that show and didn’t know either. So 

people can make mistakes. And I appreciate your making clear 

that that was a mistake. 

Because the fact is—they are out of my district apparently—but 

some of the stuff they stand for is reprehensible. And I thank you 

for your honesty. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing because 

it is one of those few hearing where people get what they ask for. 

We came in, we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle saying, we just want the facts, we just want the facts. 

And, Sheriff, thank you for giving them to them. 

We have heard one newspaper article after another newspaper 

article or story recited by our friends on the other side of the aisle. 

But thank you for being the eyewitness who can come here and refute them all. And I know a lot of times they didn’t give you an 

opportunity to respond to that. But we thank you for doing that. 

The one thing I will agree that I heard in the opening comments 

is it is, indeed, unfortunate that the President would indicate that 

he would be willing to shut down the Department of Homeland Security unless the act that funds it allows him to take actions many 

constitutional experts believe to be the most flagrant attack on the 

Constitution we have seen in years, an attack that will impact not 

just our time but the lifetime of our children. 

But I am also not fearful of the false choice our friends on the 

other side of the aisle offer, that we must turn our eyes, ignore the 

unconstitutional act of this President if we want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. 

The oath we took as Members of the Congress was not, as much 

as we love it, to defend Arizona or California or Virginia; it was 
115 

to defend the Constitution of the United States. And when this 

President or any President attacks that Constitution, this Committee, this Congress has the same duty under that oath to protect 

and defend against those attacks as it does to protect and defend 

against the attacks of some wrongdoers secretly entering across our 

border to attack that same Constitution or the citizens it protects. 

Now, professor Ting, I would like to ask you—the President admitted in 2011 and numerous times thereafter that with respect to 

the notion that I can just suspend deportations through Executive 

order, that is just not the case because there are laws on the books 

that Congress has passed. 

He went on to say the executive branch’s job is to enforce and 

implement those jobs. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our 

immigration system, that for me to simply through Executive order 

ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my 

appropriate role as President. 

My question to you is this: Isn’t that exactly what DHS has been 

doing, suspending the deportation process and creating an enforcement-free zone for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens? And do 

you think the President is violating his duty under the Constitution to faithfully execute those laws? 

Mr. TING. Yes. I think I have written on that subject and I have 

said that I think the Executive action is unconstitutional and a 

usurpation of congressional powers. It is legislation by the executive. 

And also, you know, Chairman Goodlatte has put into the record 

many of the President’s earlier statements about the limitations on 

his authority, which he subsequently ignored, which I think calls 

into question whether there are any other limitations. 

You know, he says his own Office of Legal Counsel opinion says, 

Well, you can’t extend this to parents of DACA beneficiaries. Well, 

is that going to hold up? You know, what is the next step? If this 

Executive order is sustained, you know, what is the next step? And 

I think you may see Executive orders reaching other people that 

the President has said, Well, we can’t extend it to them. Well, now 

that I think about it, why not? And extend it further. 

There is no limitation. And that feeds into the cost-benefit analysis that people are thinking about, whether to come to the United 

States illegally or not. You know, people are saying, Well, you 

know, you just get yourself in there and then you wait for the next 

piece of Executive action to come along and provide you with work 

authorization. 

I think it is feeding the process. If you want more illegal immigration, you raise the benefits and lower the costs. If you want—— 

Mr. FORBES. Ms. Vaughan, let me ask you what Mr. Ting has 

said also—you heard how Dr. Rosenblum has talked about this 

great enforcement that this Administration has done on our immigration laws. Is he right on that? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. No, he is not. If you look at the total body of statistics—and the best ones to look at are ICE’s own internal 

metrics—you see that not only are interior deportations down, total 

deportations down, including all three agencies, but also even the 
116 

number of criminal aliens being removed from the interior every 

year has plummeted. 

They keep the records for their own use internally. And that is 

the best measure of what is happening. 

And I think the most important metric is the size of the illegal 

population residing in the United States, which stopped declining 

after Congress gave resources to Federal agencies to use on enforcement, we made progress on the size of the illegal population. 

But that has stopped now. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you for letting us get these facts put on the 

record. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

And the Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Professor Ting, you are a Republican, are you not? 

Mr. TING. I am a registered Republican, although I have supported Democrats, including the President. It is public record. I 

was kicked out of the Republican Party in Delaware as a result of 

having taken that stance. 

And I am sorry I didn’t say in the tax question that I think the 

high watermark of tax reform was in 1986 when the Democrats 

and the Republicans agreed on setting the capital gains and the ordinary income rate at 28 percent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. You are at this point active in Republican Party politics, are you not? 

Mr. TING. That is not true. I am not active in Republican Party 

politics since I was basically pushed out of the Delaware Republican Party. Indeed, I have relocated. I now live in a different 

State. I live in Pennsylvania, not in Delaware anymore. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But certainly you are not Democratically affiliated? 

Mr. TING. I am a registered Republican. But I think of myself as 

pretty darned independent, as indicated by my support of tax reform. But I also think the Republicans are right on immigration. 

And, you know, really my question is, who in Congress speaks for 

America workers? 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I don’t think 

it’s ever been the practice of this Committee to be asking witnesses 

what their political—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Could I get my time stopped if—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah, I don’t have any problem with that. I mean, 

I didn’t ask Mr. Rosenblum any questions, but I certainly didn’t 

ask him his political affiliation and—— 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Ohio’s point is well taken. Although Professor Ting is more than defending himself. And he may 

actually go back to his support for this President at some point. 

So, with that, I am sure Mr. Johnson is going to leave politics 

and get to immigration at some point. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am but after I make sure I answer my pre-questions. In other words, I am building up to something. And I would 

appreciate giving me the discretion to do that without further 

interruption. 
117 

Mr. GOWDY. You have the discretion to ask. And Professor Ting 

can decide whether or not he wants to answer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I have heard enough from Professor Ting at 

this point. I would love to talk with you further. 

I would ask the same question of Ms. Vaughan, you are a Republican also, are you not? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I am a registered Republican, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Sheriff Babeu, you too, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. I became the first Republican sheriff of my county. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Okay. 

Now, Sheriff Babeu, you know, you are a strict opponent of immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. Through the Chair, comprehensive immigration 

reform, as I understand it, you may be referring to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask you this question—you are opposed to immigration of persons south of the border coming to the 

U.S.? 

Sheriff BABEU. No, that is absolutely not true. I support legal immigration, not illegal immigration. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you this question—you realize that we 

have been struggling with comprehensive immigration reform for 

many years in this country, and it is politics that keeps us from 

doing it, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. No. I think that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. You don’t think it is politics—— 

Sheriff BABEU. I think that it is enforcement of the law. You may 

be dealing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are talking about changing the law so that we 

can have comprehensive immigration reform. But you are opposed 

to us doing that, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. The process and I will—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you opposed to us considering comprehensive 

immigration—— 

Sheriff BABEU. In the order that you are doing it, yes. The border 

needs to be secured first, and then you can address that issue after. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. And that is a Republican position, 

a Republican Party position. And you are a Republican, and I understand that. 

Let me ask you this question—do you need automatic weapons 

to help you with border control? 

Sheriff BABEU. We have in Arizona—through the Chair—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. If you could say yes or no, and then you could explain. 

Sheriff BABEU [continuing]. Semi-automatic weapons. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you need automatic weapons? 

Sheriff BABEU. We don’t have to have automatic weapons, no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you need mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles to help you patrol the border? 

Sheriff BABEU. Not for the border, but for our SWAT team, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Do you need silencers in order to help 

you patrol the border? 

Sheriff BABEU. For our SWAT team, that is a tactical move, but 

it is not necessarily targeted for—— 
118 

Mr. JOHNSON. Why does your SWAT team need ambush, mineresistant ambush protected vehicles? 

Sheriff BABEU. Because, sir, through the Chair, our county 

doesn’t have the money to buy a SWAT vehicle. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Why do you need it in order to enforce border security? Why do you need a mine-resistant ambush—— 

Sheriff BABEU. We don’t. And this is where—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, sir—Sheriff, you may answer the question. 

You may not ask a question and then not allow the witness to 

answer it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I wanted a yes or no answer. He answered the 

question. And I am ready to move on. 

Mr. GOWDY. Sheriff, have you answered the question as completely as you would like to? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to move on. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman is not recognized. 

Sheriff, have you answered the question as completely as you 

would like to? 

Sheriff BABEU. And this is where us and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, regular order, please. Regular 

order. 

Sheriff BABEU. In law enforcement—we have 420,000 residents of 

my county. And we are the SWAT team. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Point of information, Mr. Chairman. 

Sheriff BABEU. All 13 law enforcement agencies. And for highrisk warrants,barricade situations—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman—— 

Sheriff BABEU [continuing]. Almost never have we used—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman—— 

Sheriff BABEU [continuing]. An armored vehicle for anything—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Sheriff BABEU [continuing]. Illegal immigration, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Sheriff. 

The gentleman is out of time. If you have another question—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have a point of order that I would like to state. 

Mr. GOWDY. State your point of order. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it within the rules of this Committee that the 

Chairman can interrupt a legislator asking a question of a witness—— 

Mr. GOWDY. If that legislator is not allowing the witness to answer questions, you are daggone right he can, yes, sir. 

The gentleman is out of time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I take exception to the Chairman—abuse of authority as to—— 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses, as I heard earlier, for their direct 

answers that we did receive and those anchored in fact. 

I wanted to point out first to Sheriff Babeu, I have been to the 

top of those Lookout Mountains, those spotter locations. I have 

done one-strut landings with a Blackhawk up on top. And knowing 
119 

that they have scattered down the mountain, it is kind of hard to 

catch them. I am glad you caught some. And I would like to see 

a lot more of that, by the way. And I would like to see you have 

all the resources necessary. And I regret that S.B. 1070 ended up 

in the court the way it did. I was there to witness that. 

I wanted to just put a statement out here and judge your reaction. I was listening to Donald Trump in Iowa a week ago, and he 

said this, ‘‘We have to build a fence. And it has got to be a beauty. 

And who can build better than me?’’ 

Your reaction to that, Sheriff. 

Sheriff BABEU. Well, you are speaking to a retired Army officer, 

combat engineer. And I helped build this 14-foot corrugated steel 

no-climb fence that was originally sponsored by Congressman 

Hunter. In fact, a credit to President Clinton, signed that bill and 

authorized a double barrier fence, not a triple barrier. 

We don’t need, as Mr. Trump and others, an entire, we are not 

building the great wall of Mexico. That there are tactical areas that 

you interlock these manmade barricades or obstacles and you interlock them with natural terrain features. We know how to do that 

well. And so there are 700 miles of the 2,000 miles of border that 

would need this barrier. 

Mr. KING. Could we agree that we should just simply build that 

fence until they stop going around the end? 

Sheriff BABEU. Taking a line from Senator McCain, build the 

dang fence. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Also I wanted to turn to Ms. Vaughan, and I am listening to the 

number this keeps coming up, 11 million, 11 million, 11 million. 

When I came here 12 years ago, it was 12 million. Now it is 11 million. What has happened to that million that disappeared while 

there were millions pouring over the border? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, the numbers went down from 2007 until 

about 2009. And we think that was a result of several things. First 

of all, increased resources that Congress gave to ICE to boost enforcement of laws. 

Secondly, State and local governments passing laws within their 

jurisdiction to support Federal immigration enforcement efforts. 

And also the economy was not great and the lure of jobs was not 

as bright as it had been. 

But the numbers stopped falling along about 2010 and have remained stagnant since then, even as more and more—— 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Also I wanted to point out a narrative and 

go back to Sheriff Babeu, and that is that sometime last summer, 

late July, I was standing on the banks of the Rio Grande River at 

Roma, Texas. And there with a couple of Border Patrol agents and 

two local city police—they were there most of the time, came and 

went a little bit, having a conversation with them—we watched as 

two coyotes inflated a raft on the other side of the river, loaded a 

pregnant lady in it, ran her across the river, pulled their raft up 

against the shoreline. And they helped the lady out, handed her 

her two bags of her possessions. The coyote that helped her out got 

back in the raft. The two of them went back to Mexico. The level 

of animation among the officers there was a little less than I would 

see if they were writing a speeding ticket in Iowa. 
120 

Is that a typical scenario? And is it likely she applied for asylum? 

That was July, so I presume the baby is born by now, an American 

citizen. Is that a typical scenario? 

Sheriff BABEU. Not in our county. We are not actually a border 

county. But the three counties south of us, funnel shape the traffic 

up through Pinal County. But we don’t see a lot of, in our county, 

pregnant illegals. 

Mr. KING. Aside from her condition, which is just the observed 

condition, is it, is it your understanding that it is typical when 

someone gets across the border, that they apply then for asylum 

and that the only people that we really send back are those that 

will accept the proposal of a voluntary return on the spot or in a 

short hearing? 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And so we are the welcome mat. And the point of securing the border if we are going to be there to be the welcome mat 

is significantly diminished by the policies of this Administration, 

would you agree? 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Then I will turn to Professor Ting. And 

I am looking at a number here, 92,898,000 Americans—almost 93 

million Americans—simply not to the workforce, a 30 percent of the 

population, 29 point and change, not in the workforce. 

And I am listening to the testimony here and, of course, I have 

been thinking of this for a while—it seems to me that we need a 

demographer to project to us what America looks like if this continues. 

But you have given it so much thoughtful consideration. I would 

ask you if you could tell us what you think America looks like if 

the Constitution and the rule of law usurped by the executive 

branch and the door is open for an endless supply of immigration, 

could you give me a picture of what America looks like? 

Mr. TING. Well, I worry about that picture of the future. You 

know, what is special about America is our Constitution and our 

deliberative process of government, which includes the role for the 

Congress, as well as the executive branch. And I think that is 

being threatened by kind of imperial Executive orders. If this Executive order stands, where is the limit? 

I think we do need to think more about growth of immigration. 

Both my parents were immigrants. I love immigrants, right? We all 

should respect immigrants because we are all descended from people that came here from somewhere else. And we are told that includes Native Americans too. 

But, you know, how much—that is the question. And it is a hard 

question. Given the fact that we respect immigrants and admire 

immigrants, how many are we going to take every year? And we 

have to kind of strike the balance. 

I also just want to say if we do nothing, we are stuck with the 

most generous legal immigration system in the world, bar none. We 

admit more legal immigrants with a clear path to full citizenship 

every year than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. 

That is if we do nothing. That is our legal immigration system. And 

I have testified before Congress and said it is a system that is worthy of a nation of immigrants. 
121 

So, you know, we welcome legal immigrants into the United 

States. We are doing our part in America. We benefit from legal 

immigration. But there has to be a limit. And we have to enforce 

that limit. Otherwise, it is not really a limit. 

Mr. CHABOT [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from California, the former speaker of the California, Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Glad to see you back here. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Ms. Bass is recognized. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Rosenblum. I wanted to ask 

you a couple of questions. But also if you wanted to respond to 

some of the questions that were asked previously, you know, you 

could take the opportunity to do that. 

But Professor Ting, where did Native Americans come from? You 

said Native Americans were immigrants. I was just wondering. 

Mr. TING. I don’t know. You know, I read that the ancestors of 

Native Americans migrated across the land bridge from Asia to the 

Americas. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Thank you. I was just wondering. I would actually never heard that. 

Mr. TING. I don’t claim any expertise other than having read that 

that is the case. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. Rosenblum, I believe that you mentioned that most of the 

people that are coming now who are seeking asylum are from Central America. 

And I wanted to know if you would talk about that. That is an 

issue and a population that impacts my city and also my district. 

A lot of Central Americans are there. 

And my understanding is that many or most of them are coming 

not only from what you said but what I see at home are coming 

because of the specific conditions in El Salvador and Honduras, 

where the crime rate is so bad. 

I wanted to know, based on your analysis, if you thought that 

DACA was actually a magnet for their immigration. 

And also it is my understanding, I think another witness has 

said that most of the unaccompanied children and families who 

were apprehended have not been deported. And I was wondering 

if you could explain your thoughts as to why that was the case. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you for those questions. 

So let me first say something about the unaccompanied children 

arriving from Central America. We have heard the argument made 

that DACA is a magnet that is attracting those children. But, in 

fact, I mean, there are two strong pieces of evidence that that is 

not correct. One is that the surge of Central Americans began in 

January of 2012, which was 6 months before DACA was announced. So they couldn’t have been coming because of DACA because they came before DACA. 

But the more important point is that—and this applies also to 

the general discussion we have had about how Professor Ting has 
122 

argued that the President’s lax enforcement has been a big magnet 

that is encouraging people to come. 

But what we have seen is that the numbers of Mexican arrivals—and this goes to Ms. Vaughan’s comments as well—the numbers of Mexican arrivals continue to fall. They have fallen every 

year for the last 14 years. And they are at a 40-year low. So we 

have had an 86 percent drop of Mexican arrivals since 2000, despite DACA and despite, you know, the other Executive actions. 

So what we see instead is that there are very specific factors 

pushing immigration from Central America. And those are the violence in large parts of El Salvador and Honduras and Guatemala, 

to a lesser extent, the economic impact. 

And another big factor is that the smuggling networks that connect Central America to the United States have adapted their behavior and provide sort of door-to-door service that didn’t used to 

exist. 

But there is extensive research—and I have quite a few citations 

in my written testimony—by the United Nations, by several different humanitarian organizations that work with those arriving 

children, who have conducted interviews and they found that 50 

percent to, up to two-thirds likely have valid humanitarian claims 

under existing U.S. Law. So, you know, those kids are a distinct 

phenomenon that raise all kinds of important questions about how 

our laws handle a humanitarian crisis like that. 

And the most important question being that we don’t have judicial capacity to quickly process them, which is really what the 

problem is. When they arrive, the reason that they are not quickly 

adjudicated is that they have 2-year waits to go before a judge. So 

that is really where the weakness is in our enforcement system is 

the ability to quickly adjudicate those cases. 

But to lump them in as regular unauthorized immigrants denies 

the reality that they are fleeing very specific circumstances and arriving under very different conditions. So we should look at them 

and understand what is really going on there. 

Ms. BASS. And that certainly has been the complaint in my district actually is the backlog. 

But I was wondering also if you could speak to the decline in 

Mexican immigrants coming across the border. 

The other big complaint in my district is the number of deportations that have happened under President Obama. People in—at 

least in LA—feel that his number of deportations have been very, 

very high. 

So is that the reason why? Because there is certainly a lot of violence in Mexico as well. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Well, we are certainly seeing increased enforcement at the border and in the interior when you look at the numbers. And there has been this discussion here on the panel also 

that there is catch and release happening at the border and a lot 

of voluntary returns. 

But when you look at the Border Patrol data, that is just not 

true. The Border Patrol historically did voluntary return for over 

95 percent of the people they apprehended. As recently as 2005, it 

was 80 percent. And now it is under 10 percent. So what they are 

doing is they are putting people on expedited removal and rein-
123 

statement of removal and increasingly charging them in criminal 

courts. So there is evidence that that has, you know, had a real deterrent impact on the Mexican numbers. 

But certainly we have seen that the overall removal numbers 

have gone up. And I am sure that is what people in your district 

are commenting on. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, let me start out by just quoting something that 

I think is important. You know, we are talking about immigration 

today. And some of the discussions center around what some of us 

believe was the unconstitutional actions of the President. But it is 

important to note that the President might have many obligations, 

but one most paramount obligation is the following sworn oath that 

he made: ‘‘I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my 

ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 

States.’’ 

Article I, section 8, clause 4, of the Constitution provides that 

Congress shall have power to ‘‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’’ 

The Supreme Court has long found that this provision of the 

Constitution grants Congress the plenary power over immigration 

policy. 

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the recent Executive action by 

the President on illegal immigration is categorically incompatible 

with the oath that he made when he laid his hands on the Lincoln 

Bible 6 years ago. 

And I obviously am concerned, like many of us, on the immigration policy. But a greater concern here is the critical nature that 

this Committee and this President has to maintain our oath to the 

Constitution. And I believe that the President’s actions fundamentally abrogate his oath. And I believe it is important for us to consider that. And I wanted to put that on the record. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I could turn to the panel. 

Sheriff Babeu, let me just in total openness here tell the rest of 

the folks here, you and I are good friends. And I have a great deal 

of respect for you. And your credibility on this issue is unimpeachable. 

So I ask you, do you think that the new policies implemented by 

the Obama administration serve as an adequate deterrence or perhaps an invitation to those who seek to enter our country illegally? 

And do you think these policies—what kind of message do they 

send to criminal aliens as to the consequences of their conduct? 

Sheriff BABEU. Congressman Franks, through the Chair, one, we 

all appreciate you. Even though you are not one of the Congressman in our county, we love you just the same. 

Clearly this acts as an incentive that if, not just the fact that it 

is—we keep hearing 5 million. This document by Jeh Johnson includes, whatever that number of illegals here from January 1st of 
124 

2014, includes all of them. So this is where that deferred action is 

far larger than this 5 million figure that we simply keep hearing 

about. That will act as an incentive. 

The other thing we are seeing—everybody says these numbers 

are down. Yes, in fact, they are. 

And Janet Napolitano, when she was the Secretary, was at a 

press conference in our State one time and the media came around, 

Well, Sheriff, how do you refute that crime is down all along the 

border? I said crime is down all cross America and all the violent 

crime statistics. 

And the fact that we forget that our economy, everybody has 

talked about a recession. There are communities in my county that 

had 21 percent plus unemployment. 

And so imagine what is going to happen now that we had 1986 

with Simpson-Mazzoli Act, and now with 11 million plus illegals. 

There is a third wave that is coming if we don’t secure the border. 

So that should be the alarm that is sounded now. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your good work. 

And, Professor Ting, if I could pass a question to you, sir. The 

Committee has received reports that the Mexican drug cartel members are abusing the credible fear process to bypass regular immigration checks in order to get into the country. And that has been 

confirmed in meetings with staff, that there are internal documents 

making these claims. 

And I wonder if you could expand on that and tell us why you 

think that is happening and what the implications are. 

Mr. TING. Well, I think all you have to do is look at the approval 

rate for the credible fear questions that are being asked at the border to see that it is almost a green light for people that want to 

make a credible fear claim at the border. And then they get put 

in the line to await a hearing date before an immigration judge 

where they can make their asylum claim. 

The lines are growing. The system is under attack just from the 

sheer numbers of people coming across and making credible fear 

claims. You know, people are qualifying for work authorization because they are in line for so long. How are they supposed to support themselves while they are waiting for their hearing? 

And, you know, I am going off track here, but the people who are 

most adversely affected by all this illegal immigration qualifying 

for work authorization are legal immigrants, the people that just 

got here and who are legally entitled to work here. And they are 

being forced to compete with illegal immigrants, and so it is the 

less-educated, less-skilled segment of our workforce that is most 

suffering from this competition from illegal immigration. 

And credible fear is just part of it. As I have testified, it was 

never intended to be used the way that it is being used now, as 

a means of entry for people that don’t meet the threshold for asylum, but they can get through the credible fear test and get into 

the United States. I don’t think that was ever the intent of Congress when they enacted credible fear and put it in the statute. 

And I am hopeful that someday you will take it out. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 
125 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Ting, I think credible fear claims are there so that we 

don’t send people back to violence, right? Credible fear claims are 

available so people don’t go back to a situation where they could 

be killed. So I would disagree with the suggestion that the credible 

fear claim be taken out of statute, thereby making the decision that 

it is appropriate for us to remove a possible step that can save 

someone’s life. 

But let me get to my comments that I wanted to make. I spent 

some time this morning thinking about how it is that we got here. 

And it seems to me that the debate over immigration reform has 

regressed and it has done so rapidly. How did a Congress that was 

on the cusp of fixing our broken immigration system end up back 

at square one? 

In 2013, the Senate included in its comprehensive immigration 

reform bill portions of the McCaul border security legislation which 

was deemed unworkable and unrealistic on its own. Let’s be honest, in 2015, the McCaul border security bill on its own remains 

just as unworkable and unrealistic. And instead of uniting behind 

comprehensive immigration reform, we’re once again dividing 

among party lines and splitting into factions with separate agendas. 

Democrats are more than willing to accept increased spending of 

the border within the context of broader immigration reform. We 

just believe that the status quo is unworkable. We spend more 

money on border security than we do on any other Federal law enforcement priority, and we still have 11 million undocumented immigrants here. Instead of treating them like criminals, Democrats 

believe reform must invite them to come out of the shadows, pay 

a penalty, pay their taxes, and maybe—just maybe—someday get 

the chance to apply for citizenship. 

We also share the commitment of our Republican colleagues to 

reform our visa programs, respond to the needs of businesses that 

rely on high-skilled technology workers, and low-skilled guest 

workers. Likewise, Democrats and Republicans who share the priorities of the faith community want an immigration system that 

puts families first. So that is the issue I would like to bring up 

today with our panel, how we treat families. 

Our Nation has a long history of providing protection to people 

fleeing violence, as I referred to earlier. People fleeing religious 

persecution, political censorship, and oppression. But today we 

treat most of those seeking asylum as criminals. Upon arriving 

here, they are held in facilities that are for civil detention in name 

only. The reality is that most are just sections of private prisons 

where we keep hardened criminals. 

Indeed, an April 2013 report by the United States Commission 

on International Religious Freedom determined that nearly 84 percent of the 33,400 detention beds maintained by ICE were actually 

prisons, not civil detention sites. Refugees held in these jail-like detention facilities have their movements, their privacy, and their 

personal freedom restricted. And when we treat refugees as criminals, we don’t sound like the United States of America, the country 
126 

that is supposed to lead the world with its values for human rights, 

for justice, and for fairness. 

The purpose of detention is to ensure the people show up in 

court. Today many of them are mothers with young children fleeing 

extreme transnational gang violence in Central America. We don’t 

need to lock them up in prison or immediately deport them. They 

have no reason to flee immigration court. Indeed, returning families with young children to their home countries without a review 

of their asylum claim could be a life or death situation. 

We ought to be reviewing their claims for asylum, making efforts 

to resettle them, and make them feel at home in our communities 

as quickly as possible. We should embrace far less costly, and far 

more human and humane alternatives to detention. Detention costs 

more than $2 billion a year. This is a daily cost of $159 per day, 

per detainee. Alternatives to detention—including release on bond, 

supervised released, and community-based programs—cost between 

70 cents and $17 per person per day. 

But Congress has imposed on law enforcement a quota on how 

many people must be held in detention facilities every day. Immigration and customs officials, like all officers of law, should have 

the discretion to make their decisions based on facts, not some 

quota imposed by politicians. Welcoming refugees seeking safety 

and security in our country by placing them in detention is inconsistent with our Nation’s values for respect and humanity. Our debate on immigration reform needs to reflect our moral leadership. 

And so I would ask, Dr. Rosenblum, that when you talk about 

judicial capacity and a need to adjudicate cases, we are spending 

so much money following the detention bed mandate. What would 

it cost for us to fully address this shortfall to make sure that cases 

could be quickly adjudicated, something that I think everybody 

would agree is necessary? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you. I wish that I could give you an 

exact number, and I can get back to you with that. What I can tell 

you is that since 9/11, while we have tripled our spending on ICE 

and CBP on enforcement, we have only increased our immigration 

judges by about 70 percent. So the reason that the backlogs are 

getting longer and longer is that we have systemically underfunded 

immigration judges, and we are putting more and more people into 

the system, but there is not the capacity for them to flow through 

it. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank the witnesses for being here. 

I heard testimony earlier that about 50 percent of those illegally 

here after being released without being deported commit crimes 

against other Americans. I know as a judge, when I was considering bail or bond, that was a primary consideration, the likelihood 

of them returning and the public safety. I can’t imagine releasing 

somebody on a makeable job if both sides agree the defendant had 
127 

a 50 percent chance of re-offending, committing a further crime if 

I let him go. That is just unconscionable. 

We talk about the children and the women and the people across 

America and protection of families. My gosh, we are releasing 

criminals to go after them? That is outrageous. 

Well, and then also, I hear, Sheriff, you say 30 to 50 criminals 

per day are being released in your county alone by a CIS. That is 

the very people the President has called bad actors and yet his 

policies are responsible for letting them go upon the families of 

America. 

Well, let me just say, I am very concerned about the way the 

money is being spent. And, by the way, for those that are not familiar, we had a lot of crimes being committed in the U.S. and in my 

State in the 1980’s, so America reacted, Texas reacted. We elected 

criminal judges, tough prosecutors, and we are reaping the benefits 

of people who were law-enforcement-minded going into the sheriffs 

jobs, prosecutors jobs, judges jobs. And we will be able to ride that 

for a while before people with bleeding hearts let the criminals go, 

and then people eventually will have another wave while they react 

when the crimes go up. I know that that is just a cycle, but right 

now we are in a cycle of letting criminals go. 

And the criminal law in America is something that concerns me 

at the Federal level because of something called the Antideficiency 

Act. I am not sure if the witnesses are familiar with that, but the 

law is very clear: If Congress appropriates money for one purpose, 

it is not to be used for another purpose unless proper steps are utilized. And so I know that we have heard from the news, there was 

a facility built over in Crystal City for awarding these amnesty 

work permits. 

Some of us are wondering where that money came from. You 

know, we hear clamoring that they need more money, but where 

did that money come from? Because I know Congress certainly was 

not notified that they were shifting funds from one appropriated 

purpose to Crystal City and to awarding these 5 million or so work 

permits that basically amount to amnesty. 

Do any of the witnesses know where that money came from? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I think that is something that Congress should be 

asking. Because USCIS, the agency that is responsible for issuing 

these benefits, has not collected a single dime in fees from any future applicants for the new deferred action work permit program. 

So it certainly appears that they have perhaps been hoarding 

money skimmed from the fees paid by legal immigrants. USCIS is 

funded by fees paid by legal immigrants and their sponsors for a 

service that they get. And these fees are carefully—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. And that creates another problem because 

we have seen reports that people—my office is helping—that came 

here legally as immigrants we welcome, trying to get a spouse in. 

They have paid higher fees to try to expedite those, and it turns 

out this Administration is illegally moving that money over to give 

priority to people that came in illegally, thus putting people that 

are trying to do the legal immigration process a terrible disservice 

by putting them at the back of the line. 

So I know, Ms. Vaughan, you are in the business of investigating 

these, and I hope you will assist us. 
128 

Professor Ting, are you familiar with Antideficiency Act and how 

it might be brought to bear on this situation? 

Mr. TING. I am not. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I would encourage you as a law professor, 

if you would, to look at that. 

And also, just in finishing, Congress has the power even after the 

Supreme Court decision in the Arizona case to ask for help and appropriate money. Sheriff, would you have any problem if we block 

granted money from CIS to local law enforcement to get local law 

enforcement to help do the job that CIS is not being allowed to do? 

Sheriff BABEU. No problem whatsoever. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what I thought. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Louisiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rosenblum, thank you for coming and I will let President Fos 

know that you are representing him very well here. 

Professor Ting, you in your suggestions, you said that maybe we 

should remove asylum completely and go to the withholding of removal and at the same time educate our Border Patrol officers so 

that they can make that determination. I am sure you know that 

asylum and withholding of removal have two different legal standards. So withholding of removal is a more-likely-than-not or 50-percent-plus-one standard, and asylum is more likely than not, which 

the courts define as reasonable. So they are probably in the 40 to 

50 percent range. 

If we go to what you are suggesting, withholding of removal, 

then people who are in that very reasonable possibility would be 

sent back to the danger that is very reasonable that they would encounter. Is that what we are trying to do? I mean, does your suggestion hinge on the standard or the Border Patrol agent executing 

it or making the evaluation? 

Mr. TING. Well, I am saying the reality on asylum has changed. 

I think the asylum statute was a worthy and noble effort on the 

part of the Congress back in 1980, when it was added to our immigration law. But we got along without it before 1980, and we fulfilled our commitment under the Convention for the Protection of 

Refugees before 1980, and we did it through withholding of removal. And I think we could do it again. 

I think there are many differences between the two statutes. I 

think asylum offers more benefits. I think some of those benefits 

could be added to withholding of removal, but I certainly noted in 

my testimony that there is a different burden of proof that attaches. I am concerned about asylum fraud, which I think is widespread, and I have testified to a Subcommittee of this Committee—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. If I can, I don’t mean to interrupt you but I have 

to. Let me ask you about, do you have any concern with the new 

time and resources that would be dedicated by those agents to evaluating the claim as opposed to patrolling the border? 

Mr. TING. I am very concerned about expenditure of resources, 

and I have listened with attention to the concerns of the Committee on the high expenditures that go into immigration enforcement. But the easiest way to cut expenditures would be just to re-
129 

peal all immigration laws and say everyone in the world could 

come to the United States. That would cut expenditures on immigration enforcement. So if you want to cut it to the bone, just repeal all the immigration laws. 

If you are going to enforce a limitation, someone has got to do 

this. The worst of all possible worlds is to keep the limitation on 

the books, keep spending the money but not enforce the limits. 

That, to me, is the worst possible possibility. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Sheriff Babeu, let me ask you a question, and I 

pulled up an article where you were speaking at a neighborhood 

watch meeting—and this is not a gotcha moment—where you said 

that many of the ICE detainees are held at private facilities which 

are contracted to house criminal illegals. ICE reportedly plans to 

reduce their available beds from 34,000 to 25,700. 

But what is important is what you characterized it as, and here, 

my interpretation is you characterized this as the largest prison 

break attributed to the Administration. But here you call it the 

largest pardon, due to mass budget cuts, which I would necessarily 

tend to agree with. So, as you characterize it, is it the Administration, or is it just the pure dysfunction in Washington not getting 

a comprehensive immigration bill and some on spending? So which 

would it be, in your opinion? 

Sheriff BABEU. Through the Chair, Congressman, at that time, 

when all that was going on was during the sequester. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Right. 

Sheriff BABEU. And so that was probably the first turn up the 

volume of you want to feel pain—2,228 at that time—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Correct. 

Sheriff BABEU [continuing]. And it was reported that 5,000 to 

10,000 were said to be scheduled for release, and it was halted because it became public knowledge. So I would say it is not just the 

dysfunction; it is everybody was a part at one time. And it is not 

Congress’ decision to release those people. It certainly wasn’t mine. 

It was this Administration’s decision—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. But we did in that sequester. That was Congress 

who did sequester. 

Let me ask you one final question. 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. If your dispatchers or you received a call, and 

you have three officers on duty and the call said, I have an active 

shooter, I have a bank robbery, and a hostage situation—three different situations. I have a car accident, and I have some other trivial—and shoplifting. If you had three officers, where would you assign them in terms of triage and the importance, and as the President setting up the categories of deportation, didn’t he do the same 

thing? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired, but the 

witness will be permitted to answer the question. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back. 

Sheriff BABEU. Certainly, in local law enforcement county, our 

priority one calls, which is a threat to somebody’s life or property 

secondary would be the active shooter and the armed robbery, 

which we have had those—bank robberies—in our county. But here 

is the point, the highest priority is these now 24,000 that are in 
130 

these authorized beds that we have all agreed that whether they 

have committed multiple misdemeanors or serious violent felony offenses and convictions, that these people are the bad actors. 

Those people must be returned to whatever country they come 

from. And that is the problem that most in America are having 

heartburn over, certainly us in law enforcement, because they are 

being released. And we don’t know where they are going and what 

their names are. And I have asked for that information numerous 

times under Freedom of Information. It has been denied to me as 

a sheriff for 2 years. 

If you ask, Congressman, even though you are from Louisiana, 

who is in my jail and what charges they are, you will get it that 

quick. And that is because I am compelled to provide that information, yet here I am the sheriff, and they won’t give me this information in my own county. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Dr. Rosenblum, if you would, please, do you believe that we 

should secure the borders before we start talking about any immigration reform? Because I believe that whenever we are talking 

about the borders aren’t secured, we are just going to have an onslaught of people. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I believe that it will be much easier for DHS 

to secure the borders more effectively and at a lower cost if it is 

combined with visa reform. 

Mr. MARINO. Talking about individuals that may be here legally 

but their visas have expired for some reason or another. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Visa over-stayers. I am not sure I understand 

the question, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. Are you referring to visa over-stayers? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. My argument is that a big part of why we have 

struggled so much to secure the border is that the demand for immigration within the U.S., employers and families who want to 

bring people here, and within extending regions, Mexico and Central America, is much greater than what our laws currently allow. 

Mr. MARINO. But you do agree that we need to secure the borders? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. All right. Good. That is a start. 

And I don’t like this term ‘‘comprehensive.’’ What does comprehensive mean? This is so complicated that this cannot be done 

in one fell swoop. 

I am going to quote some figures. I see you have some really— 

I have been reading this—not here, but also before you got here— 

information concerning people that were sent back, individuals, 

under what circumstances they were sent back. But first of all, do 

you agree with me that—and I am sure you have read this in the 

media—that the only part of DHS that we do not want to fund is 

amnesty for illegals. Are you clearly aware of that? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. That Congress has not funded amnesty for—— 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Yes. 
131 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. And you are clearly aware that it is the up 

to the President if he wants to shut down the entire DHS because 

he can’t have his way on illegal immigrants, correct? 

It is not a tough one, professor. You are a Ph.D., okay. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I mean, Congress and the executive branch negotiate over legislation, so it would sort of take two to tango on 

that, I think, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. Oh, two to tango. But if you are in that position— 

let me put you in that position—would you shut down all of DHS 

because you don’t get one small part? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Um—— 

Mr. MARINO. I think you have answered it. 

Okay. Let me give you some stats that I got from PolitiFact, on 

PunditFact, from Dobbs Report, from Washington Times, from 

Breitbart, and actually, U.S. Customs had a report that came out 

that I went back to and they were asking me, where did you get 

that document. But in 2008, turnaways at the border were about 

36 percent of the overall figures that this Administration factored 

in. 

Now, it is my understanding, previous Administrations—and I 

have done work on this—have not counted turnaways at the border 

as sending people back. And that has increased to 64 percent in 

2013. So it is very clear that the Administration is fudging the figures by adding turnaways at the border. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. The research that I have seen from the GAO, 

the data on turnbacks and gotaways is in a GAO report that came 

out in December 2012, and that report starts counting turnbacks 

in 2006. So it was the previous Administration. But I agree with 

you—— 

Mr. MARINO. I am not disputing what previous Administrations 

should have done and didn’t do and may have as far as figures are 

concerned. But you agree with me that these figures that the Administration is putting out include turnaways at the border—not 

people here, not in this country that they are sending back. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. You are talking about their deportation numbers? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. So I believe that every Administration counts 

people who are put into removal at ports of entry as removals. 

What has changed under this Administration is—— 

Mr. MARINO. But I am talking about once they set foot on U.S. 

soil. And it is clearly—— 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. They are apprehended on U.S. soil and then deported. 

Mr. MARINO. Yeah. But this Administration is using people when 

they get to the border, when they get to that guard and they are 

sending them back, they don’t get a chance to get into the United 

States, those figures are factored in there. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. When people are apprehended at the border 

and put into expedited removal, for example, those were definitely 

counted removals. That was previously true and still true. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay, good. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I agree with you on—— 
132 

Mr. MARINO. So you agree with me on several matters here, and 

we need reform. 

Do you agree with me on this? My colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle for 2 years, they had the White House, they had the 

Senate, and they had the House; they did nothing on comprehensive immigration reform. And I am going to be the first to stand 

up and say neither did any other previous Administration. And it 

is at a point now where it is desperate from a multitude of areas, 

and you and I would agree on some and not the others. 

How about the workforce? Can you address some issues on the 

workforce, pursuant to—right now there are between 800,000 and 

1 million people that are not looking for work. Those figures aren’t 

even in the unemployment numbers. And the reason why the unemployment numbers, in part, are coming down, is because those 

people stopped looking for work. You agree with me on that? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. MARINO. And I will yield back, then. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for their presence here today. 

Sheriff Babeu, are you familiar with a publication call the Arizona Daily Star? 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is that a credible news organization? 

Sheriff BABEU. I don’t decide who is credible and who is not. I 

know that most of the news—I don’t know if they print in paper 

or are online, but I have seen them numerous times as being credible. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Thank you. 

Now, 5 years ago, you appeared on a radio program entitled Political Cesspool, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes. That was addressed by, I believe, Mr. Johnson earlier. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. I just want to make sure the record is clear. 

Now, that program was hosted by James Edwards and Eddie Miller, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. I am not sure who it was hosted by. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. You don’t recall who it was hosted by? 

Sheriff BABEU. I don’t. There was a show that I believe it was 

Ms. Jackson Lee who raised the issue earlier. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, the Political Cesspool program has 

been recognized by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the 

Anti-Defamation League as a form for hosting White supremacists, 

anti-Semites, and other hate mongering, correct? 

Sheriff BABEU. From my understanding that once we became 

aware of any of their past comments, we disavowed who they are, 

what they stand for. They didn’t say any of that on the show. We 

were talking about immigration, as we do quite often outside the 

State, via telephone. So there is no relationship. This was one con-
133 

tact that we immediately disavowed any association with or any of 

their espoused views or reported espoused views. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you for that response. And I appreciate the 

fact that—I do believe in good faith—you have disavowed the views 

that were brought to your attention, according to your testimony 

after appearing on the program. But I just want to make sure that 

the record is clear. 

And, Mr. Chairperson, I ask unanimous consent that we enter 

into the record an article from the Arizona Daily Star, dated July 

20, 2010. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
134 
135 
136 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And that article, Sheriff, states that James 

Edwards, who hosted the interview, along the Eddy Miller, said 

that Miller spoke with you and his spokesman, your spokesperson, 

multiple times before the interview. 

And then it goes on to quote Mr. Edwards and says: ‘‘For Sheriff 

Babeu to change his mind and now regret coming on our show for 

whatever reason is his right. For him to act as though he had no 

idea of our ideology is a lie,’’ Edwards said in a written statement 

on the show’s Web site. That is Mr. Edwards’ representation of 

what took place in advance of your appearance on the show. 

If I could turn to Professor Ting, every President since Eisenhower has taken Executive action to provide some form of immigration relief, correct? 

Mr. TING. Other presidents have taken 

Executive action in immigration, but I believe all of those cases 

are distinguishable from the Executive action that President 

Obama has taken on a variety of reasons, not least of which is a 

the sheer number involved. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. To be precise, it has happened 39 times since the 

1950’s, correct? 

Mr. TING. I am not sure of the exact number. I am aware that 

there are precedents that are cited by President Obama’s Office of 

Legal Counsel in their report. I have read their report. I think all 

their examples are distinguishable. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Are you aware that President Reagan and President Bush did it in connection with the family fairness policy after 

the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed by Congress? 

Mr. TING. I have specifically addressed the family fairness example in my written testimony, and I explain in my written testimony 

why that is distinguishable from what President Obama is trying 

to do. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. Now, Congress has never given the President the resources necessary to deport all 11 million undocumented 

immigrants, correct? 

Mr. TING. There is never enough resources for any agency in this 

government that I am aware of. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. That is just a yes or no question. 

Okay. So I take it that the answer is no. 

In fact, $8.5 billion is allocated in this particular appropriations 

bill that we will be considering. In order to deport all 11 million 

undocumented immigrants, it would take $285 billion. And so my 

question to you is if Congress has not given the President the capacity to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants, doesn’t 

the Administration have the inherent authority to decide that it is 

going to prioritize deportations of felons over deportations of families? 

Mr. TING. Congressman, with respect, I think this notion that 

the only alternative is to deport 11 million illegal aliens is a straw 

man that is put out there. I mean, what is at issue and what I 

think that Congress needs to debate is whether the policies of this 

Administration encourage further illegal immigration into the 

United States or not. That is what is at stake. 
137 

I will concede, you will never get the amount of illegal immigration down to zero. That will never happen. You will never get the 

number of illegal immigrants down to zero. But you have to set a 

policy that affects the cost-benefit analysis of people wanting to 

come to the United States illegally as to whether you tip them toward not coming and violating our law and overwhelming our system, or whether you tip them in favor. Yeah, let’s get the heck in 

there and see what benefits come our way. That is what is at 

stake. It is not a question of, well, either deport 11 million people 

or don’t. That, I agree with you, is never going to happen. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

I want to—since a document was made a part of the record that 

casts aspersion on the character of the sheriff—I want to give Sheriff Babeu an opportunity to respond if he chooses to. 

Sheriff BABEU. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman, I meet 

and probably take as many photos with individuals as you do or 

other members of this panel. It never means that if I talk to somebody that I all the sudden assume their positions or their beliefs 

or their entire history. Even though I am in law enforcement, I 

didn’t do a criminal history on you prior to talking with you. And 

it certainly doesn’t mean that I subscribe to your beliefs or political 

views. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Jordan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the Chairman. 

Professor Ting, I want to go to, 22 times the President said he 

couldn’t do what he turned around and did. Two of those were 

while he was candidate Obama. The other 20 were while he was 

President Obama. And I want to just take one of those statements 

and kind of walk through it. In fact, the two that he made while 

he was candidate may have had an impact on your decision to vote 

for him. I think you indicated to one of the Members on the other 

side of the aisle that you voted for President Obama, where he was 

talking about adhering to the Constitution, recognizing the separation of powers and the proper role of each branch of government. 

But I want to just focus on one of these statements and kind of 

walk you through it and show where you agree with President 

Obama: There are those who have argued passionately that we 

should simply provide those who are here illegally with legal status 

or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. 

You would agree with that, wouldn’t you, Professor, to ignore the 

laws and end deportation would be unwise and unfair? 

Mr. TING. I am aware of the 22 examples that have oft been 

cited, and I think the President was right at the time that he said 

those things, and I think he is wrong to have overridden his better 

judgment in the past. 

Mr. JORDAN. He made this statement in July of 2010. And so I 

guess my simple question is, it is unfair and unwise to not follow 

the law; you would agree? 

Mr. TING. Yes. 
138 

Mr. JORDAN. It goes on further. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there would be no repercussions for such a decision and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. If we don’t follow the law, if we don’t deport, if 

we don’t do what the law says, you, in fact, could have a surge in 

illegal immigration, correct? 

Mr. TING. Absolutely. And I think—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And that is exactly what we have seen; is that correct? 

Mr. TING. Yes, I agree. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. He finishes with this: Ultimately, our Nation, like all nations—oh—and it would also ignore the millions of 

people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. 

You agree too that if we don’t follow the law and end deportation, 

it hurts those who are doing it the right way and could hinder and 

prolong their ability to follow the law and become a legal citizen 

of this great country. Would you agree with that, professor? 

Mr. TING. I absolutely agree, and we should not forget that there 

are qualified legal immigrants that have been waiting in line in excess of 20 years for their chance to immigrate to this country legally. So when we are dealing with how we should handle illegal 

immigrants, we should not forget—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Right. 

Mr. TING [continuing]. Those people standing in line trying to do 

it the right way. 

Mr. JORDAN. No kidding. No kidding. 

Okay. And then: Ultimately, our Nation, like all nations, has the 

right and obligation to control its borders, set laws for residency 

and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter 

those who broke the law should be held accountable. 

You would agree that the rule of law is important and those who 

broke the law should be held accountable, wouldn’t you, Professor? 

Mr. TING. Yes, of course. 

Mr. JORDAN. And you would agree that a sovereign nation has 

a right to control its border and actually set those laws? 

Mr. TING. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. And that people break them, they should be held 

accountable. 

So here is the question: We have a bill that comes due or a funding bill that expires in 24 days, and in that legislation, we have 

said and we have done exactly what the President said back when 

you probably decided you were going to vote for him, back in July 

of 2010. We got a bill that is coming due, and it is real simple. We 

say in that bill we are going to fund and take care of Department 

of Homeland Security, but we are not going to allow the people’s 

money, the American taxpayer money, to be used to violate everything the President said in that statement and to allow people to 

ignore the law and stay here and actually have benefits conferred 

on them. 

Would you agree with that legislation we passed out of the 

House, Professor? 

Mr. TING. Yes. I think, frankly, Congressman, if you didn’t do 

that, a lot of Americans would wonder why you didn’t do that—why 
139 

you didn’t fund all the parts of DHS except for the part that you 

object to. That is what should be done, and then you should enter 

into negotiations with the President as to—— 

Mr. JORDAN. In his 22 statements where the President cited separation of powers, Constitution, the role of the various branches of 

government, the one power that the legislative branch has is the 

power to control the purse, the power of spending the people’s—the 

taxing and spending authority, correct? 

Mr. TING. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. And we should stand firm, particularly in the matter of this substance—where it is about the rule of law, it is about 

the Constitution, it is about the sovereign right of a nation to control its border, and it is about treating legal immigrants in a fair 

and compassionate way—we should stand firm on the legislation 

we passed. Would you agree, Professor? 

Mr. TING. I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. Thank the gentleman from Ohio. 

They have called votes, but I am going to try to get in the gentleman in from Rhode Island, if he is amenable to that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, barely 

a month ago when this Congress began, the majority pledged to put 

aside petty and purely political disagreements, and we promised to 

Congress that we would work constructively together on behalf of 

the American people, and yet today we find ourselves litigating the 

same tired and defeating arguments from years passed. 

The Obama administration has made securing our borders a topline priority, spending its limited enforcement resources on deporting felons, not families. But even as my esteemed colleagues across 

the aisle argue that this Administration is not serious about enforcement, they are refusing to fund the Department of Homeland 

Security for a second time in the last 15 months. 

Until my friends on the other side of the aisle start to treat immigration reform as something more than a political talking point, 

we are going to be unable to achieve substantive, lasting progress 

on this issue. 

And this hearing began with the premise that the lack of enforcement is the challenge. And I want to thank Dr. Rosenblum for 

sharing the facts, which no objective observer could conclude that 

that statement is true; in fact, that this is sort of unprecedented 

enforcement on virtually every measure. I want to make two quick 

points and ask one question. 

Sheriff Babeu, you said, referring to this memorandum of Secretary Johnson, I think you have made the claim that it directed 

the Department of Homeland Security not to take action on any of 

the 11 million people in the United States and would result in 20 

million additional people being allowed to remain here. You pointed 

to page 4(c). Just to be clear, this memorandum says emphatically, 

Our enforcement and removal policy should continue to prioritize 

threats to national security, public safety, and border security. 
140 

And what you refer to in 4(c) is actually one of the priorities for 

deportation and removal. So the note—there is no claim in here 

whatsoever that supports the claim you made. 

And I ask that this article, ‘‘Statistics Don’t Support Pinal Sheriff 

Babeu’s Statement on Trafficking,’’ which is from the Arizona Republic, February 3, 2015, which goes through and has a series of 

analyses done on the claims that you make and finds that, in fact, 

they are not supported by evidence, I would ask unanimous consent 

that be made part of this record. 

Second, I would just want to follow up on the gentlelady’s question from Texas in which you gave an alternate explanation about 

your involvement in a controversy involving a school bus filled with 

children. And I am quoting now from the Arizona—in fact, from 

The Republic, an editorial in which they say, and I quote, Hoping 

to orchestrate Arizona’s own version of the raucous anti-immigrant 

protest at Murrieta, California, that you instead orchestrated a 

gauntlet of terror for 40 or 60 kids en route to a day of ping pong 

and basketball at YMCA Triangle Y Camp. But wait, Babeu’s manipulative grandstanding is worse than you may think. As dozens 

of protesters rolled up onto the scene on the Mt. Lemmon highway, 

Babeu had the astonishing temerity to declare he was there to 

serve as ‘‘peacemaker.’’ Think of the pyromaniac who tortures his 

own house, then throws himself onto the mercy of the court as a 

homeless waif. 

According to one protester organizer, Babeu told her, ‘‘The only 

way to stop this was for our community and the area to organize.’’ 

This is an editorial entitled ‘‘ ‘Sheriff Showboat’ Babeu Has Disgraced the Office.’’ I ask that that be made part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 

Mr. CICILLINE. And now I turn finally to Professor Ting, who 

says that immigration is bad for American workers and jobs. The 

American Enterprise Institute found that temporary foreign workers, both skilled and unskilled, actually boost U.S. employment. 

The same analysis found that millions of unauthorized workers and 

the priorities of family reunification would help, that there was no 

evidence, excuse me, that foreign-born workers would hurt the employment rate of U.S. workers. And, in fact, two reports, one by the 

Congressional Budget Office, found that the gross domestic product 

would grow by 5.4 percent, $1.4 trillion, and wages would be increased by .5 percent for the entire labor force by 2033. In addition 

to that, there is a report from the President’s Council of Economic 

Advisers that concludes that both—that average wages for all 

workers will increase as a result of the Executive action. I ask 

unanimous consent that both of those reports be included in the 

record. 

And I would ask you, Dr. Rosenblum, is Professor Ting right that 

comprehensive immigration reform is bad for workers, American 

workers, and bad for American wages? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you. Well, we have had a lot of discussion about the economics of immigration. There are no economists 

on this panel. But when you read the economics literature, the academic economics literature, there is a pretty broad consensus that 

immigration boosts overall GDP, that it raises wages for the average U.S. worker. It raises wages most for middle-class and highwage workers. 

And I agree with Professor Ting that the one group that may 

compete a little bit with new immigrants are previous immigrants. 

But on that, economists are pretty broadly in agreement that immigration is good for the U.S. economy across a number of different 

indicators. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. All right. The gentleman yields back. We 

have a vote series, and we will—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like to enter a number of documents 

into the record, please. I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

enter these documents. 

Mr. GOWDY. As expeditiously as you can so we don’t miss votes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

I would like to enter into the record data from the Customs and 

Border Protection indicating that apprehensions of unaccompanied 

children have gone down 38 percent in 2015 from the same time 

last year; and for family units, gone down in 2015, fiscal year 2015, 

from 2014, 12 percent. I ask unanimous consent to submit that document into the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would additionally like to submit into the 

record documentation from the Executive Office of Immigration Review indicating that in the time period of July 18, 2014, and December 23, unaccompanied children had a 14 percent absence rate, 

meaning—— 
151 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Without objection, thank you. 

And then a document that indicates that adults had an absence 

rate of 23 percent, showing that they do appear at immigration 

hearings. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And lastly, the EOI, the data from Executive 

Office of Immigration Reviews, the agency that conducts immigration hearings, that the data that they are collecting has started in 

the point of July 18, 2014. 

Mr. GOOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection, the documents will be admitted 

into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 

Mr. GOWDY. To our witnesses, we apologize for the vote series. 

We are coming back, and we are coming back as quickly as we can 

right after the vote series. 

With that, we will temporarily be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. The Committee is back in order. 

And the Chair would recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

former United States Attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a former Federal prosecutor who has exercised prosecutorial 

discretion in charging hundreds of Federal immigration cases, I 

have enjoyed hearing the panel’s diverse thoughts on the adequacy 

and enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws. 

Dr. Rosenblum, I—Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back my 

time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair will take your time and then yield my 

time to you if you want to ask questions in my slot. So we will do 

that. 

And I would say this. 

Professor Rosenblum, I was thinking on the way over to votes 

that the gentleman from Georgia asked everyone on the panel his 

or her political ideation except you. And I am not going to ask you 

your political ideation for this reason:It is of no consequence. 

When you work, as the sheriff does, for a blindfolded woman 

holding a set of scales, politics doesn’t matter. I am very disappointed that any of my colleagues would have asked. They have 

the right to do it. I am not going to ask you about that. 

What I am going to ask you—and I am sure you do. I am sure 

you share with me an appreciation for members of law enforcement 

at all levels, but particularly State and local, who find themselves 

running toward danger so we don’t have to and they have to deal 

with bad actors so we don’t have to and they have to carry guns 

and wear bulletproof vests so we don’t have to. 

And I guess, if the sheriff—if you all were to have a moment 

after this hearing, I suppose that our sheriff today would tell you 

the same thing that my sheriffs back home, Sheriff Wright and 

Sheriff Loftis, would tell you, that one of the hardest parts of being 

a local law enforcement is when you have to sit down with the family members of crime victims. 

If the victim lives, then you have that conversation with the victim herself or himself. If the victim doesn’t and you find yourself 

talking to family members, invariably, the question always comes 

back to why was that person out. If they were out on bond when 

they committed the crime, they want to know why was the person 

out. If the person should have been deported and was not, they 

want to know why was the person here. 

So how would you help Sheriff Babeu or my sheriffs explain to 

crime victims when the fact pattern is the person wasn’t supposed 

to be here anyway, committed a crime while they were here, served 

their sentence and, rather than being deported, were put back out 

into the public to commit another offense? How would you explain 

that to crime victims? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
159 

I would not enjoy having those conversations. I am sure you are 

right, that that is a terrible position to be in. 

You know, on this whole question of convicted criminals being released, I find that—I haven’t studied those data like Ms. Vaughan 

has, but I think we all can agree that a plain reading of both the 

2010 enforcement priorities and the 2014 enforcement priorities 

says that people who have been convicted of serious crimes are the 

executive branch’s top enforcement priorities. So—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you consider domestic violence to be a serious 

crime? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I believe that domestic violence crime would be 

in the top-priority category in both the 2010 and 2014. Certainly 

in 2010 it was. I mean, I see your counsel shaking her head. I may 

be wrong about 2014. It may be in the second category in 2014. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, what I found surprising was the comprehensive Senate immigration plan that so many of my colleagues on the 

other side fell in love with. You can actually be convicted of domestic violence and still remain on the path to citizenship. I find that 

almost impossible to believe. 

Let me ask you this about law enforcement: Who investigates 

most homicide cases in the United States? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I am sure that is State and local police. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who investigates most robbery cases? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I am sure as well. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who investigates most domestic violence cases? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. State and locals. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who investigates most adult sexual assault cases? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I am sure that is also State and locals. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who investigates most child sexual assault cases? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. State and locals. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who patrols the interstate, even though it is inherently interstate, and, therefore, impacts interstate commerce? Who 

patrols that? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. That would also be State and locals. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who went door to door after the Boston bombing 

along with the Bureau and the ATF? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. State and locals. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who provides security to the very same colleagues 

who don’t want and don’t trust local law enforcement to enforce our 

immigration laws? Who provides security for them when they are 

back in their district having their town halls and their public 

events? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. State and locals. 

Mr. GOWDY. So if you trust them to do all of that, why can’t you 

trust them to do immigration cases? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I think that that is an issue that is Congress’ 

to decide. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am asking you. 

Would you support the SAFE Act, which allows State and local 

law enforcement to assist Federal law enforcement in enforcing our 

immigration laws? 

You are their witness. I assume they brought you for a reason. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I would say that, while I agree with you that 

State and locals play a role, obviously, in all of those law enforce-
160 

ment functions, that there are certain unique things about immigration policy—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Such as? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Such as that it is a transnational issue that has 

both domestic and international implications. 

Mr. GOWDY. Counterfeiting does, too. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. And so, with an example like counterfeiting, the 

Federal Government sets the parameters for cooperation between 

the Feds and the locals. And so what Congress has done—— 

Mr. GOWDY. So you would support State and local working with 

the Feds and immigration? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Well, what Congress has done is to create the 

287(g) mechanism where the Feds—— 

Mr. GOWDY. All we are trying to do is canonize that in the SAFE 

Act. 

So you would support that? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I will confess that I am not sure exactly how 

the SAFE Act would differ from 287(g). 287(g) creates a mechanism 

where the Federal Government stipulates certain ways in which 

States and locals are allowed to cooperate. 

So that seems to me to be something that DHS has, for the most 

part, chosen not to take advantage of because they judge that it 

doesn’t serve their interests in how they want to manage immigration enforcement. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am almost out of time and then I am going 

to either go to the gentleman from Texas or Florida or Idaho. 

One thing that has vexed me in the time that I have been in 

Congress—and perhaps you can help me—is this notion of sanctuary cities where you trust localities to not enforce Federal law, 

but, yet, you don’t trust that same locality to actually enforce Federal law. 

Can you help me reconcile how you can support the existence of 

sanctuary cities but, at the same time, not support those very same 

local law enforcement officers participating in enforcement? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I think the way I would answer that is that certain States and localities, counties and cities have determined that 

their cooperation with DHS doesn’t serve their constituents’ interest because it creates a wedge between—— 

Mr. GOWDY. What do they do with the supremacy clause? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. They have chosen to limit the way they interact 

and to not honor those voluntary detainer requests because 

they—— 

Mr. GOWDY. That sounds like nullification to me. And I am from 

a State with a little experience in that. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. That is true. 

So this is not an area where I have legal expertise. But I would 

say that, you know, the great majority of localities have cooperated 

with ICE detainer requests. 

Mr. GOWDY. I get that. 

But some have not and they are heralded as sanctuary cities, 

like that is some title to be aspired to. And I don’t know what your 

next Law Review article’s going to be, but I would love it if somebody could explain to me why you trust local actors to decide not 
161 

to enforce Federal law, but you don’t trust those same local actors 

to actually enforce Federal law. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Well, there is other jurisdictions that are enforcing by that definition. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. 

Dr. Rosenblum, earlier today I heard your testimony essentially 

with respect to the Obama administration’s assertion that it is 

prosecuting felons, not families. You supported that and essentially 

said that the statistics bear out that there seems to be a focus on 

quality over quantity. 

Did I hear that accurately? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Again, as a former Federal prosecutor, I 

certainly agree with prioritizing and focusing on the worst of the 

worst. 

But would you agree with me that we can’t do that and forsake 

the rest of the prosecutions with respect to the illegal population? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Yes. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. So in the hundreds of cases that I have 

had the chance to prosecute in this area, I have had the opportunity to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement on all 

of them. So I was struck by something that was said by President 

Obama’s former head of ICE last June, John Sandweg. 

Do you know Mr. Sandweg? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I know of him. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. All right. Well, what he said was—in an interview last June was—and I am quoting—′′If you are a run-of-themill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are 

close to zero.’’ 

Would you agree with that statement? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. The odds are very low for people who are in the 

U.S. and have not been convicted of a crime and have not previously been removed. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. And do you think that that is a proper approach by this Administration? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I think that it is a policy decision that the Administration has made to prioritize the border, criminals, reinstatements of removal, and ICE fugitives. 

I think that, as a matter of setting priorities, those are longstanding priorities. There is a long legislative history of Congress 

also identifying those goals. 

Certainly I think probably most people on the panel would say, 

if we are going to pick the first four categories we should go after, 

those would all be on the list. So perhaps what we disagree about 

is how hard they should work also on people who fall outside of 

those categories. 

But I agree with the idea of prioritizing criminals, border-crossers, reinstatements, and fugitives. I think that is noncontroversial. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, I would agree with that. 

But you agree with me that having close to zero percent chance 

of being deported if you are in this country illegally is not the 

standard that we should aspire to. 
162 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I think that a close-to-zero chance is certainly 

less of a deterrent than a larger chance. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Texas. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. 

Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Ting, somebody earlier asked you about the difference 

between the Family Fairness Act and the current actions of this 

President, but they didn’t give you an opportunity to really explain 

that. 

Mr. TING. Yes. I noticed that, too. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Could you explain for us exactly how they are different. Because I agree with you that they are two different actions. And in one, in my opinion, the President was working with 

Congress. 

Mr. TING. Absolutely. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And in this instance, the President is working 

against the wishes of Congress, which is actually against the wishes of the American people. 

Mr. TING. Yes. I have some interest in Family Fairness because 

I was working in the George H.W. Bush administration. So I remember it well. 

And there was a feeling on the part of many people that some 

of the issues that needed to be addressed were not addressed by 

the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and particularly 

some sort of relief had to be provided for the spouses and minor 

children of the newly amnestied illegal—formerly illegal immigrants. 

And President Bush was engaged in active negotiations with the 

Congress trying to get that done,and he did announce Family Fairness as an interim measure. But he did so within months after 

that, the Immigration Act of 1990 was agreed to and became law. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And he did it with the consent and the cooperation of Congress. Is that not what happened? 

Mr. TING. Absolutely. And I cited in my written testimony that, 

you know, the Supreme Court has said in the steel seizure case, 

Youngstown Sheet & Tube, that the President is at the peak of his 

authority when he acts with the explicit or implicit support of Congress and he is at the very nadir of his authority when he acts in 

defiance of Congress, as President Truman did when he seized the 

steel mills. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And Obama’s actions are in defiance of what 

Congress was expressly stated. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. TING. Yes. I think that that is unquestionably clear. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Dr. Rosenblum, you seem to agree that the 

President has prosecutorial discretion and you seem to be okay 

with his actions. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. I mean, I am not an attorney. But certainly 

there are smart lawyers who have made that case. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Do you think it would be okay for a U.S. 

Attorney, for example, to decide that he or she is not going to prosecute marijuana laws in their district? 
163 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Again, I mean, I am a little reluctant to really 

wade into this because it is a little outside my area of expertise. 

But what I understand is that these are policy decisions that are 

made, you know, more by the executive branch than by an ICE officer or a U.S. Attorney. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Professor Ting, I actually think the President exceeded his authority. But let’s assume for a second that he 

did everything within his authority. 

Would a U.S. Attorney be qualified to make a decision about 

prosecuting marijuana laws in his or her district? Do you think 

they have that prosecutorial discretion? 

Mr. TING. I think it would be a breach of someone’s authority to 

set out whole categories of laws that they are not going to enforce. 

One can imagine people that disagree with the Clean Air laws 

saying ‘‘I am not going to enforce those laws.’’ 

Mr. LABRADOR. Or the tax laws. 

Mr. TING. Or the tax laws. 

‘‘I believe in a 10 percent flat tax, and if people are defying the 

tax laws, as long as they pay 10 percent, I am going to say exercise 

prosecutorial discretion.’’ 

Mr. LABRADOR. But let’s assume for a second—you and I agree 

that the President exceeded his authority—there is no question 

that there is prosecutorial discretion, but that he abused his discretion. 

What would you think the American people would say if this 

President decided not to enforce marijuana laws and then, in fact, 

gave people licenses to purchase marijuana illegally? 

Mr. TING. Yes. That is the difference. 

You know, people were asking the sheriff, ‘‘Well, if you have a 

serious crime underway and you had a traffic accident, how do you 

allocate your resources?′′ 

Well, okay. You deal with the serious crime, but you don’t say, 

‘‘From here on forward, we are not going to deal with traffic accidents anymore′′—right?—′′That is no longer′′—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Not only that, but you are going to tell people 

that you are going to give them a license to have traffic accidents, 

to actually violate the law. 

Mr. TING. We are going to give benefits to people that commit 

traffic accidents. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Exactly. 

And then, if you commit one of those violations, we are actually 

going to give you more benefits to encourage further violations of 

the law. 

Isn’t that the difference that we are talking about? 

Mr. TING. I think that is the apt analogy to what is happening. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Ting, we have had disputes—you mentioned the steel 

seizure case, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, about the scope of presidential authority. 
164 

Is there any example in U.S. History that you are aware of 

where a president took an action that he had previously repeatedly 

and definitively said he did not have the constitutional authority 

to do? 

Mr. TING. There may be. But I am not aware of it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I am not aware of it either. 

Now, you pointed out immigration laws are meant to protect the 

jobs and wages of American workers. 

The President—the media doesn’t like to report this—he is not 

just deferring deportation, he is affirmatively conferring 5 million 

work permits on people who are in the country illegally. 

That will have an upward pressure or a downward pressure on 

the wages of American workers, in your opinion? 

Mr. TING. I think it is clearly going to have a downward pressure. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And here is what really gets me. Illegal immigrants are exempt from Obamacare’s employer mandate. So it is 

not just that there will be that downward pressure. An employer 

would have about a $3,000 hiring preference over an illegal immigrant because they can go above 50 or even just providing the normal Obamacare benefit. 

So that is going to exacerbate that downward pressure; will it 

not? 

Mr. TING. Absolutely. Once these illegal aliens, these 5 million, 

get their work authorization, it becomes illegal to discriminate 

against them in hiring. 

But, as you point out, there are actually affirmative reasons why 

you would want to discriminate against the American citizen, who 

is subject to the Affordable Care Act responsibilities, whereas this 

group of individuals would be exempt. 

So we are setting up a situation where the American worker is 

affirmatively disadvantaged. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Ms. Vaughan, when the President did the miniamnesty in 2012, DACA, he had previously said he couldn’t do 

that. Then he did it. 

That had a negative effect on legal immigrants, isn’t that correct, 

that their wait times increased? U.S. citizens were trying to bring 

over a foreign spouse, had to wait longer. 

Their families were separated because the President was diverting resources away from legal immigrants to the illegals. Correct? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes. That is right. That has been shown in the 

processing time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And isn’t it the case that the plan for this— 

now,we are in a fight to stop this—but the President’s plan here 

is to use the fees that legal immigrants pay for their applications 

and he is going to divert those fees to administer his executive amnesty program. Correct? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. That would have to be the case because of the 

way the fees are set and what they are charging for the deferred 

action benefit, the work permit. 

They are not charging enough to cover what it actually costs. So 

they have two choices, either take fees that are paid by legal immigrants or cut corners on how the processing is done and refrain 

from hiring, for example, fraud investigators and other—— 
165 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I guess they will do both there. 

But if there was a negative impact on legal immigrants with a 

much smaller DACA program, you start talking about 5 million, 

that is going to have a significant impact on the ability of American 

citizens and legal immigrants to access the immigration system. 

Isn’t that the obvious deduction? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. That is the inevitable outcome. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The criminal convictions—I mean, we have 36,000 

illegal immigrants who were convicted of crimes in fiscal year 2013. 

And those are not just ticky-tack crimes. 

Isn’t it true that that includes homicide convictions? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. There were 169 homicide convictions. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Sexual assaults, including child molestation? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Kidnapping? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Aggravated assault. 

So these are people who clearly represent a danger to society. 

DHS releases them into the community. And guess what we know 

already. 

Right now, of those 36,000, 1,000 have already been convicted of 

new crimes. And those crimes include rape, child molestation, assault with a deadly weapon. So these are Americans citizens who 

have been harmed because their Government has failed them. 

And isn’t it true, with Jeh Johnson’s enforcement criteria and the 

tiers, they have actually relegated some sexual offenses to Tier 2? 

They say that those are significant misdemeanors. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So if they are already releasing people convicted 

of homicide, the fact that they put you in Tier 2, I think you can 

almost bet your bottom dollar those people are going to be released. 

And that is a problem because you may have an offense, a sexual 

offense against a child, let’s say, that qualifies, under their view, 

as a significant misdemeanor. But there may be reasons why that 

charge had to be brought. Maybe you have a child victim. You don’t 

want to put that victim and the family through a criminal trial. 

So you may be willing to plead somebody to, say, a year, make 

them register as a sex offender, because that is just the path that 

would be best for the child. That does not make the offender any 

less dangerous. And so DHS is saying, ‘‘Well, if you get a good plea 

bargain, we are going to put you back in.’’ And we know that these 

people are likely to re-offend. 

So this is a huge scandal. We are going to be doing this on the 

Oversight Committee and really digging deep because—I don’t 

care—Republican, Democrat, this is just completely and utterly unacceptable. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

This concludes today’s hearing. 

But I want to thank you on behalf of all of us for your expertise, 

your collegiality toward one another and with the panel, your cordiality toward one another and with the panel. And so we want to 

say thank you. 
166 

I don’t know if it is the standard witness fee that I think Members of Congress who today. So you are giving us your expertise, 

and we are grateful to you for that. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(167) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
168 
169 
170 
171 

Æ