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

93–279 PDF 2015

INTERIOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Serial No. 114–12 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

TOM JAWETZ, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 3 

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

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 6 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 7 

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border 

Security ................................................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Sam S. Page, Sheriff, Rockingham County, NC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

Frank L. Morris, Sr., Member, Board of Directors, Progressives for Immigration Reform 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Walter D. (Dan) Cadman, Senior Fellow, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30 

Most Reverend Gerald F. Kicanas, Bishop of Tucson, U.S. Conference of 

Catholic Bishops 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49 

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 ................................................................................................... 72 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................................ 89 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

List of Submissions from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 119 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 120 
Page

IV 

Response for the Record from Walter D. (Dan) Cadman, Senior Fellow, Center 

for Immigration Studies ...................................................................................... 131 

Prepared Statement of Peter Kirsanow, Member, U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, ................................................................................................................... 135 

Prepared Statement of Wade Henderson, President & CEO, The Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights ............................................................. 145 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Submissions for the Record from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security. These submissions are available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=102941. 
(1) 

INTERIOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 

LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Lofgren, Conyers, 

Smith, King, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Jackson Lee, and Guiterrez. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Allison Halatei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; George Fishman, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Dimple Shah, Counsel; Andrea Loving, Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; 

and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is 

authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone; our witnesses and our guests. I would remind our guests that they are indeed guests and disruptions will 

be dealt with by removal. With that, I would recognize myself for 

an opening statement and then my friend from California for her 

opening statement. 

The consensus in our country is that the current immigration 

system is broken, unworkable and not functioning for the best interests of our fellow citizens, and part of that is the widely held belief among our fellow citizens that our borders are insufficiently secured and frankly border security is much broader than simply a 

negotiating item in an ongoing immigration debate. 

Border security is part of what defines a sovereign nation; the 

ability to control who comes and goes and provide assurances that 

national security is indeed the preeminent function of the Federal 

Government. But even the most secured of borders will not alleviate the need for further reforms and off repeated statistics bears 

mentioning again, which is that around 40 percent of those who are 

not in the country lawfully originally entered through lawful 

means. Simply put, around 40 percent of the undocumented population were invited here and overstayed their invitation. And, no 

fence can be designed or built to deal with the issue of internal se-
2 

curity. We must also ensure the laws governing immigrants within 

our borders are being implemented. 

There are three bills before us which takes steps to improve the 

efficacy and the efficiency of our immigration system. One deals 

with judicial proceedings ensuring they are expeditious and children, in particular, are not subject to lengthy proceedings that 

don’t provide them with any security or safety. 

Another bill before us, and one that is particularly important to 

some of our Committee Members, provides State and local law enforcement with the ability to enforce our immigration laws. There 

are over 730,000 State and local law enforcement officers in the 

United States. If State and local law enforcement agencies could 

assist ICE in enforcing immigration laws on a totally voluntary 

basis, this would represent a significant force multiplier for ICE; 

5,000 ICE agents cannot do all that is currently being asked of 

them particularly with limitations imposed via memo and executive 

fiat. 

Most importantly, this bill requires information to be shared 

among law enforcement agencies at all levels to ensure, for example, that individuals with 15 traffic stops including fleeing from a 

scene of an accidents and providing false information to law enforcement, are not allowed to continue to reside in this country period. National security is the preeminent function of the Federal 

Government and it is easy to argue that public safety is the preeminent function of State and local governments. That is not to say 

that there are not other vital functions, of course there are, but 

having a system of laws that are enforce with the certainty of consequences for failure to comply is the bedrock of a shared citizenry. 

State and local law enforcement officers are subject to exactly the 

same constitutional restrictions as Federal law enforcement officers. All of these law enforcement officers are at the same risk 

when an unlawful immigrant decides he cannot handle going back 

to jail or being sent back to his or her home country. And make 

no mistake, being in law enforcement is among the riskiest jobs in 

America. We give law enforcement officers great power and with 

that power comes great responsibility because their purpose is so 

vital. 

We trust State and local law enforcement in every category of 

crime; from murder to narcotics trafficking, to sexual assault, to domestic violence, to speeding, to robbery. When we are in our own 

districts, it is State and local law enforcement that come to our 

town halls and other public events and provide security for both us 

and those innocent members of the public who wish to interact 

with the people that they have entrusted to serve. So if those 

women and men can be entrusted with the investigation and enforcement of the most serious crimes in our country, and if those 

same women and men who we call when we hear noises outside 

our home in the middle of the night or when something terrible 

happens to us when we are in our district, why can we not give 

them the option; just the option of helping to enforce our country’s 

immigration laws? 

There are other bills that are on topic, on the topic of this hearing, such as to take steps to ensure victims of trafficking are provided a timely hearing before an immigration job. Another bill be-
3 

fore us takes steps to ensure the asylum process is not abused and 

offered only to those with credible fear of being deported thereby 

ensuring the program has the capacity to take care of the immigrants the program was intended to help. 

Lastly, another bill focuses on protecting children who come into 

custody along our borders. As we have recently witnessed, the current system is not equipped to handle such an influx and we need 

to focus on determining whether these children are in danger. 

I welcome today’s witnesses. I look forward to hearing your testimony as well as the questions and the answers. And with that, I 

would recognize the gentle lady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As many know, I practiced and taught immigration law before I 

became a Member of Congress, and I have worked collaboratively 

with both Democrats and Republicans over the years to reform our 

broken immigration laws. And even though we were unable to pass 

meaningful immigration reform legislation last Congress, I remain 

hopeful that we will be able to work together in the future on this 

problem. And I know the people who sent us to Washington want 

us to do that sooner, rather than later. 

Of course, one thing that won’t fix our immigration system is if 

we withhold funding from the Department of Homeland Security, 

the agency tasked with administering the immigration laws and 

keeping the country safe. The decision to add immigration riderss 

to the DHS Appropriations bill, riderss that are poison pills and 

were added only to satisfy demands of people who are extremely 

anti-immigrant—I thought was reckless and dangerous. 

Congress needs to pass a clean funding bill—the bill that Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate already agreed to 

so that DHS can continue normal operations without having to prepare contingency plans for a potential shutdown. I am disappointed 

with the Majority’s decision to hold funding hostage and I hope 

that we are not forced to go through yet another shutdown in order 

for the Republican leadership in Congress to do the bare minimum 

that is expected of us by our constituents; that we fund the government and protect the country. 

I am also disappointed that the Committee has approached the 

issue of immigration at the very beginning of the 114th Congress 

quite differently than we did at the beginning of the 113th Congress. Then, the Committee held hearings on a variety of topics including opportunities for legal immigration, challenges facing farmers and farm workers, the importance of high-skilled immigration 

to American competitiveness and the many ways in which families 

are separated unfairly as a result of our broken immigration system. 

By contrast, in this Congress, we began the year with a hearing 

that addressed a laundry list of what I believe are misplaced complaints regarding the enforcement of immigration laws. The hearing that I referred to was followed by a hearing on a bill to make 

E-Verify mandatory, and today’s hearing is on three deportationonly bills which would make the situation worse. 

This Committee considered the SAFE Act in the 113th Congress 

and reported the bill to the floor. I opposed the bill strongly at that 

time and I oppose it just as strongly today. Section 315 of the bill 
4 

would turn all undocumented immigrants in the country whether 

they crossed the border 10 years ago or over stayed a Visa just yesterday—into criminals. It would make it a crime for an undocumented mother to remain in the country to feed and care for her 

child just as it would make it a crime for a U.S. citizen to drive 

her undocumented father to a doctor’s appointment or a member of 

the clergy to drive undocumented immigrants to and from religious 

services. That’s why dozens of national, State, regional and local 

faith organizations and leaders wrote to Speaker Boehner in August of 2013 to oppose the bill. 

Section 102 of the bill would grant States and localities the complete and unchecked power to enact and enforce their own immigration laws as well as Federal immigration laws. For years, law 

enforcement leaders have told us that turning local police officers 

into immigration enforcement agents will damage community policing practices and leave communities less safe. That’s why this bill 

was opposed so strongly in the last Congress by the Major Cities 

Chiefs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, as well 

as police chiefs, sheriffs and district attorneys across the country. 

The SAFE Act would also strip protection from the more than 

600,000 young people who have come forward, cleared background 

checks, and obtained temporary protection from removal under the 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program and prevent the Administration from prioritizing the removal of serious criminals and 

repeat offenders. One question that supporters of this bill need to 

answer is how this country would be safer if we focused our detention and deportation resources on the DREAMers rather than on 

people who pose an actual threat to public safety and national security. 

The Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act and the so-called 

Protection of Children Act both return us to a topic that consumed 

much of our time and attention last summer: the spike in unaccompanied children and families who fled Honduras, El Salvador and 

Guatemala and were apprehended along our southwest border. 

Both bills appear to begin with the premise that these women and 

children must be turned around as quickly as possible to send the 

message that the United States will offer them no protection. The 

dangerous problem with this premise is it runs afoul of one of our 

most fundamental obligations under domestic and international 

law: the duty to refrain sending a person back to a place where he 

or she will face persecution. 

We learned several important things last summer and in the intervening months. We learned that 58 percent of the unaccompanied children who were interviewed by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees spoke of serious harm that raised international 

protection concerns and that the countries they were fleeing—Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala—are undergoing a major breakdown in civil society that is marked by extreme levels of violence. 

Depending on the source, either Honduras or El Salvador now has 

the world’s highest murder rate and all five countries are in the 

top five. 

We also learned that the diminished protection that unaccompanied Mexican children receive under current law may expose 
5 

many of them to further persecution, sex trafficking and abuse. 

Whereas UNHCR found that 64 percent of the Mexican children 

they interviewed raised international protection concerns, 95 percent of these children are summarily returned with little process. 

And finally, we learned—and we are continuing to learn—that 

when many of the families across the border have received appropriate legal support, they have been able to demonstrate that they 

are refugees under our law and are entitled to protection from persecution. 

In the 6 months that the Artesia facility was in use, 15 families 

were represented throughout the entirety of their proceedings by 

pro bono counsel arranged by the American Immigration Lawyers 

Association and 14 of them obtained asylum. I imagine some of my 

colleagues might say that that proves our asylum laws are too generous, but I think it shows how critically important it is that we 

not roll back procedural protections that are needed to literally 

save lives. 

Having learned all this, I’m concerned that these bills would remove due process protection to make it easier to deport these children and families. 

Despite the flaws in our current treatment of unaccompanied 

Mexican children, the Protection of Children Act would subject all 

children to the cursory screening process now conducted by Border 

Patrol agents. The bill actually weakens the screening further by 

permitting Border Patrol agents to permit a child to so-called voluntarily return to his country without even assessing whether the 

child is capable of making an independent decision to return. 

The treatment of unaccompanied children is even worse under 

the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act. The bill would repeal entirely longstanding, bipartisan TVPRA protection for all 

children and subject such children instead to expedited removal. 

More generally, the bill would gut the heart of our refugee protection laws by raising the credible fear standard. When Congress created the credible fear process in 1996 together with expedited removal, we deliberately set the standard low in recognition of the 

fact that many refugees do not arrive at our borders prepared to 

support fully their claims of protection. This bill would require that 

a refugee essentially prove up his or her claim at the border which 

will guarantee that persons fleeing persecution will be deported to 

face torture, abuse or death at home. 

Most complex problems can’t be solved with simple solutions. We 

can’t fix our broken immigration system and the problem of illegal 

immigration by just increasing our enforcement of that broken system. Children and families are fleeing extreme violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala and are showing up in our 

country in search of protection. We can’t fix that problem by sealing the border and turning our back on our history as a country 

that was founded by people who were themselves fleeing persecution. These are serious problems that require serious solutions. I 

would like to think that Congress is up to the task of coming up 

with those solutions, but I admit that I am discouraged by the fact 

that we can’t even fund the Department of Homeland Security. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence on going 

over the time limit and I yield back my non-existent time. 
6 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentle lady from California. 

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

Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. 

In 1986, Congress and the President promised Americans vigorous interior enforcement of our immigration laws in exchange for 

amnesty for 3 million unlawful aliens. And while the amnesty was 

granted to the 3 million unlawful aliens, that promise of enforcement was never kept. Today, nearly 30 years later, this Committee 

is holding a hearing on three immigration bills which will finally 

deliver on the promise of robust interior enforcement. 

All of these bills were introduced in the last Congress. One was 

introduced by Immigration and Borders Subcommittee Chairman 

Trey Gowdy and provides for crucial tools for the enforcement of 

our immigration laws within the interior of the United States. The 

second and third bills ensure that aliens apprehended along our 

borders are promptly removed and do not abuse our generous immigration laws. 

The second bill, introduced by Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, deals with asylum 

abuse and fraud within our immigration system. 

The third bill, introduced by John Carter, Chairman of the Appropriation Committee’s Subcommittee on Homeland Security, addresses the need to treat unaccompanied alien minors consistently 

so that they can be safely and expeditiously returned to their home 

countries. 

Successful immigration reform must address effective interior enforcement and the swift removal of those aliens who are apprehended along the border. This is an integral piece of the puzzle. We 

can’t just be fixated on apprehending aliens along the border which 

undoubtedly is an issue of paramount concern. We must also focus 

on what happens to those aliens who are apprehended; those who 

make it pass the border and those who violate the terms of their 

VISAs. That is what these three bills do. 

The immigration enforcement bill introduced by Chairman 

Gowdy decisively strengthens immigration enforcement. The primary reason why our immigrant enforcement system is broken 

today is because Administrations have often ignored the enforcement of our immigration laws. The current Administration has 

turned non-enforcement into an art form. 

When President Obama announced unilateral changes to our immigration system with a wave of his pen and cellphone on November 20th of last year, 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 

U.S. without the consequence of deportation. 

To make matters worse, in fact much worse, even the most dangerous criminals and national security threats can cease being a 

‘‘priority’’ for removal if there are undefined ‘‘compelling and excep-
7 

tional factors.’’ We cannot allow this or any other president to shut 

down Federal immigration enforcement efforts unilaterally. 

Mr. Gowdy’s bill will prevent this from happening by giving explicit congressional authorization to States and localities to enforce 

their own immigration laws so long as they are consistent with 

Federal immigration laws. The president may be the boss of Federal law enforcement personnel but he does not control State and 

local law enforcement agencies. By granting this authority to State 

and local law enforcement, we can eliminate one individual’s ability 

to unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement. Furthermore, 

we could line Border Patrol agents shoulder-to-shoulder at the 

southern border and it would not make the border secure. Why? 

Because once apprehended by the Border Patrol, many of the 

children, teenagers and adults arriving at the border simply gain 

our asylum and immigration laws with the facilitation of the 

Obama Administration. The Administration has done little to deal 

with the nearly 70,000 minors and 70,000 family units that entered 

our country illegally last year other than ensure that their claims 

will be heard years down the road. In the meantime, these aliens 

can abscond and eventually fail to appear for their hearings. The 

Administration has also done little to deal with the abuse of the 

credible fear process by aliens apprehended at the border. 

Judge Carter’s bill amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 so all unaccompanied alien minors are 

treated the same as Mexican youth for the purpose of removal. 

Under the bill, minors who have a credible fear of persecution or 

who have been trafficked must appear before an immigration judge 

within 14 days of their initial screening. Others will be swiftly and 

safely returned to their home country. Further, if Mr. Chaffetz’s 

bill were enacted, word would get out that the bogus credible fear 

and asylum claims are not being rubberstamped and that claimants are not being rewarded with almost certain release into the 

U.S. along with work authorization. The vast increase in claims 

would 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, the three bills that are the subject of today’s hearing, along with Mr. Smith’s Legal Workforce Act would finally provide the American people with a strong immigration enforcement 

system. 

I congratulate their authors for introducing these important bill 

and look forward to today’s hearing. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the 

Ranking Member Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

You ought to be glad you don’t have a fourth bill here today because I would undo the three previous bills that we are considering 

but this is the third time this Congress, we met to discuss immigration but, instead of considering comprehensive immigration reform, we are discussing three enforcement-only bills that will criminalize the undocumented community, force more immigrants 

under the shadows and strip crucial due process protection from 
8 

children seeking protection from violence and trafficking. And so, 

we had one hearing in a Judiciary Subcommittee this morning and 

I had the great pleasure of working with Chairman Gowdy on it 

and Chairman Goodlatte. 

Today we are going to hear some incredible commentary and I 

don’t think we are going to be in—I want to enjoy the same agreement and cooperation that we had earlier. I am going to be a couple of other comments and then I am going to yield to the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Gutierrez, for a comment that I think, as 

a leader in the Congress on this measure and especially with the 

Hispanic caucus that, he will make. I understand that there are 

guests here in the audience and are families from the Casa de 

Maryland. And we want to welcome you and thank you for being 

here to listen in a good spirit and cooperatively with everything 

that goes on. 

I respect the effort my colleagues are putting into the issue, but 

these bills are not the solution to the broken immigration system 

that American families and businesses have been waiting for. The 

first bill would criminalize the immigrant community. Gosh. It 

would make it a crime, potentially a felony, to be an undocumented 

immigrant in this country and, in addition, turns every police officer in the country into an immigration agent of sorts. In the eyes 

of many communities, that means the public safety mission will 

come a distant second. 

The second bill, the Protection of Children Act, contrary to its 

name does nothing to protect children. In fact, it subjects children 

to an increase risk of harm with less due process. 

The third bill, the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act, unreasonably raises the credible fear standard to the point where it 

no longer acts as a threshold inquiry but would require refugees to 

prove their case almost immediately upon entry. 

And so, I will put the rest of my statement—I’d like to yield now 

to my colleague, Mr. Gutierrez. I apologize for going longer than I 

intended. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. You are very generous. Thank you 

so much. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 

First of all, I want the public to know that none of these bills 

will ever become the law of this country. None of them. So do not 

fear. Justice, fairness is on your side. This is the United States of 

America and those that challenge the society in fairness and in 

openness have always prevailed in the United States. 

Bishop, I’m happy you are here. We look forward to your testimony and answering questions. I am going to let you know ahead 

of time, I am going to ask you to please, to the extent you can, listen very carefully to my republican colleagues and what they have 

to say because I would like to juxtapose what they say today with 

the position of my church, your church and the catholic church here 

in the United States of America; which I know will be resoundingly 

different. 

This is not going anywhere, and I look forward to going to Tuscan. I want my friends to know that we just were in Houston, thousand people got ready to sign up for the President’s executive. We 

went to Charleston and Charlotte, North and South Carolina. Ev-
9 

erywhere we go, thousands of people are getting ready to sign up 

for President Barak Obama’s executive order. There will be millions of them and, if you want to turn the tide of history, you are 

going to turn the tide of history but what it is going to do is going 

to bite. 

My colleagues in the Republican Party, you will never—you had 

a good run. Abraham Lincoln, George Bush, nice run. You will 

never elect another republican president of the United States of 

America because the immigrant community won’t allow to ever do 

it again because of specifically these kinds of legislation. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Michigan. 

We have a distinguished panel today. I will begin by swearing in 

our witnesses before introducing you. If you would please rise so 

I can administer an oath. 

Do each of you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about 

to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so 

help you God? 

Let the record reflect everyone answered in the affirmative. 

Just to alert our witnesses and our guests, votes are scheduled. 

I will let you know in plenty of time. And so, if you see us rush 

out, we are coming back. We have to vote. 

So with that, you may be seated. I will introduce you and then 

I will recognize you for your 5 minutes. I will introduce you from 

left-to-right en bloc. 

Sheriff Sam Page is an elected official and Chief Law Enforcement Officer in Rockingham County, North Carolina, a position he 

has held since 1998. Sheriff Page served from 2011 to 2012 as a 

Chairman of North Carolina Sheriffs Association, formerly served 

as president in North Carolina Sheriffs Association 2010. In addition, he has served on the National Sheriffs Association’s Border 

and Immigration Committee since 2010. Following graduation of 

high school, Sheriff Page served in the United States Air Force 

from 1975 to 1980. He is also a graduate of the National Security 

Institute. 

Welcome, Sheriff. 

Dr. Frank Morris is testifying today on behalf of the Progressives 

for Immigration Reform where he is a member of their board of directors. He also serves on the board of directors for the Center for 

Immigration Studies, the 9/11 Families for Secure America and 

Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dr. Morris has previously served as the Executive Director of the Congressional Black 

Caucus Foundation, Senior Foreign Service Officer for the Agency 

for International Development, and the State Department’s Special 

Assistant to the Director of National Institute for Education while 

serving as a National Educational Policy Fellow. He received his 

A.B. with high honors from Colgate, a Masters in Public Administration from Maxwell School in Syracuse and completed his doctorate in Political Science from MIT. 

Mr. Dan Cadman currently serves as Senior Fellow with the 

Center for Immigration Studies. He is a retired INS ICE Official 

with 30 years of government experience. Mr. Cadman served as a 

Senior Supervisor/Manager at Headquarter as well as field offices 
10 

both domestically and abroad within the Immigration Law Enforcement field. His knowledge and experience encompass among other 

things criminal aliens, employer sanctions, national security and 

terrorism matters. 

And finally, the Most Reverend Gerald Kicanas—if I mispronounce that, my apologies. Pope John Paul II appointed the 

Bishop the Coadjutor. I am having to struggle with some of this so 

you bear with me, okay? Bishop of Tucson on October 30, 2001 

upon retirement of Bishop Manuel Moreno. Bishop Kicanas became 

the sixth Bishop of Tucson on March 7, 2003. He is the chairman 

of the Board of Directors at Catholic Relief Services, a member of 

the Administrative Committee and the Budget Finance Committee 

of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as a former vice 

president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He graduated 

from the University of St. Mary of the Lake and the theologate 

graduate level seminary of the Archdiocese. He was ordained a 

priest for the Archdiocese of Chicago on April 27, 1967. 

Welcome to each of you. 

Sheriff, we’ll start with you, recognizing you for your 5 minutes. 

There is a series of lights; yellow will encourage you to wrap up 

and red means conclude that final remark. 

With that, Sheriff Page. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SAM S. PAGE, SHERIFF, 

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC 

Sheriff PAGE. Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman, and distinguished 

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, I’d like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to 

talk to you about the Gowdy Immigration Enforcement Bill of 2013. 

I give greeting from the citizens of Rockingham County, North 

Carolina whom I represent. Currently, I am serving in my fifth 

term as elected Sheriff of Rockingham County and also as a veteran, and also as a civilian law enforcement officer of more than 

33 years in North Carolina. 

I believe that our Congress has one of the toughest jobs in our 

Nation today. You’re being asked to fix our broken immigration 

system in the U.S. and to make sure that legislation will provide 

a solution that will last for many years to come. I am just one of 

3,080 sheriffs across America that are asking for your help in solving our immigration and border security problem that impacts all 

of citizens across the U.S. I am not an expert at immigration law 

or border security but what I can tell you about is public safety. 

According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, North Carolina is 

second only to the Atlanta Region in the southeast where drug trafficking routes by the Mexican Drug Cartel. The Drug Cartel are operating in approximately 1,200 cities across the U.S. In two to 3 

days they are in my county. 

In North Carolina, since 2010, I have participated in the Secure 

Communities Program. Since that time, we processed 233 persons 

that have been criminally charged and residing illegally in the U.S. 

Nine illegal immigrants previously removed by ICE have returned 

to my county to be rearrested for the second time. Approximately 

45 percent of those arrested were for DWI, 15 percent were charged 
11 

with assault, 5 percent for rape or sexual assault, one for death by 

motor vehicle, and one person charged for attempted murder. 

I personally have traveled to the southwest border of the United 

States with Mexico three times over the past 4 years for the purpose to educate myself about the issues that affect local, State and 

Federal law enforcement officers and their, you know, border security efforts. 

Last summer, I traveled to the Rio Grande Valley of Texas where 

almost 70,000 illegal immigrants including unaccompanied children 

were apprehended by Border Patrol agents. And according to Border Patrol those persons were Give Ups; they basically did not try 

and avoid apprehension. 

When visiting one Border Patrol station, I asked why all the 

trucks parked outside and they said, ‘‘Sheriff, we’re tied up because 

everybody is in here processing families and the unaccompanied 

children.’’ He said they were overwhelmed. 

I noted during the Border Patrol visit that some discussion came 

up about the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

thus subjecting all illegal immigrants to expeditious return, minors 

that is, if they’ve been trafficked and don’t face the likelihood of 

persecution. And that was Mr. Carter’s bill. I thought it was a very 

interesting bill and I think it could have a very important impact. 

The bill would send a clear message to parents of these children: 

There is no benefit by putting your children at risk by contracting, 

excuse me, by contracting with criminal smuggling organizations to 

bring your children to the U.S. illegally. 

And who is profiting from this summer border surge? The Mexican Drug Cartel and the human smugglers. 

What comes through the border doesn’t stay there. In just a few 

hours or a few days driving time, the drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal immigrants and gang members enter into my State 

and other States. When you look at the DHS annual summary, I 

asked the question: How many illegal immigrants and criminal offender did you detect and how many others did you miss? 

Our Congress needs to address the misunderstood issue of detainers. Several of the Sheriffs across the U.S. have discussed concerns regarding detainers with the National Sheriffs’ Association. 

The detainers allowed us to complete the process officially and to 

avoid having criminal aliens slip between the cracks and return 

into our communities and sometimes kind of flee and then to commit new crimes. We are also concerned about the pending law 

suits. We want to cooperate with ICE and do what we can to see 

as our duty as fellow law enforcement agencies. We want to do our 

part. 

We badly need our Congress to step in and clarify the authority 

of ICE to issue detainers and our ability and obligation to comply 

with those detainers just as we would any other law enforcement 

agency in connection with legitimate law enforcement action. The 

Gowdy enforcement bill would do that. 

My fellow sheriffs and I had the discussion and still the problems 

of decreasing number of criminal aliens that have been taken into 

custody by ICE from our facilities. Since 2010, we processed 233 

persons criminally charged; 66 percent have been removed. That’s 
12 

154 persons out of 233 removed from our facility. And where they 

go, I have no idea. 

The Gowdy Immigration bill will help us by ensuring that ICE 

lives up to its responsibility as a role, as law enforcement partner 

and by detaining and removing all the criminal aliens that we 

work together to identify. It will give ICE more tools to make them 

more efficient and more effective. 

What I want as a sheriff is what my citizens in Rockingham 

County want, is to know that ICE Agents will be able to do their 

job and will actually take custody and seek to remove the illegal 

aliens committing criminal offenses up in my county. 

Thank you very much and I’ll be standing by to answer your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Page follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Dr. Morris? 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK L. MORRIS, SR., MEMBER, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, PROGRESSIVES FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

I welcome this opportunity to speak today on behalf of many 

American voices are not heard in the immigration debate. But the 

focus on comprehensive immigration reform, the focus is of course 

on those who are undocumented. But what about the American citizens? And that is what I want to talk to you about. 

I want to talk to you while we have 8 million illegal—— 

Go ahead and try it now? 

Okay. 

Since we have more than 8 million illegal workers in jobs which 

they were not supposed to be able to get, this is not the way it is 

supposed to be. And, at the same time, we have more than 9 million American workers seeking any kind of employment and another 6 million seeking full time employment. The whole purpose 

of immigration law, which has been exacerbated because we have 

not had effective internal enforcement, has been that the American 

citizens are really second class citizens in this debate. 

Myths, which predominate, which have dominated this debate 

have worked all to against the American citizens. Myths that the 

workforce of the illegal workers are doing jobs Americans won’t do 

when, in reality, as I point out in my paper which I hope will be 

included in the record, especially in construction jobs, the jobs 

which 83 percent of them are American workers, that somehow 

there is the assumptions that, when we are talking with the illegal 

workforce, there’s exemptions from the law of supply and demand 

and labor. That if you don’t have—if you have a tremendous increase in supply, you won’t have either wage depressing the fact or 

especially for Black workers, a labor substitution effect. That’s fallacious. 

That immigrant workers are the workers that are disadvantaged 

when in fact, if you see that immigrant workers have an average 

family income of about, illegal immigrant workers have about 

$36,000 a year. African American families have an income of 

$32,000 a year. I mean, a whole aspect that there has been a fact 

of privilege, a legal privilege, for a non-citizens that trump the citizens of America while we have the pressing effects of the contact 

of the criminal and the civil justice system with illegal workers, 

American workers, as I point out, are at a tremendous disadvantage. 

Many worker with any kind of contact with the criminal justice 

system is that it leads to an exclusionary employment effect. How 

can we have this kind of double standard? American workers, when 

citizenship is devalued, is especially sensitive to Black Americans; 

where citizen costs were tremendous. And when laws are not enforced to protect the citizens of status, this an egregious violation 

of justice. 

You know, one of the things that underlies these myths is the assumptions that American workers, if they are not working, it some-
22 

how due to personal responsibilities. The ignoring of the competition, especially to Black workers, and this goes all the way back to 

the National Academy of Science document, our common destiny, 

the workers in the areas that are in competition with Black workers, Black workers that are tremendous and Black families that are 

tremendous disadvantage. 

The result of this is that we have unique violations of law. The 

President’s executive order gives non-citizens who benefited from 

the violation of the laws and the non-enforcement of the labor laws 

the fruit of the poison tree. They are able to continue working 

while we have the still high American unemployment. Where is the 

justice, as I ask the Judiciary Committee? 

That’s basically my contention. I welcome your questions. I hope 

that you will see my statement where I document these contentions 

in much more greater detail. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. All of your opening statements will be made 

part of the record. 

Mr. Cadman? 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER D. (DAN) CADMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, 

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Mr. CADMAN. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren and 

other Members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss immigration enforcement at the border—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. CADMAN. Am I there? 

Mr. GOWDY. I think so. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CADMAN. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior and to address 

the three bills being considered. 

I believe they go far toward restoring a credible immigration policy. We are on the verge of a de facto go-free zone wherein almost 

everyone who manages to get past the first defenses of the Border 

Patrol can live and work unlawfully with little to fear in the way 

of consequences. What good is a picket line at the border, whether 

human or technological, if we do not enforce immigration laws in 

the interior? Congress can alter this course of events and restore 

effective immigration enforcement. 

Bills focused solely on border enforcement will prove ineffectual 

if the country is to regain control because a borders-only focus 

doesn’t address the pull factors contributing so strongly to illegal 

immigration. But, at the border, it is important to deter migratory 

waves, deal promptly with arrivals, and rapidly repatriate all but 

those who truly fear persecution. 

When rubber-stamped, credible fear claims encourage future 

waves to make the trek and they create a climate of compassion, 

fatigue, and cynicism. We witnessed such a wave in the Rio Grande 

Valley several months last year and it was not handled effectively. 

The Carter and Chaffetz bills address these issues by establishing fast track resolution of cases, creating new rules for handling asylum claims, and modifying those parts of the Wilberforce 

laws such as disparate treatment between juveniles from contiguous versus non-contiguous Nations. 

The bills amend flaws in the way special immigrant juvenile status is defined and create baseline standards for identifying those 

who come forward to take custody of juveniles from Health and 

Human Services. 

Most importantly, they take the government out of the morally 

repugnant business of facilitating and thus encouraging the smuggling of alien minors into our country by acting as the facilitators 

who deliver the load to its final destination while taking a handsoff approach toward the parents who put their children at such 

great risk to begin with by hiring smugglers who are often members of violent cartels. 

Ineffectual interior enforcement presents a danger to public safety through misuse of prosecutorial discretion. Officers must justify 

at length and in detail why they should be allowed to take enforcement action because discretion is the new norm leaving many alien 
29 

criminals flying under the radar of DHS’s misplaced priority system which it justifies as a resource conservation exercise. 

The DHS secretary has dismantled the ecure Communities program which used modern technology to quickly identify alien criminals in a cost-effective way pushing ICE agents back to pre-electronics days having to rely on paper and faxes in a laborious, ineffectual manner guaranteed to result in more criminals slipping 

through the cracks. 

The secretary has also ended use of immigration detainers, freeing alien criminals to re-enter communities and to reoffend, leaving 

in their wake many more innocent victims; victims such as Niche 

Knight of Philadelphia, Briana Valle of Illinois, and off-duty Border 

Patrol agent, Javier Vega, Jr., and forcing ICE agents to spend 

time, energy and limited resources, all of which the Administration 

claims it wants to conserve in order to track them down. 

At the same time, hundreds of jurisdictions refuse to honor ICE 

detainers while they collect millions of taxpayer dollars via the 

SCAAP Program. Many ceased honoring detainers because of lawsuits real or threatened while ICE abandoned its partners to face 

those suits alone even declining to file amicus briefs. 

The Gowdy bill acknowledges the inter-play of Federal, State and 

local interests where immigration is concerned. It recognizes that 

State and local governments have a right to take a hand in controlling illegal immigration given its adverse impact on their limited 

police, health, fire, emergency and social service resources. And, 

conversely, that ICE agents have the right to expect cooperation instead of sanctuary policies that obstruct. 

Among other things, the Gowdy bill restores detainers, reinstates 

the Secure Communities program, reinvigorates the State and local 

role in shared policing efforts, provides them immunity to the same 

extent as Federal agents, expands categories of removable criminal 

aliens and creates new standards for detention of dangerous criminals. 

Significantly, both the Gowdy and Chaffetz bills establish a highly desirable new enforcement provision for designating violent 

criminal gangs such as MS-13, whose alien members and associates 

would be removable and ineligible for any kind of relief or benefits 

upon designation of the gang. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cadman follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

Bishop? 

TESTIMONY OF MOST REVEREND GERALD F. KICANAS, 

BISHOP OF TUCSON, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC 

BISHOPS 

Bishop KICANAS. Thank you very much. 

My diocese, the Diocese of Tucson, extends along the entire border between Arizona and Mexico. Today, I come representing the 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy and 

Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren for having me here to testify today. 

Before I begin, I would like to remember Kayla Mueller; the 

young woman who is from Arizona and recently died while in captivity in the Middle East. Kayla who dedicated her life to the service of others represents the best of our country’s values. She spent 

her life and lost her life in attempting to help the most vulnerable 

here and overseas. She felt the pain and suffering of others and responded. We might learn from the example of our fellow American. 

I was last with you in 2010 when I testified on the subject of the 

ethical imperative for comprehensive immigration reform. Since 

that time, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Catholic community 

and many other religious communities has not wavered on their 

commitment to comprehensive immigration reform; even though we 

have not yet gotten there. My written testimony details all of the 

specifics of what should be part of comprehensive immigration reform which includes a path to citizenship for the undocumented in 

our Nation. 

I would like to address my remarks today to the three bills before this Subcommittee and explain in general terms our opposition 

to them. First of all, the bills adversely impact immigrant and refugee children, perhaps the most vulnerable population impacted by 

our Nation’s immigration laws. Among other things, these bills 

would first repeal the deferred action for childhood arrival and 

would repeal protections for children fleeing violence in Central 

America and would keep children in detention for long periods of 

time and would weaken protections for abandoned, neglected and 

abused children. 

Our country is judged by how we treat the most vulnerable, and 

the removal of protection from children, the most vulnerable, flies 

against human decency and violates human dignity. It would undermine our credibility as a global leader in defense of human 

rights. We should not punish these children who themselves are innocent and only seeking opportunity and safety. 

My brother Bishop from El Paso Texas, Bishop Mark Seitz, testified before the House Judiciary Committee last year and explained 

that he had spoken with a mother in El Salvador who explained 

the tough decisions faced by parents of children experiencing persecution at home. Bishop Seitz asked her, ‘‘Why would you let your 

child make the journey north if she knew it was so dangerous?′′ 

And she responded, ‘‘Bishop, I would rather my child die on the 

journey seeking safety in the United States than on my front doorstep.’’ 
48 

To use an analogy, Mr. Chairman, the removal of due process 

from these children seeking safety as these bills would do is like 

a fireman showing up at a burning building and locking the doors. 

This would be contrary to our values as a Nation and contrary to 

our moral authority as a Nation that has a historic commitment to 

refugee protection. 

Second, these bills, specifically the Secure and Fortify Enforcement Act, would among other things criminalize undocumented 

presence and those who transport undocumented persons to assist 

their wellbeing. Congress has debated this issue before when the 

House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437 in December of 2005. 

That legislation, which had similar provisions and died in the U.S. 

Senate, you will remember sparked protests across the country. As 

a Nation do we really want to take the country down this road 

again? Do we want to criminalize millions of persons who have 

built equities in this country, jail them and separate them families 

including those with U.S. citizen children? 

Instead of fixing a broken system, would we rather jail nuns and 

other good Samaritans who are simply coming to aid of their fellow 

human beings consistent with their faith? Moreover, by allowing 

States and localities to create their own immigration laws and to 

enforce them, the SAFE Act would create a patchwork of immigration laws across the Nation making the system more disjointed. 

Third, the bills would severely weaken our asylum and refugee 

protection system ensuring the vulnerable groups are sent back to 

their persecutors against our heritage as a safe haven for the 

worlds oppressed. It would raise the standard for meeting the credible fear standard for the persecuted to obtain asylum status and 

it would also repeal the use of parole in place thus resulting in 

more family separation. 

The Conference of Bishops, the people of faith communities in 

our country, and the majority of Americans were terribly disappointed that comprehensive immigration reform legislation was 

not passed in the 113th Congress. You have the opportunity again 

to fix our broken system by passing such legislation in a series of 

bills or in one in the 114th Conference. We stand ready to work 

with you toward this goal. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Bishop Kicanas follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Bishop. The Chair will now recognize 

the gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman of the Full Committee, 

for his questioning. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Morris,—— 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the law enforcement. I apologize to our four 

invited guests and recognize the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Morris, I am particularly delighted to have you here. 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Because I want to ask you very specifically what 

will be the consequences to American workers and taxpayers if the 

United States government doesn’t take necessary steps to stop illegal immigration and enforce our immigration laws? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, American workers are already at a disadvantage; some more than others. And that’s the focus of the sum that 

I talked about. 

The interesting thing is that ironically the things that place 

them at a disadvantage are contact with the laws and the contact 

of the criminal justice system. And that suppression of that contact 

of illegal workers is not only unfair, it’s compounded and—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And creates a lack of respect for the rule of law, 

does it not? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, it’s not only that—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. They are treated differently from people who 

are not lawfully in the country? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, and in effect is that you keep the benefits of 

that in terms of the jobs. 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the Capitol Police and would recognize the 

gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. MORRIS. Sir, there is one more thing I wanted to say. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Before you do, Dr. Morris, I just want to again 

thank you for being here to speak on behalf of the American worker. 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, sir. 

One of the things that I didn’t include in my paper is how much 

of the recovery has gone to immigrant workers. Immigrant workers 

are 17 percent of the economy but they are getting 45 percent of 

the jobs that have been generated by this recovery because many 

times they are in areas such as construction, health and some of 

the other areas and increasingly limited retail that have been generated. So we have American workers at a multiple disadvantages. 

Multiple disadvantages that even not recovered from the recovery 

and then not having the likelihood of getting future jobs. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Sheriff Page, isn’t interior enforcement essential in order to locate and apprehend unlawful aliens who have successfully evaded 

the U.S. Border Patrol and aliens who have entered legally but 

have chosen not to leave when required to do so? Do you believe 

that Mr. Gowdy’s bill recognizes the critical nature of interior enforcement? 

Sheriff PAGE. I do. I do. 
66 

And I understand the importance of interior enforcement because 

what comes through our borders, and I have been to the border 

multiple times, it’s open and once this person has come into our 

communities and they are identified and they end up in our facilities and we contact ICE, our expectation is this person that has 

criminal offense will be removed from the United States as it 

should be. But, and I didn’t mean to be short a while ago, is but 

when people ask me in my community, ‘‘Sheriff, where do the persons go when they leave here?′′ 

I said, ‘‘I can only assume either temporary detention and then 

possibly release.’’ And from there, as I read, nearly 900,000 absconders across the United States, and if we don’t have the interior 

enforcement mechanism, how can we track these people down? And 

like you said, 5,000 ICE agents, that’s a lot to be tracking down 

900,000 people. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Very important. Thank you. 

Mr. Cadman, the Administration began a parole program for 

minor children of parents from certain Central American countries 

who are ‘‘legally’’ in the United States including unlawful aliens 

who have received deferred action. As the Administration admitted, 

it began its program because relatively few of the minors in El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala can meet the refugee requirements. 

In other words, the conditions in those countries do not, according 

to the Administration’s own admission, meet the refugee requirements for the Administration’s in-country refugee processing program. Even by USCIS’s own definition humanitarian parole is used 

sparingly and for a temporary period of time due to compelling 

emergency. 

My question for you is, isn’t the Administration’s new parole program a clear abuse of humanitarian parole as defined in statute? 

And how would the Chaffetz Asylum bill prohibit the ability of the 

Administration to misuse humanitarian parole? 

Mr. CADMAN. I do believe that the program, as I have read the 

documents that have come out from the State Department and 

USCIS, to contemplate uses of parole that were not ever intended 

by the statute and seem to be beyond the perimeters and parameters that were intended. It was supposed to be used sparingly and 

only in the rarest of cases, and yet it looks to me like it is going 

to be used as a pressure valve instead to try and accommodate people who may not fit the five criteria that are outlined in both international and in domestic law with regard to refugee status. 

And the fact that it uses the phrase that it will be accorded to 

relatives of people who are in the United States legally presently, 

frankly that’s mushy because that includes all of the people who 

were given benefits under the President’s executive action. And 

that is to my way of thinking, a stretch of the notion of in the 

United States legally. 

The consequence of all of this is that unless something is done 

to reinstitute the notion of parole as it was intended, I think that 

it could become a runaway train. I think that the portions of the 

bills under consideration that reiterate the purposes of parole will 

help that happen. But I would caveat, quite honestly, that the language in the law is only as good as the executive’s willingness to 

enforce and abide by it. And that is a wild card. 
67 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentle lady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before going into my questions, I would ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record 13 letters from the following organizations 

in opposition to all of the bills under consideration today: the Immigration Council; the Church World Service; the Hebrew Immigrant 

Aid Society; the Leadership Conference of Women Religious; the 

Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service; Network; Human Rights 

First; the National Immigrant Justice Center; the First Focus 

Campaign for Children; the Coalition for Humane Immigrant 

Rights of Los Angeles; the ACLU; the Tahirih Justice Center; and 

the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. 

I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 

from a Coalition of the Evangelical Organizations in opposition to 

the SAFE Act. 

And finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 

letter signed by 19 groups in opposition to the Asylum Reform and 

Border Protection Act. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to make a couple of corrections before getting into questions. 

First, Mr. Cadman, you indicated in your testimony that the 

change in the Secure Communities would take us back to pre-electronic days. And that’s incorrect. The automatic sharing of biometric data was not affected by the Secretary’s recent memo. In fact, 

the memo says the exact opposite. 

So I would ask unanimous consent to enter the memorandum 

that addresses this into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I also noted that there was a suggestion that the 

existence of DACA had somehow instigated the number of child, 

unaccompanied minor children coming in. And we just received a 

report prepared by the Niskanen Center examining the unaccompanied minor child/DACA link that pretty much proves that there 

is no link. It is actually prepared by David Bier who worked for our 

colleague, Mr. Labrador, before leaving and joining the non-profit. 

And I would ask unanimous consent to enter that into the record 

as well. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You know, I am happy that everyone took time to 

be here today. You know, a lot of people don’t realize that the witnesses are volunteers just to try and help us. And so we do appreciate that. 

I wanted especially, I know it is hard for you, Bishop, to get here 

given your schedule. And I am wondering, in terms of the proposals 

we are considering today, the Protecting our Children Act and the 

Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act, they would have particularly harsh provisions for unaccompanied children and would 

very, substantially restrict due process protections for these chil-
68 

dren and likely lengthen the amount of time that little kids are 

held in detention. 

Last summer, of course, we saw a surge in border crossings by 

immigrant refugee children from Central America. Have you been 

able to speak with any of these children? And if so, can you talk 

a bit about your experiences with that? Can you share any of their 

stories with this Subcommittee? 

Bishop KICANAS. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. 

Yes. I have had an opportunity. We have two places in Tucson 

currently where unaccompanied children are being kept. One is 

Sycamore Canyon which is a small number of young people. And 

then, in Southwest Key which has probably about 70 children at 

this point. And, in both places, I have had the opportunity to pray 

with them and to hear some of their stories. And they are stories 

that are deeply troubling, both in their home country and in their 

journey trying to get to a safe place of safety. 

They speak of gangs; gang recruitment. They speak of violence 

and fear of violence for themselves and their families. Some of 

them have very horrendous family situations; very troubling situations. They speak of tremendous poverty, a sense of hopelessness, 

and a fear for their lives. And these are young children. I mean, 

at Southwest Key, some of these children are as young as 7 years 

of age. They also have had babies there. They weren’t there when 

I said the mass. These are girls and boys, the most polite and respectful young people that I have met in a sense of their prayerfulness, their reflectiveness. So it was a very powerful and very moving experience, I must say. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I know my time has expired but I want to ask this final question 

and I don’t know if you can answer it or not. You recently delivered 

a letter from the Pope to a border group in Arizona. Can you tell 

us what the Pope said in the letter or is that secret? 

Bishop KICANAS. Sure, I would be happy to. 

It was a thrill, really. You know, Pope Francis received some letters from what are called the Kino Teens which are young people 

working along the border with an organization called the Kino Border Initiative run by the Jesuits. And I invite, by the way, all of 

our Congress persons here to come and see Kino Border Initiative 

and to really engage and experience the face and voice of the migrant. It is a very powerful moving experience. Perhaps the only 

thing that really changes attitudes. 

But these young people wrote letters to the Holy Father telling 

him about their work with migrants and inviting him to come to 

the border. Usually the Holy Father does not respond personally to 

letters; he receives millions of them. But Cardinal O’Malley was 

able to give these letters to him personally and he took the time 

to write a letter congratulating these young people for their sensitivity, for their care for these vulnerable people and his encouragement to them to stay the course. That this is what America is 

about. This is what our country is about; responding to people who 

are vulnerable and in need. And he actually signed it Francis. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So Bishop, my staff is better organized than I am. 

Apparently, the letter is not a secret and it is a beautiful letter. 

And I would ask unanimous consent to make it part of the record, 
69 

and of course we are very much looking forward to Pope Francis 

when he comes here in the fall. 

Bishop KICANAS. Yes. I think, as you know, he is going to be 

speaking before the Congress and I can’t imagine that this issue 

is so terribly close to his heart, will not come up and that he will 

not be encouraging our Congress to address the immigration question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentle lady from California. 

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

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank all the witnesses for your testimony today. 

And I want to make sure that I am clear on the position that I 

have long taken in my time as a private citizen, my time as a State 

senator, as a son of a father who was deeply involved in law enforcement and steeped me in respect for the supreme law of the 

land, the Constitution and the rule of law and our ordered society, 

and remind people that there is no liberty without justice. And we 

have seen an example in here, during this hearing, of what happens when people have contempt for the law. 

I think it would be to safe bet to submit that a good number of 

the people that disrupted this place are unlawfully present in the 

United States. They have been, at least in theory, granted a pass 

by the President of the United States in a lawless way also, I 

would add, in defiance of his own oath to the Constitution, defiance 

of the very law that requires that when people unlawfully present 

are encountered by immigration officers, that they place them in 

removal proceedings. And the President has ordered ICE agents to 

ignore that law. And now we see the results of it. The results of 

being rewarded for breaking the law with more contempt for the 

law in the disorderly conduct that took place within this hearing. 

We can expect to see more and more and more of that until such 

time as we can restore the respect for the rule of law in this country and that has been my central objective in all of the years that 

I have been involved in immigration policy. And it has been nothing else. It has been about the Constitution, the rule of law, and 

the sanctity and the security of our borders. And in doing so, we 

can build an even greater country and in exporting the values that 

we need to restore here. 

We can help all the world but, if we allow our system to break 

down and reward people for breaking that system down, we are 

going to end up in the third world, the place they came from. They 

came from a lawless place and they are bringing lawlessness here. 

That is what we have witnessed here today. 

But I wanted to turn to Your Excellency, and I appreciate you 

coming back. And I appreciate the tone and the delivery of your remarks and the faith that emanates from you, Your Excellency. And 

I wanted to ask this question. I missed a couple of words, but you 

told a narrative about parents of a child coming from Central 

America, I presume. And I wrote this down, ‘‘Rather have child die 

on the journey than,’’ could you complete that statement? I missed 

the conclusion of it. 
70 

Bishop KICANAS. I would be happy to. 

First of all, could I say, Representative King, it is unfair for people to impute intentions to people, as I am sure you feel was done 

here, but it is also we need to be careful about the attentions of 

others. Maybe it is not so much a desire to break the laws as a passion and a fear and a concern that is in the hearts of many people 

right now. 

But I think what I was saying at that time was that this mother, 

and I have heard this by others, this mother said that I would 

rather have my child experience the danger of crossing to the 

United States rather than die here in our porch or our home. Because the situation in Central America,—I talked to Bishop 

Ramazzini from Guatemala who is deeply involved, Cardinal Oscar 

Rodriguez Maradiaga in Honduras, they are very concerned about 

the circumstances in their country and the fear with which children are living. 

Mr. KING. Bishop, if I could, and I know our clock is ticking, I 

have made a number of trips to the border, I have not track, but 

in one of those recently, in McAllen area, went through Brownsville, McAllen area, each location that I could. I talked with people 

that were taking care of the, your phrase, migrants. And asked a 

series of questions, and in transfer centers also: How many of the 

unaccompanied alien juveniles are sexual assaulted on the way? 

And they told us there is a range of answers. Somewhere from a 

third to 70 percent are sexually assaulted on the way. 

Of the girls, from seven different sources, they told us that every 

one of them receives a pill before she leaves, or a pharmaceutical 

too, because the expectation of being raped along the way is so 

high. And I am going to presume that that pill, and I don’t know 

whether it is an abort efficient, and so to keep her from getting 

pregnant as a result of rape. Can you imagine being a father or a 

grandfather, or a mother or a grandmother, and going to the drug 

store to buy a pill that ends a life of an innocent unborn baby and 

sending your daughter across the continent because we are not 

sending them back, they are sending them here? 

And everyone down there told us, ‘‘Until you send them back, 

they are going to keep coming and they are going to be subjected 

to that kind of rape, that kind of violence, that kind of death of innocent unborn babies.’’ 

Bishop KICANAS. As you know, Representative King, the Catholic 

Church has been the most outspoken in its opposition to abortion 

as one of the many life issues from conception to natural death that 

we seek to uphold. 

There is no doubt that these young people are experiencing trauma at home and in the journey here. And that is why it is so incredibly important that there not be something like expedited removal for these children before they have an opportunity to present 

their situations and be treated carefully because they are highly 

traumatized. 

And the sensitivity of having Border Patrol do this kind of investigation, which is not their responsibility, it is a mistake and something that I think could further traumatize these children when 

they are returned home. 
71 

I know when the huge number of children came in and many 

that were being housed in Nogales, in a Border Patrol station, and 

the Border Patrol said to me, ‘‘Bishop, this is not our job. We don’t 

know how to take care of kids. We’re here to detain people, we’re 

here to enforce the law. This is not our job.’’ 

And so, to have a bill that would entrust to the Border Patrol 

this responsibility of determining whether a child has an asylum 

reason I think would be a mistake. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to put into the record a statement for 

the record for a Frank Morris and a statement for the record for 

a Mr. Dan Cadman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Bishop, I appreciate your presentation and recognition that we 

do have a responsibility of dealing with millions of hardworking 

and law-abiding undocumented immigrants in our country. What 

occurs to you to be a just and principle way to deal with this issue, 

sir? 

Bishop KICANAS. I didn’t hear the comment. 

Mr. CONYERS. How do you believe we should deal with this undocumented immigrant issue in our country? What steps should we 

take as opposed to the very harsh criminal approach of the three 

bills that are before us? I am glad there weren’t more than three. 

Bishop KICANAS. Certainly, enforcement has to be a portion of 

the solution but it is not the only solution and not even perhaps 

the first solution. 

The Conference does support the need for enforcement. We do believe that countries have a right to secure their borders. But we 

must have policies that are in keeping with our values and these 

particular pieces of legislation I don’t think reflect well the values 

of our country. 

What we believe is that it would be extremely important to address the 11 million people who are in this country without documents to find a way to legalize their presence especially those who 

are simply cooperating, participating, engaged. And in our, all of 

our States there are such people who have no documentation but 

who are our neighbors who are working hard, who are contributing. 

We would like to see a way for workers to come to this country 

to legally, so that they don’t have to come illegally into the country, 

to address issues. And we are concerned that there will be family 

unification, excuse me, unification because right now it is far too 

long for families to be separated from one another. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

I would like to ask you one other question and that is about the 

DREAMers. We have struggled with this. We passed the DREAM 

Act and the 111th Congress couldn’t overcome the conservative filibuster in the Senate. We put the DREAM Act in the comprehensive 

immigration reform that passed the Senate in 2013 but the bill was 

never brought up for a vote in the House controlled be conservatives. 

Now the president, in 2012, extended temporary protection for 

deportation to many of these young people, over 600,000 at this 

point, through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA. 

The SAFE Act contains a provision that would eliminate DACA relief from the dreamers. Do you have a view about this and how do 

you think we should treat these young people? What do you think 

our solution should be? 

Bishop KICANAS. You know, one of the strong reasons why we 

would oppose the SAFE Act is its repealing of DACA. This is a big 

mistake. 

I have talked many of these young people, some here in Washington, when we gathered after the mass that was celebrated at 

the border in Nogales by Cardinal O’Malley. And your heart goes 

out to these young people. They don’t know any other country. 

They don’t know any other experience than being here. They grew 
85 

up here. They are a part of our society. They do respect the law. 

They do want to contribute to the community. 

It is time to find a way to defer action against childhood arrivals. 

That is the most decent thing we can do. It is a limited thing but 

is certainly an important thing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

I have a question for Sheriff Page that I will submit to him and 

he can send me a response. And I have another question for you, 

Bishop, and you can send me a response as well. 

My time has expired. I yield back and I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, 

Mr. Buck. Former District Attorney in Colorado, Mr. Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Sheriff Page, a couple quick questions for you. Have you ever or 

has your department ever arrested an illegal immigrant for, say, a 

DUI charge? 

Sheriff PAGE. I am sure we have, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

Who pays the salary of the Sheriff’s Deputy who makes that arrest? 

Sheriff PAGE. The county pays. 

Mr. BUCK. And how about the booking officer who books that illegal immigrant into the jail? 

Sheriff PAGE. Likewise, the county. 

Mr. BUCK. And how about the jail officer who watches that cell 

overnight? 

Sheriff PAGE. And the county. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

How about the transport officer that brings that prisoner to the 

courthouse for a hearing on bond? 

Sheriff PAGE. It is all county funded. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And the courtroom deputy who is in the courtroom at 

the time when that bond hearing is held? 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. The county? 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

The judge, judge’s salary? 

Sheriff PAGE. The judges are paid by the Administrative Offices 

of the Court through the State. 

Mr. BUCK. The State of North Carolina? 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir, State of North Carolina. 

Mr. BUCK. All right. 

And the Judicial Clerk, the assistant in the courtroom, is that 

also a State function? 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. Through the State. 

Mr. BUCK. All right. In the State salary? 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And the prosecutor who is in the courtroom at the 

time of the bond hearing. Who pays for that individual? 

Sheriff PAGE. The State of North Carolina. 

Mr. BUCK. And how about the public defender’s office, if the defendant qualifies for a public defender? 
86 

Sheriff PAGE. The State. 

Mr. BUCK. And tell me something. If the individual is released, 

you have a Pretrial Services program in North Carolina? 

Sheriff PAGE. We do, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And do you have pretrial service officers? 

Sheriff PAGE. We do, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And who pays the salaries for those pretrial service 

officers? 

Sheriff PAGE. The county does. 

Mr. BUCK. And how about after sentencing if an individual receives probation? Who pays for the probation officer’s salary? 

Sheriff PAGE. The State of North Carolina. 

Mr. BUCK. Do you have a victim compensation fund run through 

the State of North Carolina? 

Sheriff PAGE. We do, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. So if an illegal immigrant, during that DUI, were to 

hit a guardrail, for example, owned by the county or owned by the 

State? Those would be public funds that would pay for that guardrail? 

Sheriff PAGE. They could ask for restoration through the defendant to pay back. 

Mr. BUCK. If the defendant was not able to pay, who would pay 

for it then? 

Sheriff PAGE. The State would incur the cost. 

Mr. BUCK. And how about for the victim? If the defendant wasn’t 

able to pay for damage done to a car or something, would the victim compensation fund run by the State pay for—— 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. 

There is some compensation back to the victims through the 

State. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And I just wanted to ask you a more open-ended question. Do you have an opinion as to who bears the cost for a broken 

and failed Federal immigration system? 

Sheriff PAGE. You and I do, sir. The taxpayer. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentle lady from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. We are doing a lot of double duty today. So I thank the witnesses very much for your presence here today. And I think, 

Bishop, you have shared with us before, as I recall. We are certainly aware of your service. Frankly, we are aware of the Pope’s 

service as well, as he came in to set a new tone for the world which 

is to use our better angels no matter what ecumenical view we 

have and to try and find a common thread of humanity. 

I just finished, an hour or two ago, a hearing on ISIS. In that 

hearing I offered my sympathy for the death of the young woman 

from Arizona who we can be so proud of because her definition was 

I am going to the most vulnerable places to help the most vulnerable people. I don’t know whether she was an immigrant in a faraway land, but I do know she was a Good Samaritan. I also offered 

sympathy to three Muslim persons here in the United States at a 

school my daughter went to and graduated, University of North 
87 

Carolina Chapel Hill, seeking a better life who were murdered. I 

can only imagine because of the intolerance that someone felt they 

had to act upon. 

I would only offer to give my own opinion on where we are today 

with respect to the legislation and never attribute to anyone any 

untoward thoughts. But I do know that I have been working on 

this Committee for almost 20 years fighting for comprehensive immigration reform because I never thought that I would have to be 

concerned with a tax by unaccompanied children or mothers who 

are simply trying to reunite with children. 

I think we can answer the questions of a number of colleagues 

who have offered legislative initiatives by a comprehensive approach that is not inhumane, it is not harsh. Because, I would 

much rather find the dastardly actors who follow the ideology of 

ISIS who may, for some reason, have the opportunity be overstay 

such as the 9/11 terrorists as opposed to families who are simply 

trying to reunite. 

So Bishop, would you give me just a moment. I have another 

question so I want to make sure I get one in. Would you give me 

a comment on that aspect of humanity and how some of the legislative initiatives before us, and I know you have not looked at them 

in detail, may be contrary to what we are trying to do? 

Bishop KICANAS. We are all very proud of our country and the 

values that are the foundation of this country. And part of those 

failures are the respect for the dignity of every human being and 

a concern for those who are vulnerable and who are in situations 

of danger. 

You know, our country would never say to a receiving country 

who is receiving people who are living under persecution to close 

their doors. And we can’t be a country that even though we have 

received a number of children from Central America who have 

lived in very traumatized situations we have received them, we 

have brought them to a place where they can now address their 

issues, we can’t close our door when there are true asylum needs 

and refugees seeking to find the place of safety. Those are the values our country stands for. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you for that. That is a note I would 

like to leave on. And I understand that many are asking for an addition of immigration judges. 

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you would join me on my bill 

that has added more judges. Immigration Judges might help all of 

us no matter what our position is. And so, I ask unanimous consent 

to introduce the Immigration Judges bill that I have offered? I ask 

unanimous consent to put it into the record? 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I also wanted to put into record, Mr. Chairman, I’m concerned about a number of statements contained in Mr. 

Cadman’s testimony today. I ask unanimous consent to enter into 

the record a report prepared by the Department of Justice, Office 

of Inspector General, detailing Mr. Cadman’s role as the INS 

Miami District Director in receiving a Bipartisan Congressional 

Taskforce that traveled to Miami in 1995 to investigate complaints 

regarding the Krome Detention Facility in Miami International 
88 

Airport? The report highlights Mr. Cadman’s efforts to hinder the 

OIG’s investigation stating that Cadman has actively participated 

in efforts to mislead and impede official efforts to learn the truth. 

I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article 

in the Broward-Palm Beach New Times further describing this incident. The article quotes the previous Chairman of this Committee, Elton Gallegly, as saying, ‘‘I think it is a disgrace that the 

bills we’ve been entrusted enforcing the laws of the land would 

themselves violate the law. It is clear to me that some INS employees are on the wrong side of the bars. There is no question that 

Mr. Cadman violated the law and obstructed justice.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to put this report in the record? 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

Mr. GOWDY. And the report will speak for itself. 

And Mr. Cadman, at the appropriate time you will have an opportunity to respond to whatever is in that report. I noticed that 

you wanted to do so. 

They have called votes. We are going to try to get the gentleman 

from Texas and perhaps the gentleman from Illinois if we can before votes. With that, former U.S. Attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

recent promotion however brief that it may have been. 

I am grateful to everyone here providing their testimony today 

to inform the opinions of this Subcommittee going forward. So 

thank you all for being here. 

As a context for my questions for you today, I want to relate that 

back in 2008, when I was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, I worked with ICE on one of the largest worksite enforcement actions in this country. We arrested 338 illegal aliens in 

1 day, but due to limited resources our focus on that day back in 

April 2008 was on folks that were not just in this country illegally 

but folks that, once they were here illegally, had committed additional crimes against Americans. 

Sheriff Page, I would like to start with you because in your testimony you stated that since 2010 only 66 percent of the incarcerated criminal aliens in your facility had been taken into custody by 

ICE. Did I read that correctly? 

Sheriff PAGE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. 

So I think my question for you is this: Of those folks that were 

not picked up by ICE and were subsequently released, are talking 

about folks that had just entered the country illegally or had they 

entered the country illegally and then committed additional 

crimes? 

Sheriff PAGE. I don’t have the breakdown other than I know that 

persons that were in our facility were charged with criminal offenses and, post-arrest, we reprocessed through Secure Communities, notified ICE, if ICE did not pick those persons up then we 

would have to release according to our bylaws. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Thank you. 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So last week, the Full Committee took testimony 

from several witnesses. One of them was Mark Rosenblum who is 

the Deputy Director at the Migration Policy Institute and he provided testimony that was, it largely defended the Obama Administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. But during his questioning, I asked him about something the President Obama’s own 

Acting Director of ICE had said in April of 2014. And what John 

Sandweg, the then Acting Director of ICE, had said was this: ‘‘If 

you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.’’ 

When I asked Mr. Rosenblum about that statement, he conceded 

that in his opinion that was true. 

I would like to start again with you, Sheriff Page, since you are 

on the frontlines on this issue. Would you agree with that statement based on your personal experience? 
114 

Sheriff PAGE. That is a pretty close commentary that I have 

made. I, in past years since 2010, worked on this program and following what ICE and ICE authorities are doing and their priorities, 

it would appear that the message that is being pumped out—and 

actually what is happening, if a person is not committing any 

criminal offenses and is basically just under the radar, they don’t 

have anything to worry about. If they are committing criminal offenses there is a better chance you will be deported but again, like 

I said, a lot of people also know we do not, at the local level, enforce any immigration law. 

So if you don’t have the ICE agents actually doing the work in 

the interior, who is doing it? Who is getting it done? 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So as a follow up to that to what extent has the 

Obama Administration’s refusal to enforce those laws created problems for you on the frontlines? 

Sheriff PAGE. Well, if a person is not removed from my community, then that person is released on his own and into where he 

goes from there to either reoffend or get lost in the community or 

within the immigrant community. I mean, I don’t know. And I can’t 

answer that to the citizens that I serve and protect. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you. 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Dr. Morris, how do you think the Chairman 

Gowdy’s bill would assist American minorities? 

Mr. MORRIS. I go into it in a number of places in the full testimony. One of the things, the options for local authorities to help, 

as I mentioned, the 9 million American workers and the other five, 

six, they need all the help that they can get in terms of jobs. And 

the fact that there is non-enforcement against 8 million illegal folks 

who hold jobs is a devastating impact on that, and especially in 

areas where they compete effectively with American workers and 

in areas where they compete with African American workers and 

especially in construction and health and so forth. This has a devastating impact. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Dr. Morris. 

And I again, I thank all of you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Texas. We now recognize 

the gentleman from Illinois, my friend Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to just kind of go over what we have 

heard so far from the first three witnesses and maybe put some of 

this in some context in terms of what we have heard. 

So, we heard Mexican Drug Cartel seven times; DUI; rape; attempted murder; Mexico; criminal aliens, criminal offenses. Then 

we went from Black workers are being hurt because of—as a matter of fact, undocumented workers make more money than Black 

workers in America. So we have heard the second witness pit one 

minority group against another minority group particularly in construction because repeated and repeated to race the issue of race. 

And I have always been on this Committee and we try, at least I 

have, not to raise the issue of race. And I know that when Members of this side raise the issue of race Members of the other side 

always say, ‘‘Don’t raise the issue of race here.’’ 
115 

But today I guess there was an exception to the rule and we got 

to raise the issue of race on numerous occasion because that seems 

to be the fundamental point. 

And then we went to, after that, we went to again, the third witness, talking about the children coming with violent criminal 

gangs, and again violent cartels. And then we finished up with one 

of my colleagues talking and accusing those that protested here of 

being illegally in the country as though he knows. But then, I don’t 

know if he ever saw anybody of color he didn’t think was illegally 

in the country and wasn’t a suspect. And I think that is fundamentally what is wrong with so much of the testimony. 

Look, with all due respect and deference to all of those that have 

submitted legislation, this legislation isn’t going anywhere; isn’t 

going to be approved in the Senate, it may not even be approved 

in the House of Representatives. And the President will never sign 

it. 

So why don’t we get about the business of fixing our broken immigration system and being serious. Instead of raising scurrilous 

charges which makes them—look, if I were one of those protestors 

and I heard all of you testify, I would be a little upset, a little 

angry too. If every reference made to people, they were like the 

protestor, were drug cartels, criminals, rapists and murderers. 

Now, I bet if I went out to South Carolina, North Carolina and 

went out to those fields, I would see some of those undocumented 

workers, those illegals that you talk, making sure that those farms, 

doing backbreaking work on those farms. I’m sure. You know how 

I know? Because I have been there and I have seen them. And nobody wants them all taken away. 

We are going to have the food placed on our tables each and 

every day handpicked by foreign hands in foreign countries or 

picked by foreign hands in the United States of America? That is 

just the truth, and I will be the first one to submit to everybody 

here that my wife and I did not get married, raise two children to 

work in the fields. As honorable as that work is, we sent them to 

school, we sent them to college, we sent them to do other work, but 

someone must do that work and I don’t see Americans protesting 

that people are doing their work. 

I traveled to your districts. I go in the back; I go to Chinese restaurant, I go to Greek restaurant, I go to Italian restaurant, and 

it just seems to be that there are people who speak Spanish cooking those meals. They are very diverse. I go to hotel rooms and nobody says, ‘‘Oh, I’m not going to eat that meal. I’m not going to rest 

in that hotel room.’’ 

So think about how it is you speak about a community of people 

and, when you speak of them in terms of them being all criminals, 

because none of you ever said that you saw one of them that 

worked hard was here to contribute and should be able to stay in 

the United States of America. You see no merit. I heard all three 

of you speak, the first three witnesses speak, you never uttered a 

one instance any merit to those work. Yet, we know that the vast 

majority of those who work in agriculture are undocumented and 

put the food that you eat each and every day on your table. 

I would like to end by saying, Bishop, we’re going to visit you out 

in Tucson to sign people up and make sure there are more dream-
116 

ers. And I would just like to say, what do you think His Holiness, 

our Holy Father—could you give us what he would think when he 

comes to speak to the Congress of the United States? 

Bishop KICANAS. Well, I have no idea what our Holy Father will 

say when he comes to speak to the Congress, but I do know the 

issue of immigration is dear to his heart. One of his first initiatives 

was to go to Lampedusa which is an island that many people are 

crossing the ocean at great risk to their lives. And he wanted to 

be there because saw these people as people wanting a better way 

of life and in danger of their life, and he wanted to be there among 

them which is what he does. He lives what he says. He speaks with 

authority. 

And I think he will prod the Congress to move forward with 

courage and conviction in doing a comprehensive bill that includes 

enforcement as an ingredient, but certainly many other areas like 

a pathway to citizenship, like legal ways for people to come here, 

like reuniting families, like helping these sending countries so that 

people don’t have to come. Nobody wants to leave their own country whether at home in their culture and their language, but some 

have to and we have to understand that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I can’t wait to hear from the Pope. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

And in my final act of compassion to you, I’m going to try and 

go before we leave to go votes that way you don’t have to wait 

around an hour for me to vote and come back. So if I talk fast, it 

is only for that reason. 

I want to say something about my friend Luis Gutierrez. I have 

never spent a moment wondering about his motives. We may disagree. In fact, we do disagree on certain things, but I have never 

once questioned his motives. I think that he and the gentle lady 

from California are both interested in solutions as opposed to the 

issue. 

But Bishop, a year ago, sitting exactly where you are sitting 

right now was the former Mayor of San Antonio, and we could not 

get him to quit repeating this mantra of citizenship for 11 million 

aspiring Americans. Call me skeptical, I don’t know any group of 

11 million except perhaps nuns that could all pass a background 

check. God knows 11 million Members of Congress couldn’t pass a 

background check; 11 million of no category could. 

So if you are talking about 11 million as one homogeneous group, 

all of whom could pass background checks, all of whom aspire to 

citizenship and not just legal status. That tells me that that person 

is more interested in having a political discussion than a factual 

discussion. 

And I want to say, what you said about the young lady from Arizona, so perfectly captured her life. And I want to thank you for 

remembering her. I have to be candid with you. When you were describing her characteristics, I was thinking about the guy sitting on 

the other end of the desk from you because the cops that I worked 

with were willing to give their lives for other people and in many 

instances for people who did not appreciate what they were doing. 

So it is hard for me to understand, with respect to people like 

the sheriff and my own sheriffs, how we trust them with every 
117 

other category of crime; murder, sexual assault, robbery, speeding, 

narcotics. Who do we call when we hear somebody prowling around 

at night? Who do we call as Member of Congress when we are in 

our districts going to town halls and we need security? We trust 

him for that. 

Sheriff, just so you know, they will trust you to provide security 

for them at one of their town halls or one of their public events. 

God knows why they don’t trust you to enforce immigration laws. 

They will trust you for everything else. 

Bishop, there is this notion going through my head that we are 

a Nation of laws but we are a people of humanity and compassion. 

We are a Nation of laws but a people of humanity so how we synthesize those too. 

And I appreciate what Mr. Gutierrez said. I actually have no 

idea what someone’s legal status is by looking at them. I wouldn’t 

begin to try to guess. I have no idea. I would never ask anybody, 

frankly. 

So I come to it with a law enforcement bias; that the number one 

function of government is public safety. And I can tell you that I 

would be at a loss to explain to the victims of any crime how someone got here through unlawful means, committed another crime, 

was released, remained here, and then committed another crime. 

I’m not a good enough lawyer to explain that. 

So let me ask you, not people who cross the border, but people 

who overstay VISAs. What is you internal security plan? Because 

overstaying a VISA is not a crime. So how are we going to identify—and we certainly don’t want to treat VISA over stayers from 

Germany differently than we do border crossers from Guatemala. 

So what is your internal, interior security plan for folks who overstay their VISAs? 

Bishop KICANAS. Thank you very much, Chairman Gowdy, and 

I know you are, like many in our Congress, struggling with some 

very complex issues. And it is not easy. 

First of all, with regard to local law enforcement, Arizona has 

been doing that road; SB 1070. This is not the expertise of local enforcement officers. This is a complex issue; immigration law, asylum determinations. We have to be very careful of entrusting to 

people for whom that is not their expertise. 

There are many police chiefs in this country who do not want 

that responsibility. They feel it would put their officers at great 

risk for racial profiling, they are concerned that it would disrupt 

the community being able to bring forward allegations of criminal 

behavior because they might be deterred. 

And so, I think it is the responsibility of our Federal Government 

and we have to give them the responsibility to handle that so we 

don’t have a disjointed system, we can’t have 50 immigration policies in our country. That would be tragic. 

As far as, you know, the 11 million people, obviously there are 

some that will need to be deported. You know, President Obama 

has actually deported 2 million people; that is an incredible number, even more than under previous Administrations in his 6 years. 

So yes, there will be some. But we also have to carefully look at 

individual situations because not everyone is the same. 

I ask—— 
118 

Mr. GOWDY. I don’t want to cut you off, but I don’t want these 

two to miss votes and I am over time. 

I would just say this in conclusion: In South Carolina, the murder statute is one sentence long. Murder is one sentence long in 

South Carolina. Our DUI statute is 16 pages long. It is incredibly 

complex. So if we trust State and local cops in South Carolina to 

understand the labyrinth that is our DUI law, I think they can figure out immigration law. 

And the only other thing I will say about racial profiling, racial 

profiling is wrong whether it is traffic offenses, narcotics offenses, 

certainly in immigration. It is wrong across-the-board, but we trust 

Sheriff Page in narcotics cases, traffic violations. 

Five thousand ICE agents is not going to get it done and, before 

we can get to the rest of immigration reform, you are going to have 

to convince your fellow citizens that we are actually serious about 

enforcing the law. That is just a political reality. 

And with that, I want to thank all four of you. I apologize for 

the disruption. Frankly, it is not persuasive. What is persuasive is 

hearing Zoe and Mr. Conyers and Luis make their arguments. Disrupting four invited guests and others who were playing by the 

rules is not persuasive but that is up to them whether they want 

to do it or not. 

So with that, this concludes today’s hearing. Thanks, all the witnesses for attending. Without objection, all Members will have 5 

legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses and materials for the record. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(119) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

List of Submissions from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Prepared Statement of the American Immigration Council 

Prepared Statement of the Church World Service (CWS) 

Prepared Statement of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) 

Prepared Statement of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) 

Prepared Statement of the Lutheran and Refugee Service, Kids in 

Need of Defense, and the Women’s Refugee Commission 

Prepared Statement of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 

Prepared Statement of Human Rights First 

Prepared Statement of the National Immigrant Justice Center 

Prepared Statement of First Focus Campaign for Children 

Letter from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) 

Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

Prepared Statement of Tahirih Justice Center 

Prepared Statement of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 

Prepared Statement of a Coalition of Evangelical Organizations 

Letter from Law Enforcement Officers 

Memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Report of the Niskanen Center 

Letter from Pope Francis 

———— 

Note: These submissions are available at the Subcommittee and can also be 

accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=102941. 
120 

Material Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

f 
131 
132 
133 
134 

f 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 

f 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 

Æ