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

93–649 PDF 2015

OPEN BORDERS: THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENTIAL 

AMNESTY ON BORDER SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Serial No. 113–91 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

CURTIS CLAWSON, Florida 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

VACANCY

VACANCY

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

JOAN O’HARA, Acting Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

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

State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

WITNESS

Hon. Jeh Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

FOR THE RECORD

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

State of Texas: 

Statement of Mary Meg McCarthy, Executive Director, National Immigrant 

Justice Center ................................................................................................... 33 

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association ........................ 37 

Statement of Laura W. Murphy, Director, and Christopher Rickerd, Policy 

Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office; Vicki B. Gaubeca, Director, and Brian Erickson, Policy Advocate, the ACLU of New Mexico, 

Regional Center for Border Rights; Christian Ramirez, Director, Southern 

Border Communities Coalition; and Ryan Bates, Executive Director, 

Michigan United, Rich Stolz, Executive Director, OneAmerica, and Steve 

Choi, Executive Director, New York Immigration Coalition, Northern Borders Coalition .................................................................................................... 39 

APPENDIX

Questions From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson .... 59 

(1) 

OPEN BORDERS: THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENTIAL AMNESTY ON BORDER SECURITY 

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul [Chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul, Smith, King, Rogers, Miller, 

Meehan, Duncan, Chaffetz, Palazzo, Barletta, Hudson, Brooks, 

Perry, Sanford, Clawson, Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Higgins, Keating, Barber, Payne, O’Rourke, Vela, and Swalwell. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to hear testimony from Secretary Jeh Johnson on the administration’s recent Executive Actions to grant temporary relief to millions of unlawful immigrants 

and the effect such actions will have on the security of our Nation’s 

borders. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today we are here to talk about illegal immigration and the 

grave consequences of the administration’s recent actions to bypass 

Congress. Immigration reform is an emotional and divisive issue; 

there is no doubt about that. But the President’s unilateral actions 

to bypass Congress undermine the Constitution and threaten our 

democracy. 

Let me be clear: Our immigration system is broken, and we need 

to fix it. America has always stood proudly as a beacon for hope 

for millions who are seeking a better life, and we should work hard 

to keep it that way. But regardless of where you stand on this 

issue, there is a right way to do this and there is a wrong way, 

and, unfortunately, the President has taken the wrong way. 

In addition, the President has risked breaking something much 

more fundamental, and that is our democratic process. We are a 

Nation of laws. Yet this unprecedented Executive power grab undermines the principle that the people, not just one man, should be 

the ultimate decisionmakers in our country’s most important political matters. 

This action also has poisoned the well here in Washington at a 

time when Americans desperately want their Government to work 

together. We are facing crucial challenges that require Congress 

and the White House to cooperate, from combating overseas threats 

to driving economic growth. By making an end-run around Con-
2 

gress, the President has deliberately and willfully broken the trust 

that is needed between our branches of Government. 

The President knows the damage of these actions. In fact, he has 

said over 20 times in his Presidency that he did not have the authority to take Executive Action on immigration and that this is, 

‘‘not how democracy works.’’ 

He also said doing so will lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. He was right, and it will. History has proven that amnesty 

perpetuates a cycle of illegal entry into this country. This was true 

in the 1980s, and it has proven true under this administration’s 

abuse of prosecutorial discretion—a power to decide when to prosecute law breakers and when not to, a power which should be used 

narrowly and carefully. This administration has done the opposite. 

They have taken a sweeping approach to prosecutorial discretion 

that makes a mockery of the law. 

The consequences are very real. This summer, the administration’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws enticed at least 

60,000 unaccompanied children to make the perilous journey to our 

borders. Many traveled to the United States under misinformation 

regarding the administration’s granting of permisos. We can expect 

many, many more to do the same because of the President’s recent 

actions. 

The lax interior enforcement policies adopted by this administration coupled with even the perception of amnesty become a powerful magnet that encourages more illegal immigration. We essentially tell citizens of other countries: ‘‘If you come here, you can 

stay. Don’t worry, we don’t deport you.’’ 

The reality on the ground is that, unless you commit multiple 

crimes, the chances of your being removed from this country are 

close to zero. This year, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended almost 

500,000 individuals along our Southern Border, but less than half 

were deported. Those who remained were given notices to appear 

before an immigration judge, with a court date years away, and released into the country. We know that the majority will never 

check back in with the authorities. 

If we don’t think that message is making its way back to Mexico 

and Central America, we are simply fooling ourselves. We will see 

a wave of illegal immigration because of the President’s actions. 

At its core, the President’s unilateral amnesty plan is deeply unfair to the millions who are waiting in line to become a part of our 

great Nation, and it demonstrates reckless disregard for America’s 

security. We have a formal immigration process for a reason: To 

promote fairness in allowing people to enter the United States and 

to keep those who will seek to do us harm outside of our borders. 

Sadly, the Department of Homeland Security is unprepared to 

handle the coming surge that the President’s policies will incite. 

The Border Patrol’s resources are already strained as immigrants 

pour across the border, making it difficult to identify smugglers, 

criminals, and potential terrorists. 

We need to reform our immigration laws, but we need to do it 

the right way, and that means starting the process in the lawmaking branch of our Government. Congress will address immigration reform, but we need to do so in an intelligent way and in keeping with the wishes of the American people. The majority of Ameri-
3 

cans do not agree with the President’s Executive Actions. They 

want Congress to find a solution, one that begins with securing our 

borders. 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary, and I hope that he 

will address the serious concerns Congress and the American people have about the President’s decision. We cannot turn a blind eye 

to the real threats which these actions will bring to our country’s 

doorstep. 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Today, we’re here to talk about illegal immigration and the grave consequences 

of the administration’s recent actions to bypass Congress. Immigration reform is an 

emotional and divisive issue; there is no doubt about that. But the President’s unilateral actions to bypass Congress undermine the Constitution and threaten our democracy. 

Let me be clear: Our immigration system is broken, and we need to fix it. America 

has always stood proudly as a beacon of hope for millions who are seeking a better 

life. And we should work hard to keep it that way. 

But regardless of where you stand on this issue, there is a right way to do this, 

and there is a wrong way. And unfortunately the President has taken the wrong 

way. 

In addition, the President has risked breaking something much more fundamental: Our democratic process. We are a Nation of laws. Yet this unprecedented 

Executive power grab undermines the principle that the people—not just one man— 

should be the ultimate decision makers on our country’s most important political 

matters. 

This action has also ‘‘poisoned the well’’ here in Washington at a time when Americans desperately want their Government to work together. 

We are facing crucial challenges that require Congress and the White House to 

cooperate, from combating overseas threats to driving economic growth. But by making an end-run around Congress, the President has deliberately and willfully broken 

the trust that is needed between our branches of Government. 

The President knows the damage of these actions. He has said over 20 times in 

his Presidency that he did not have the authority to take Executive Action on immigration, and that this is ‘‘not how democracy works.’’ He also said doing so would, 

‘‘lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.’’ He was right. It will. 

History has proven that amnesty perpetuates a cycle of illegal entry into this 

country. This was true in the 1980s and has proven true under this administration’s 

abuse of ‘‘prosecutorial discretion’’—a power to decide when to prosecute 

lawbreakers and when not to, a power which should be used narrowly and carefully. 

This administration has done the opposite. They’ve taken a sweeping approach to 

prosecutorial discretion that makes a mockery of the law. 

The consequences are very real. This summer, the administration’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws enticed at least 60,000 unaccompanied children to make 

the perilous journey to our borders. 

Many travelled to the United States under misinformation regarding the administration granting of ‘‘permisos.’’ We can expect many, many more to do the same because of the President’s recent actions. 

The lax interior enforcement policies adopted by this administration coupled with 

even the perception of amnesty become a powerful magnet that encourages more illegal immigration. We essentially tell citizens of other countries if you come here, 

you can stay—don’t worry, we won’t deport you. The reality on the ground is that 

unless you commit multiple crimes, the chances of your being removed from this 

country are close to zero. 

This year the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 479,000 individuals along the 

Southern Border but less than half were deported. Those who remained were given 

notices to appear before an immigration judge, with a court date years away, and 

released into the country. We know that the majority will never check back in with 

authorities. 

If we don’t think that message is making its way back to Mexico and Central 

America, we are simply fooling ourselves. We will see a wave of illegal immigration 

because of the President’s actions. 
4 

At its core, the President’s unilateral amnesty plan is deeply unfair to the millions 

who are waiting in line to become a part of our great Nation, and it demonstrates 

reckless disregard for America’s security. We have a formal immigration process for 

a reason: To promote fairness in allowing people to enter the United States and to 

keep those who will seek to do us harm outside of our borders. 

Sadly, the Department of Homeland Security is unprepared to handle the coming 

surge that the President’s policies will incite. The Border Patrol’s resources are already strained as immigrants pour across the border, making it difficult to identify 

smugglers, criminals, and potential terrorists. 

We need to reform our immigration laws, but we need to do it the right way. And 

that means starting the process in the lawmaking branch of our Government. Congress will address immigration reform. But we need to do so in an intelligent way, 

and in keeping with the wishes of the American people. The majority of Americans 

do not agree with the President’s Executive Actions. They want Congress to find a 

solution—one that begins with securing our borders. 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary, and I hope he will address the serious concerns Congress and the American people have about the President’s decision. 

We cannot turn a blind eye to the real threats which these actions will bring to 

our country’s doorstep. 

Chairman MCCAUL. With that, the Chairman now recognizes the 

Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s 

hearing. 

I would like to thank Secretary Johnson for making the time to 

be here to discuss recently announced Executive Actions on immigration and border security. As well as your fifth appearance before 

this committee in your short 12-month period shows that you are 

accessible, and I appreciate it. 

Since 1956, Presidents have granted temporary immigration relief to impacted individuals on 39 separate occasions. Therefore, it 

would seem changes outlined by President Obama on November 20 

are not outside the bounds of Presidential authority as provided 

under our Constitution. 

Approximately 11 million undocumented individuals are forced to 

hide in the shadows, even as they live and work in plain sight in 

communities big and small across our Nation. Time and again, the 

House Republican leadership has been unwilling to act to fix our 

broken immigration system. 

In the face of this crisis and the absence of Congressional action, 

the President acted in a measured way that is likely to improve 

both our Nation’s security and economy. Specifically, the President 

announced an establishment of the Deferred Action for Parental 

Accountability program, which delays deportation for immigrants 

who have lived illegally in the United States for more than 5 years 

but have children who are citizens or have green cards. 

Contrary to messaging from those who disagree with the President and many of his policies unrelated to immigration, this deferred action does not provide relief to recent border crossers. If the 

applicant can pass a criminal background check and pay a fee, he 

or she could qualify for a work permit and avoid deportation for 3 

years at a time. Approximately 4 million immigrants are expected 

to qualify for this temporary relief. 

This approach to provide deferred enforcement in order to keep 

families intact in light of Congressional failure to provide such relief is not novel. The Family Fairness Program, implemented by 

President Reagan and expanded by President George H.W. Bush, 
5 

provided deferred enforcement for close family members of individuals legalized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act. 

President Obama’s directive rightly prioritizes the removal of undocumented individuals who have committed serious crimes, thus 

enhancing the safety of our communities. 

I am troubled by the extreme criticism and disdain that this temporary and limited set of actions has received by some in Congress. 

The concept of families with working parents and children who attend school is consistent with the values we all hold. Now, with the 

President’s announcement, this value or fabric of America is now 

being called ‘‘renegade’’ and a basis for more illegal action. 

A fair criticism may be that vulnerable people in violence-ridden 

communities in Central America will be misled by enterprising 

coyotes and smugglers about the scope of individuals covered by 

the President’s action. I look forward to hearing from Secretary 

Johnson about planning efforts that are being rolled out in anticipation of such misinformation. 

We all know that recent border-crossers would not be covered. 

Even if there is an upsurge based on misinformation, Congress has 

made significant investment in personnel and equipment at the 

Southern Border that should ensure that DHS is able to effectively 

respond to any increases in attempted border crossings. 

Let me be clear: The President’s Executive Actions are a good 

start. However, there are still many people whom I believe deserve 

such consideration but are left out. Specifically, I would point to agricultural workers. The President’s Executive Action does not provide specific relief to an estimated quarter-million of those workers 

that might be eligible for some type of deferred action. More remains to be done to address the labor needs for America’s farmers. 

Where the Executive Action remains silent, there is an opportunity 

for Congress to legislate. 

Let me close with two thoughts. To those who have said the 

President’s actions do not represent the will of the American people, I say you need to listen better. Americans, by wide margins, 

believe our immigration system can be fixed in a fair and humane 

way that does not jeopardize our security. 

Second, to those in Congress who have embraced the idea of putting the Department of Homeland Security in budgetary limbo 

while ever other Federal agency is funded for fiscal year 2015, I 

say you should really think about the message that sends about 

Congress’ commitment to homeland security. 

In closing, it is my hope that Congress will use this action as a 

starting point to legislate permanent fixes to our Nation’s immigration system and further improve our border security. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with you throughout the remainder of 

this Congress and the next Congress to make these legislative 

changes happen. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

Since 1956, Presidents have granted temporary immigration relief to impacted individuals on 39 separate occasions; therefore, it would seem that changes outlined 

by President Obama on November 20 are not outside the bounds of Presidential authority, as provided under our Constitution. 
6 

Approximately 11 million undocumented individuals are forced to hide in the 

shadows even as they live and work in plain sight in communities big and small 

across our Nation. Time and again, the House Republican Leadership has been unwilling to act to fix our broken immigration system. In the face of this crisis and 

the absence of Congressional action, the President acted in a measured way that 

is likely to improve both our Nation’s security and economy. 

Specifically, the President announced an establishment of the Deferred Action for 

Parental Accountability Program—which delays deportation for immigrants who 

have lived illegally in the United States for more than 5 years but have children 

who are citizens or have green cards. 

Contrary to messaging from those who disagree with the President and many of 

his policies unrelated to immigration, this deferred action does not provide relief to 

recent border crossers. If the applicant can pass a criminal background check and 

pay a fee, he or she could qualify for a work permit and avoid deportation for 3 

years at a time. 

Approximately 4 million immigrants are expected to qualify for this temporary relief. This approach—to provide deferred enforcement in order to keep families intact 

in light of Congressional failure to provide such relief—is not novel. The ‘‘Family 

Fairness’’ program implemented by President Reagan and expanded by President 

George H.W. Bush provided deferred enforcement for close family members of individuals legalized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act. President Obama’s 

directive rightly prioritizes the removal of undocumented individuals who have committed serious crimes, thus enhancing the safety of our communities. 

I am troubled by the extreme criticism and disdain that this temporary and limited set of actions has received by some in Congress. The concept of families with 

working parents and children who attend school is consistent with values we all 

hold. Now, with the President’s announcement this value or fabric of America is now 

being called renegade and a basis for more illegal action. 

A fair criticism may be that vulnerable people in violence-ridden communities in 

Central America will be misled by enterprising ‘‘coyotes’’ and smugglers about the 

scope of individuals covered by the President’s actions. I look forward to hearing 

from Secretary Johnson about planning efforts that are being rolled out in anticipation of such misinformation. We all know that recent border crossers would not be 

covered. 

Even if there is an upsurge based on such misinformation, Congress has made 

significant investments in personnel and equipment at the Southern Border that 

should ensure that DHS is able to effectively respond to any increases in attempted 

border crossings. 

Let me be clear, the President’s Executive Actions are a good start. However, 

there are still many people whom I believe deserve such consideration but are being 

left out. Specifically, I would point to agricultural workers. 

The President’s Executive Action does not provide specific relief to an estimated 

quarter million of these workers that might be eligible for some type of deferred action. More remains to be done to address the labor needs of America’s farmers. 

Where the Executive Action remains silent, there is an opportunity for Congress to 

legislate. 

Let me close with two thoughts. To those who have said that the President’s actions do not represent the will of the American people, I say, you need to listen better. Americans, by wide margins, believe our immigration system can be fixed in a 

fair and humane way that does not jeopardize our security. 

Second, to those in Congress who have embraced the idea of putting the Department of Homeland Security in budgetary limbo while every other Federal agency is 

funded for fiscal year 2015, I say ‘‘you should really think about the message that 

sends about Congress’ commitment to homeland security.’’ 

In closing, it is my hope that Congress will use this action as a starting point to 

legislate permanent fixes to our Nation’s immigration system and further improve 

our border security. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with you throughout the 

remainder of this Congress and next Congress to make these legislative changes 

happen. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Ranking Member. Other Members are reminded that statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

[The statement of Hon. Jackson Lee follows:] 
7 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Good morning and welcome. I would like to begin by thanking Chairman McCaul 

and Ranking Member Thompson for agreeing to convene this full committee hearing 

entitled, ‘‘Open Borders: The Impact of Presidential Amnesty on Border Security.’’ 

This is a very important matter, and as Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, as well the Representative of the 

18th Congressional District of Texas centered in Houston and located 300 miles 

from the Southwest Border. I appreciate your leadership in addressing the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to secure our Nation’s borders. Enhancing public safety along the Southwest Border remains an enormous priority for my 

Congressional district and the State of Texas. 

I would like to also welcome our distinguished witness: Jeh Johnson, Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security. 

The President has taken steps pursuant to his legal authority to fix our Nation’s 

broken immigration system. The Executive Action prioritizes the deporting of felons, 

not families, and requires certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal 

background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily 

stay in the United States without fear of deportation. 

The President’s actions will streamline legal immigration to boost our economy 

and will promote naturalization for those who qualify. 

The Executive Actions taken by the President will strengthen border security by 

adding 20,000 more Border Patrol Agents; crack down on companies who hire undocumented workers; create an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pay a fine and taxes, pass a background check, learn English and go 

to the back of the line; and boost our economy and keeps families together by cutting red tape to simplify our legal immigration process. 

The estimated number of undocumented immigrants in this country grew to a 

high of about 12.2 million in 2006, dropped to around 11.3 million, and has stopped 

growing for the first time since the 1980s. 

The number of apprehensions, along our Nation’s Southern Border has declined 

significantly; with the number now less than a third of what it was 12 years ago 

and today has reached the lowest level since the 1970s. 

Immigration reform is good for the Nation and the economy. The benefit of immigration to the United States is evident in our National history. Immigrants represent the majority of our Nation’s PhDs in math, computer science, and engineering, and over one-quarter of all U.S.-based Nobel laureates over the past 50 years 

were foreign-born. 

Immigrants are also more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start 

a business in the United States. They have started 1 of every 4 American small 

businesses and high-tech start-ups, and more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. 

The President is asking Congress for a common-sense comprehensive immigration 

reform bill. This committee has already done this in a collegial bipartisan way when 

we drafted H.R. 1417, Border Security Results Act, which was passed by the Full 

Homeland Security Committee in May of 2013, and placed on the House Calendar 

where it has yet to be taken up for full House consideration. This bill would go a 

long way in addressing concerns regarding border security. 

The President is offering a common-sense beginning, but only Congress can complete the work of comprehensive immigration reform. 

This Executive Action is not a grant of amnesty for those who have entered the 

country unlawfully. It is an opportunity for the United States to create a stable environment for undocumented persons to come out of the shadows. 

By the authority vested in the office of the President of the United States by the 

Constitution and the laws of this great Nation President Obama issued an order to 

modernize and streamline the U.S. immigration system, by directing that the following occur: 

• Four million undocumented immigrants with no criminal record and who have 

lived in the United States for at least 5 years may now apply for a program 

that allows them to work and protects them from deportation, but does not create a path for legal residency or citizenship; 

• An additional 1 million people may seek protection from immediate deportation; 

• Through expansion of the existing program for ‘‘Dreamers,’’ which President 

Obama announced previously will no longer be limited by age; 

• No changes to the status of farm workers; 
8 

• None of the 5 million immigrants who are expected to have their status in the 

United States altered will receive any legal protections such as Government 

subsidies for health care under the Affordable Care Act; and 

• Children who are American citizens but whose parents are undocumented will 

have access to Health Insurance, Medicaid, food stamps etc. These benefits will 

not extend to their non-citizen parents. 

President Obama’s actions do not create a path to citizenship nor do they give 

legal status to undocumented persons, only Congress can do that. President 

Obama’s action on immigration is not new. 

President Obama’s actions fall within the scope of his Constitutional authority to 

prioritize Federal resources to focus on real threats to our Nation. Executive authority has been used by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George 

W. Bush to address deficiencies in how the Nation can best address the complex 

issue of immigration when Congress was unwilling or unable to provide a legislative 

solution. 

Past Presidents have used their prosecutorial discretion authority to address immigration problems. President Obama has decided to use his Presidential prosecutorial discretion to prioritize Federal resources as they relate to removal of undocumented persons. Congress only provides enough funding to the Department of 

Homeland Security for about 400,000 deportations of undocumented persons each 

year. 

President Obama’s action does not create a path to citizenship nor does it prohibit 

Congress from acting or prevent the next President to issue another order to change 

the prosecutorial discretion outlined by this Executive Order. 

Over a year ago, the Senate passed S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act and referred it to the House for Consideration. 

Today’s hearing will allow Members of the committee to receive information on 

what the Department of Homeland Security has done to protect our Nation’s borders 

and address the limited resources available for identifying undocumented persons 

for removal. 

I look forward to Secretary Johnson’s testimony. Thank you Mr. Chairman and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. We are pleased here today to have Secretary 

Jeh Johnson back to the committee. As always, we may not agree 

on all the issues, but we do so with civility. 

Mr. Johnson, as many of you know, has a distinguished record, 

both at the Department of Defense and at the Department of Justice, and we appreciate your service with the Department of Homeland Security. 

With that, you are recognized for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Ranking 

Member Thompson, committee Members here. 

Let me begin by saying, in the same vein as the Chairman’s remarks, we won’t always agree, we have not always agreed, but I 

do appreciate the friendship and the collegiality that we enjoy between individual Members of this committee and their staffs and 

me and my staff. 

This is the 12th time I have testified before Congress in 11 

months, the fifth time before this committee. I feel like I know a 

number of you well. 

On November 20, the President announced a series of Executive 

Actions to begin to fix our immigration system. The President 

views these actions as a first step toward reform of the system and 

continues to count on Congress for the more comprehensive reform 

that only legislative changes can provide. 
9 

The actions we took will begin to fix the system in a number of 

respects. 

To promote border security for the future and to send a strong 

message that our borders are not open to illegal migration, we 

prioritize the removal of those apprehended at the border and those 

who came here illegally after January 1, 2014, regardless of where 

they are apprehended. 

We also announced the next steps to strengthen our border security efforts as part of our Southern Border Campaign Strategy, 

which I first announced earlier this year. 

To promote public safety, we made clear that those convicted of 

crimes, criminal street gang members, and National security 

threats are also priorities for removal. 

To promote accountability, we encourage those undocumented 

immigrants who have been here for at least 5 years, have sons or 

daughters who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, and do 

not fall into one of our enforcement priorities to come out of the 

shadows, get on the books, and pass National security and criminal 

background checks. After clearing all their background checks, 

these individuals are eligible for work authorization and will be 

able to pay taxes and contribute more fully to our economy. 

The reality is that, given our limited resources, these people are 

not—and have not been for years—priorities for removal. It is time 

we acknowledge that and encourage them to be held accountable. 

This is simple common sense. 

To rebuild trust with State and local law enforcement which are 

no longer honoring ICE detainers, we are ending the controversial 

Secure Communities Program as we know it and making a fresh 

start with a new program that fixes existing problems. 

To promote U.S. citizenship, we will enable applicants to pay the $680 naturalization fee by credit card and expand citizenship public awareness. 

To promote the U.S. economy, we will take administrative actions to better enable U.S. businesses to hire and retain qualified, 

highly-skilled foreign-born workers. 

The reality is that for decades Presidents have used Executive 

authority to enhance immigration policy. President Obama views 

these actions as a first step toward the reform of the system and 

continues to count on Congress for the more comprehensive reform 

that only changes in law can provide. I would like to add to that: 

I, too, would welcome the opportunity to work with Members of 

this committee on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. 

I recommended to the President each of the Homeland Security 

reforms to the immigration system that he has decided to pursue. 

These recommendations were the result of extended and candid 

consultations I had with the leadership of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Along the way, I also spoke 

with members of the workforce who implement and enforce the law 

to hear their views. In my own view, any significant change in policy requires close consultation with those who administer the system. 

We also consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including business and labor leaders, law enforcement officers, religious leaders, 
10 

and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. We also consulted with the Department of Justice, and we received a formal 

written opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal 

Counsel concerning enforcement prioritization and deferred action, 

and that opinion has been made public. 

Thank you for your attention to these remarks. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Thank you Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and committee Members for the opportunity to testify today. 

On November 20 President Obama announced a series of Executive Actions to 

begin to fix our immigration system. The President views these actions as a first 

step toward reform of the system, and continues to count on Congress for the more 

comprehensive reform that only legislative changes can provide. 

The actions we took will begin to fix the system in a number of respects. 

To promote border security for the future, and to send a strong message that our 

borders are not open to illegal migration, we prioritize the removal of those apprehended at the border and those who came here illegally after January 1, 2014, regardless of where they are apprehended. We also announced the next steps to 

strengthen our border security efforts as a part of our Southern Border Campaign 

Strategy, which I first announced earlier this year. 

To promote public safety, we make clear that those convicted of crimes, criminal 

street gang members, and National security threats are also priorities for removal. 

To promote accountability, we encourage those undocumented immigrants who 

have been here for at least 5 years, have sons or daughters who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, and do not fall into one of our enforcement priorities, to 

come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pass National security and criminal 

background checks. After clearing all their background checks, these individuals are 

eligible for work authorization and will be able to pay taxes and contribute more 

fully to our economy. The reality is that, given our limited resources, these people 

are not priorities for removal—it’s time we acknowledge that and encourage them 

to be held accountable. This is simple common sense. 

To rebuild trust with State and local law enforcement which are no longer honoring ICE detainers, we are ending the controversial Secure Communities program 

as we know it, and making a fresh start with a new program that fixes existing 

problems. 

To promote U.S. citizenship, we will enable applicants to pay the $680 naturalization fee by credit card and expand citizenship public awareness. 

To promote the U.S. economy, we will take administrative actions to better enable 

U.S. businesses to hire and retain qualified, highly-skilled foreign-born workers. 

The reality is that, for decades, Presidents have used Executive authority to enhance immigration policy. President Obama views these actions as a first step toward the reform of the system, and continues to count on Congress for the more 

comprehensive reform that only changes in law can provide. 

I recommended to the President each of the Homeland Security reforms to the immigration system that he has decided to pursue. These recommendations were the 

result of extended and candid consultations I had with the leadership of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Along the way, I also spoke 

with members of the workforce who implement and enforce the law to hear their 

views. In my own view, any significant change in policy requires close consultation 

with those who administer the system. We also consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including business and labor leaders, law enforcement officers, religious 

leaders, and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. We also consulted 

with the Department of Justice, and we received a formal, written opinion from the 

Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concerning enforcement prioritization 

and deferred action, and that opinion has been made public. 

Here is a summary of our Executive Actions: 

Strengthening border security. Our Executive Actions emphasize that our border 

is not open to future illegal migration and that those who come here illegally will 

be sent back, unless they qualify for some form of humanitarian relief under our 
11 

laws. The reality is that, over the last 15 years spanning the Clinton, Bush, and 

Obama administrations, much has been done to improve border security. But, 

through the Executive Actions announced last week, we can and will do more. 

Today, we have unprecedented levels of border security resources—personnel, 

equipment, and technology—along our Southwest Border. This investment has produced significant positive results. Apprehensions have declined from over 1.6 million 

in 2000 to around 400,000 a year—the lowest rate since the 1970s. According to Pew 

Research, the number of undocumented immigrants in this country grew to a high 

of 12.2 million in 2007 and has remained, after a slight drop, at about 11.3 million 

ever since. That means this population has stopped growing for the first time since 

the 1980s, and over half of these individuals have been in the United States for 13 

years. 

Without a doubt, we had a setback this summer. We saw an unprecedented spike 

in illegal migration into South Texas—from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

And as everyone knows, it consisted of large numbers of unaccompanied children 

and adults with children. We responded with more security and law enforcement resources; more processing centers; more detention space; more Border Patrol Agents 

in the Rio Grande Valley; more prosecution of criminal smuggling organizations; an 

aggressive public message campaign; engagement of Central American leaders by 

the President and the Vice President; and increased interdiction efforts by the government of Mexico. And, since the spring, the numbers of unaccompanied children 

crossing the Southern Border illegally have gone down considerably: May–10,578; 

June–10,620; July–5,499; August–3,138; September–2,426; October–2,529. 

However, we are not finished with the work of securing our border. We can and 

will do more—that’s a critical component of the President’s Executive Actions. 

We will build upon the border security infrastructure we put in place last summer. We announced several days ago the opening of another detention facility for 

adults with children in Dilley, Texas, that has the capability to detain over 2,000 

individuals. At the same time, we will close the smaller, temporary facility for 

adults with children at Artesia, New Mexico. We are developing a ‘‘Southern Border 

Campaign Strategy’’ to fundamentally alter the way in which we marshal resources 

to the border under the direction of three new Department task forces. They will 

follow a focused risk-based strategy, with the overarching goals of enforcing our immigration laws and interdicting individuals seeking to illegally cross land, sea, and 

air borders. These actions are designed to send a clear message: In the future, those 

who attempt to illegally cross our borders will be sent back. 

Creating new and clearer enforcement prioritization policies.—This new policy will 

also have a strong border security component to it, in addition to prioritizing for removal public safety and National security threats. Virtually every law enforcement 

agency engages in prosecutorial discretion. With the finite resources an agency has 

to enforce the law, it must prioritize use of those resources. To this end, DHS will 

implement a new and clearer enforcement and removal policy. The new policy 

places: (i) Top priority on National security threats, convicted felons, criminal gang 

participants, and illegal entrants apprehended at the border; (ii) second-tier priority 

on those convicted of significant or multiple misdemeanors and those who entered 

or re-entered this country unlawfully after January 1, 2014—regardless of whether 

they are apprehended at the border—or significantly abused the visa or visa waiver 

programs; and (iii) the lowest priority are those who are non-criminals but who have 

failed to abide by a final order of removal issued on or after January 1, 2014. 

Giving people the opportunity to be held accountable.—The reality is that, undocumented immigrants who have been in this country for years, raising American families and developing ties to the community. Many of these individuals have committed no crimes and are not enforcement priorities. It is time that we acknowledge 

this as a matter of official policy and encourage eligible individuals to come out of 

the shadows, submit to criminal and National security background checks, and be 

held accountable. 

We will therefore offer, on a case-by-case basis, deferred action to individuals who: 

(i) Are not removal priorities under our new policy, (ii) have been in this country 

at least 5 years, (iii) have sons or daughters who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and (iv) present no other factors that would make a grant of deferred 

action inappropriate. The reality is that our finite resources will not and should not 

be expanded to remove these people. We are also amending eligibility for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. At present, eligibility is limited to those who were under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012, entered the United 

States before June 15, 2007, and were under 16 years old when they entered. We 

will amend eligibility for DACA to cover all undocumented immigrants who entered 

the United States before the age of 16, not limited to those born after June 15, 1981. 
12 

We are also adjusting the cut-off date from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010 and 

expanding the period of work authorization from 2 years to 3 years. 

President Obama’s administration is not the first to undertake such actions. In 

fact, the concept of deferred action is an established, long-standing administrative 

mechanism dating back decades, and it is one of a number of similar mechanisms 

administrations have used to grant temporary immigration relief for humanitarian 

and other reasons. For example, Presidents Reagan and Bush authorized Executive 

Action to shield undocumented children and spouses who did not qualify for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This ‘‘Family Fairness Program’’ used a form of relief known at the time as ‘‘indefinite voluntary departure,’’ which is similar to the deferred action authority we use today. 

Fixing Secure Communities.—We will end the Secure Communities program as we 

know it. The overarching goal of the program is a good one, but it has attracted 

wide-spread criticism in its implementation and has been embroiled in litigation. 

Accordingly, we will replace it with a new ‘‘Priority Enforcement Program’’ that 

closely and clearly reflects DHS’s new top enforcement priorities. The program will 

continue to rely on fingerprint-based biometric data submitted during bookings by 

State and local law enforcement agencies but will, for the most part, limit the circumstances under which DHS will seek an individual in the custody of State and 

local law enforcement—specifically, only when an individual has been convicted of 

certain offenses listed in Priorities 1 and 2 of our new enforcement priorities outlined above. 

Pay reform for ICE ERO officers.—We will conduct an expeditious review of personnel reforms for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers engaged in 

removal operations, to bring their job classifications and pay coverage in line with 

other law enforcement personnel, and pursue regulations and legislation to address 

these issues. 

Extending the provisional waiver program to promote family unity.—The provisional waiver program we announced in January 2013 for undocumented spouses 

and children of U.S. citizens will be expanded—to include the spouses and children 

of lawful permanent residents, as well as the adult children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. At the same time, we will clarify the ‘‘extreme hardship’’ 

standard that must be met to obtain the provisional waiver. 

Supporting military families.—We will work with the Department of Defense to 

address the availability of parole-in-place and deferred action, on a case-by-case 

basis, for the spouses, parents, and children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent 

residents who seek to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. 

Increasing access to U.S. citizenship.—We will undertake options to promote and 

increase access to naturalization and consider innovative ways to address barriers 

that may impede such access, including for those who lack resources to pay application fees. To enhance access to U.S. citizenship, we will: (i) Permit the use of credit 

cards as a payment option, and (ii) enhance public awareness around citizenship. 

USCIS will also include the feasibility of a partial fee waiver as part of its next biennial fee study. 

Supporting U.S. business and high-skilled workers.—Finally, DHS will take a 

number of administrative actions to better enable U.S. businesses to hire and retain 

qualified, highly-skilled foreign-born workers. For example, because our immigration 

system suffers from extremely long waits for green cards, we will amend current 

regulations and make other administrative changes to provide needed flexibility to 

workers with approved employment-based green card petitions. 

Overall, the Executive Actions the President announced last week will not only 

bolster our border security, they will promote family unity, increase access to U.S. 

citizenship, grow and strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, and create jobs, particularly in the high-skilled labor sectors. 

Again, the President views these actions as a first step toward the reform of our 

immigration system and he continues to count on Congress for the more comprehensive reform that only legislative changes can provide. In the mean time, we will use 

our Executive authority to fix as much of our broken immigration system as possible. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Secretary. 

The Chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions. 

I would have to echo again, in my opening statement, there is 

a right way to do this and a wrong way. Obviously, I disagree with 

the President’s approach in this case. Presidents Reagan and Bush 

worked with the Congress. Congress passed legislation that the 
13 

Presidents were implementing—a very strong distinction from the 

case that we have today. 

My question—I have several questions. One, first, is the President said over 20 times that he did not have the legal authority 

to do this, to take this Executive Action, and that this is not how 

a democracy works. Do you agree with that prior statement? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Chairman, I know from 30 years as a lawyer 

that when someone paraphrases remarks from somebody I want to 

see the full Q&A, I want to see the full context to know exactly 

what the person said. 

I have looked at various excerpts of remarks by the President 

concerning his legal authority to act, and I do not believe that what 

we have done is inconsistent with that. In fact, we spent a lot of 

time with lawyers, and we spent a lot of time with DOJ’s Office of 

Legal Counsel. They wrote what is, in my judgment, a very 

thoughtful 30-page public opinion on the available legal authority 

to act to fix—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. I have no doubt about your actions after the 

election on this issue, but I will say I will be happy to provide you 

with the written statements that I have personally read to your office. It is confusing, and it poses a bit of hypocrisy, I think, to the 

American people because then, after the election, he reversed his 

course. After the election, he says that now he does have the legal 

authority to move forward. 

So who should we believe—the President before the election who 

said he didn’t have legal authority to take this action or the President after the election who says that he does have the authority 

to take this Executive Action? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, what I know is we spent 

months developing these reforms, and we spent a lot of time with 

lawyers—very close consultation with lawyers. There were some 

things that they told us they thought we did not have the legal authority to do, which is reflected in the OLC opinion, and there are 

things they told us very clearly that we did have the legal authority to do. 

The analysis was very thoughtful, very time-consuming, and very 

extensive. I am satisfied, as a lawyer myself and the person who 

has to come here and defend these actions, that what we have done 

is well within our existing legal authority. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Note, I have no doubt with respect to your 

integrity, but I think the timing of these statements makes it look 

more political to me, that this is a political decision rather than a 

policy decision. I know you have run this through all the legal 

traps, but I think that what we are concerned about are these prior 

statements that he didn’t have legal authority and now he does. So 

perhaps he wasn’t following the correct legal advice at one juncture 

or the other. 

Did he get the right political or legal advice before the elections 

or after? Because he has changed his tune on this, and I think that 

is what is so confusing to Members of Congress and the American 

people about the authenticity of this President’s decision. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, you refer to timing. I originally received an assignment to look at our authority to take Executive Action in the spring, and we began to develop reforms in the spring. 
14 

We were urged by many in Congress to wait, and so we waited 

until the summer. We got to the summer; we were urged then to 

wait till late summer, which we did. 

Once we knew the Speaker was not going to be able to marshal 

the votes in the House of Representatives for reform, we decided 

we were going to act in late summer. Then we were urged to wait 

till after the mid-terms, which we have done. 

So we have waited a considerable amount of time, more than—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. My time is limited. I know you have, but it 

has undermined our Constitutional principles and our democracy 

by bypassing Congress. 

He also stated earlier that this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. Do you agree with that statement by the President? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. In fact, we prioritize recent illegal migrants. We prioritize those who came here illegally after January 

1, 2014. 

I intend to highlight that fact wherever I go. In fact, I am going 

to our new detention facility in Dilley, Texas, week after next to 

highlight the fact that we have expanded our detention capability 

and recent arrivals illegally are priorities for removal. I intend to 

go to the country of Mexico to work with them on their own interdiction efforts. 

So, wherever I go, I intend to highlight the fact that these new 

reforms prioritize recent illegal entrants. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Again, I just look at history. In 1986, the 

amnesty law was passed, and it led to a wave of illegal immigration. I look at DACA. I had 60,000 children, unaccompanied, crossing my border in Texas through the Rio Grande Valley sector. 

As a result of DACA, you can’t deny that the traffickers are 

going to message this, now this Executive Action, and exploit it. I 

have had high-level people in the State Department tell me this. 

They are worried about this being taken down to the Central 

American countries and exploited, and we are going to see a surge 

and a wave of illegal immigrations. 

I am telling you, it is going to happen. This Department needs 

to be ready for that, to protect the Nation from it, because it is 

coming. In my judgment, there is no question about it. 

The last question is on fraud. Twenty percent of DACA applications are denied as fraudulent. We saw that after 1986. The 1993 

World Trade Center bomber, one of them, had fraudulent 

documentations exploiting the 1986 amnesty law. 

What are you going to do to verify that these people are not 

fraudulently entering the country, including what could be security 

threats to the country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, that is something that I, too, 

am concerned about. Fraudulent applications have the potential to 

undermine the whole process. So, in the implementation, in the 

planning for the implementation, I want to be sure that we take 

a hard look at best practices to avoid fraudulent applications, 

fraudulent misuse of the program. That is a priority of mine. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well, we look forward to working with you 

on that. 
15 

With that, now the Chairman recognizes the Ranking Member 

for questions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, there are striking similarities between President 

Obama’s Executive Action and those similar actions taken by President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush on addressing this. 

Your statement to this committee is that the Department of Justice has provided authority by which the President is acting. Are 

you comfortable with that? Or did you participate after the 

issuance of that authority in the development of a recommendation 

to the President? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Let me add this. Whenever I assess a legal question, both as a 

lawyer for the Department of Defense and now as a Cabinet Secretary, and the viability of a legal issue, I welcome a thorough 

opinion like the one we have from OLC, but I also ask myself, 

could I defend that action before a committee of Congress if called 

upon to do so? I am fully comfortable that we have the legal authority to push forward these reforms in particular. 

Specifically with regard to deferred action, that is an authority 

that Presidents have used for decades, as you have been pointed 

out, in various different forms. That is noted in the OLC opinion. 

So I am fully comfortable that deferred action is an inherent Executive branch authority that can and should be used from time to 

time, and we have done so here. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I would like to add to that, in those other 

actions, Congress had not moved forward, and that was why President Reagan and George H.W. Bush did pursue the Executive 

Order route, because of the inaction of Congress. 

So, while there are differences of opinion, I don’t think there is 

a question that we have not done our job as Members of Congress, 

and the problem gets worse. Those 11 million people who are here 

we have to address. 

Another issue that I am concerned about, Mr. Secretary: The Department’s Unity of Effort. How will the Southern Border campaign 

address the challenges around that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The Southern Border campaign strategy 

that we are developing is an initiative to bring to bear all of the 

Department’s resources in a particular region of the country on 

border security. We are, in my judgment, too stovepiped in that approach. CBP ICE, CIS, FEMA, the Coast Guard, we are too 

stovepiped, and we need to bring a more comprehensive strategic 

approach to it. 

So what we are doing is creating two regional task forces—Joint 

Task Force West, Joint Task Force East—to focus on maritime border security in the Southeast, to focus on border security in the 

Southwest. I expect to announce the new leaders of those task 

forces very soon, and we are developing a time line for getting this 

done. 

I issued, as part of these various directives here, a directive devoted toward the Southern Border campaign strategy and set forth 

here what the goals and lines of effort are to be. 

As you know, I think we have received a lot of bipartisan support 

for this effort, and I intend to move forward with it. 
16 

Mr. THOMPSON. A comment has been made about the number of 

undocumented children coming in recent years. Your Department 

requested supplemental funding to address the needs to work with 

that. Congress did not give you the money. 

Can you continue to maintain the level of support to address that 

issue if Congress continues to refuse to give you the money necessary to do that job? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It will be very difficult. 

We have as part of our fiscal year 2015 budget request a request 

for an additional $750 million. Most of that will go to expanded detention capability and resources. We set that up in response to the 

spike in illegal migration last summer, and we want to maintain 

that and we want to add to it. 

So I referred to the new detention facility in Dilley, Texas, a moment ago. That is a capacity for up to 2,400 spaces. We need to pay 

for that. But it is a vital aspect of our Southern Border security, 

in my view. 

Frankly, I am disappointed that the Congress has not supported 

us in that vital border-security effort. I hope the Congress will act 

to fund that and to fund the expanded flights, the repatriation, 

that we have developed since last summer. We need to pay for 

these things. I know every Member of this committee wants to support and enhance border security, so I am urging that Congress act 

on my request so we can pay for it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, what do you project to be the number of people 

coming across the border illegally this year? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The number of people crossing the border illegally each year? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Total number this year, what do you project? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Fiscal year 2014, I believe that total apprehensions, which are an indication of total attempts to cross the border illegally, is about 479,000, 477,000. 

Mr. SMITH. How many people will succeed in actually entering 

without being apprehended, would you guess? 

Secretary JOHNSON. There is a calculation that is something in 

excess of that number. You add, as I am sure you know, apprehensions plus turn-backs plus what we call got-aways, and you get an 

estimate for total illegal migration. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe—but I would be happy to provide 

this number to you, what our Border Patrol’s best estimate is—but 

I believe it is some percentage in excess of the 477,000, 479,000. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. That is what I have heard. Over half a million 

people will succeed in coming into the United States illegally this 

year. 

If you were to succeed in achieving your goal of operational control of the border, what would you like to get that number down 

to? From half a million to what? 
17 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, very clearly, sir, I would like to see 

that number come down. In fiscal year 2000, we had 1.6 million apprehensions—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. If I may interrupt you for a minute, what are 

your metrics in determining whether the border is secure or not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the Border Patrol has metrics, and I 

have asked that they improve upon that. I recently issued a directive—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. To better define our border 

metrics and how we should define—— 

Mr. SMITH. Are there any metrics—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Border security. So that is a 

work in progress, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. So you don’t have the metrics today to determine 

whether the border is secure? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The Border Patrol does have metrics, which 

I believe I have shared with various Members of this committee. 

I have asked that they refine that, and they are in the process of 

doing that. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. So, again, I don’t think that we have the 

metrics we need to determine whether the border is security or not. 

Let me read a sentence from page 3 of your statement today. 

‘‘Our Executive Actions emphasize that our border is not open to 

future illegal immigration and that those who come here illegally 

will be sent back unless they qualify for some form of humanitarian relief under our laws.’’ 

Is it true, though, that the Department of Homeland Security is 

already releasing illegal immigrants from ICE custody or not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sorry. What was the last part of that 

question? 

Mr. SMITH. Is the Department releasing illegal immigrants now 

from ICE custody instead of sending them home? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that we have a number of those 

who are released on bond, if I understand your question. Through 

a directive, I recently asked ICE to have a higher-level approval 

authority for when that happens. 

Mr. SMITH. But, again, to put that in simple language, ICE is releasing individuals who are in the country illegally, which is contrary to your statement that they would be sent home. 

It also seems to me contradicting your statement is the fact that 

very few individuals who have entered the country illegally who 

have not, in your terms, committed other serious crimes are going 

to be sent home. It is going to be a very, very small fraction; it may 

be 1 or 2 percent. 

So I don’t think your statement here is true, to say that those 

who come here illegally will be sent back. It is actually a very 

small subset of those who come into the country illegally. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me say two things, sir. 

During the summer, we dramatically reduced the repatriation 

time for adults from 33 down to 4 days. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have built added detention space for 

family units, which I am hoping this Congress will support. 
18 

Mr. SMITH. That is nice, but that is not answering my question. 

Once again, you are not going to be sending people back home just 

because they are in the country illegally. In fact, I think you have 

just admitted ICE is already releasing individuals who could be returned home but are not being returned home. 

Furthermore, I think you are also releasing individuals who have 

been convicted of crimes in the United States and putting them 

back out on our streets and in our communities. 

Do you want to estimate how many thousands of people are 

being released who are criminal aliens? In the last several years, 

I think it totaled 30,000 people. Do you have any idea what it 

might be this year? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The issue of release of those convicted of 

crimes is one that I have focused on for the last several months. 

So what I have directed to ICE is that there be a higher-level approval authority for a circumstance when somebody with a criminal 

record is released from immigration detention on bond. 

I have also directed that a release of somebody with a criminal 

record should not occur because of fiscal constraints, and we will 

find a way to pay for that. 

Mr. SMITH. I hope you can improve the situation because, as I 

say, right now you are releasing criminal aliens and you are releasing individuals who should be sent home. I don’t think that is the 

way our laws should be enforced. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady 

from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman and to the Ranking Member, 

again, let me thank you for this hearing. This is the important 

work of the United States Congress, is unbiased fact-finding. 

Secretary, again, thank you for your service and the importance 

of your related service in the Department of Defense and, as well, 

your knowledge and work with the U.S. Department of Justice. 

I, frankly, believe that we can clarify the President’s comments, 

and he was, in fact, extremely consistent. I have a series of questions. 

As I understand the Executive Order, it does not confer immigration status, nor does it confer a pathway to citizenship. Is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In my interpretation, the President’s remarks 

over the years has been his lack of authority to confer immigration 

status or citizenship—my interpretation, but I think it would be 

documented by his words. You are telling us today that in the Executive Order you nor the President has done that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Deferred action does not grant legal status 

in this country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Or a pathway to citizenship. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Or a green card or a pathway to citizenship. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me move on, Mr. Secretary, to put into the 

record these words: ‘‘A comprehensive approach [to immigration reform]’’—and that is in parens—‘‘is long overdue, and I am confident 

that the President, myself, and others can find common ground to 
19 

take care of this issue once and for all.’’ Now, those were the words 

of Speaker Boehner, which I took literally, in 2012. 

To date, this Congress has not placed—this House has not placed 

on the floor of the House one single immigration bill that responds 

to what I thought were welcoming words by the Speaker. We have 

not had an up-or-down vote. 

In this committee, which I want to congratulate, the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member have worked in a bipartisan manner, my 

subcommittee Chairwoman and myself, and we have passed H.R. 

1417, a border-security legislative initiative. It has never seen a 

day on the floor of the House to provide an up-or-down vote. 

My questions and concerns would be our interpretation. President Reagan signed into law in 1986 a bill that many people tried 

to muffle their words but they use the word ‘‘amnesty.’’ I would 

make the argument that President Reagan saw a humanitarian crisis and decided to act. In the Phoenix case in 2012, Justice Roberts 

said that Presidents, in addition to the Executive Order, have a 

right to humanitarian relief. 

So let me pursue this questioning regarding the DACA and the 

issue that this may work to cause border crosses as a result of this 

announcement. 

Could you just quickly point out that DACA relief deals with existing persons here in the United States? One other aspect is to expand the time frame from 2 to 3 years. Could you quickly answer 

that? 

Why don’t I just give you this other question so that we won’t 

be delayed with respect to the other question? 

I have always thought Secure Communities have had a legal and 

political issue. You have streamlined Secure Communities. Let me 

say that my law enforcement officers locally have said it is problematic. So, in your prioritization of terrorists and others, you have 

streamlined that. 

I would like to also indicate in your new facility that I am very 

interested in in Dilley, Texas, that it will be accommodating and 

with the right kinds of resources for family and children. 

If you would answer those questions, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. 

The current DACA program is for those who have been here 

since June 2007, which is almost 7 years—over 7 years. You have 

to have been here over 7 years, come here under age 16, and have 

been born after 1981. 

We revised the criteria by rolling back the cut-off from 2007 to 

2010, we removed the birthday limitation from post-1981 to any 

time, and we have made the eligibility for the temporary period 3 

years instead of 2 years. 

With regard to the Dilley facility that we are opening up, I have 

sent my own staff, my own lawyers, down there to ensure that the 

conditions are adequate for family units. That is something that I 

am committed to ensuring. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Secure Communities that you have streamlined, which have really rounded up mothers and fathers and people who have are no threat to the United States of America. 
20 

Secretary JOHNSON. I support the goal of Secure Communities. 

The goal of Secure Communities is to get at criminals so they can 

be put in removal—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The program, as you know, was becoming legally and politically controversial, mayors and Governors signing 

laws and executive orders prohibiting their law enforcement from 

working with ours on this. So I want to fresh start so that we can 

better enforce public safety and removing criminals. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, as I yield back, I just want to say that, in an article in our local newspaper, a mother who had used a nanny for a 

number of years who had been in this country for 13 years, dependent, as many mothers across America are, on child care in the 

house, she was celebrating—not politically, Democrats, Republicans—the opportunity for her nanny to become in some way 

statused to stay in this country and to do good work and to protect 

her children. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Rogers from 

Alabama. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your service and for being here. 

Earlier this year, you testified before this committee when we 

had a bunch of younger people coming across the border illegally. 

During that hearing, I asked you, when we were talking about the 

reason why they wouldn’t be removed within 24 hours like we do 

adult illegal aliens coming across the border, you made the point 

of saying, statutorily, the Government is required to allow these 

children to go through or these younger people to go through a 

hearing process and that that had to be complied with. 

My inquiry to you was: Aren’t these exigent circumstances? You 

said yes. I said, well, under those circumstances, can’t the President write an Executive Order that would allow you to go ahead 

and remove those younger people like we do adults? You said the 

President doesn’t have that authority to ignore a statute by Executive Order. 

Isn’t it true that our current statutory law requires that these 

people that are covered under this Executive Order be removed 

from the country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I recall that exchange, and I recall that the 

particular words, ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ or ‘‘exigent circumstances,’’ whatever was in the law, could not be read as broadly 

as to permit voluntary departure and basically obviate the entire 

statute. That was the reading of the statute that I had at the time. 

I do not believe, to the extent this is your question, that that is 

inconsistent with anything we have done and announced week before last. 

Mr. ROGERS. I disagree with you. The statue is very clear at 

present that these illegals who are in this country are to be removed once they are located. 

My next question: You talked about how the people are going to 

be defined under this Executive Order, by being here a certain 
21 

number of years or the age or whatever. How do you determine 

that how they are presenting themselves is accurate? 

For example, if they say, ‘‘I have been here 7 years,’’ how do you 

get them to prove it, and how do you know that the way they prove 

it is valid? 

For example, if they say, ‘‘Well, I have been living at this address 

for the last 7 years, and here is the power bill over that period of 

time,’’ and the power bill is in another person’s name, and they say, 

‘‘Look, but I rent from that person,’’ and that person says, ‘‘Oh, 

yeah,’’ and it is a complete fabrication, how do you prove the residency is accurate when they present themselves to you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Good question. The onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that they have lived in this country continuously for the 5-year period. So the onus is on the applicant to come 

forward with something that satisfies the immigration officer, the 

examining officer, that they have, in fact, lived in this country. 

I do not believe that that will be as simple as, you know, ‘‘Take 

my word for it.’’ There will have to be some sort of documented 

proof. That will be developed in the implementation process by CIS. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think you acknowledged from an earlier 

question, this is an area that is going to be wrought with fraud. 

All sorts of lies and exploitation are going to be driven to this 

point. I think it is going to be impossible for you all to be able to 

determine who, in fact, qualifies under this very broad and illegal 

Executive Order. 

Let me ask you this question: Do you think that the people that 

are going to fall into this category are going to be able to draw 

Medicare and Social Security and other public benefits? 

Secretary JOHNSON. People who qualify for deferred action are 

lawfully present, but they do not have a lawful status like lawful 

permanent resident or citizen. One of the virtues, I think, of accountability is you give people a work authorization and then they 

pay taxes on the books. Part of the taxes they would pay, as I understand it, would be a deduction for Social Security. 

Mr. ROGERS. So the answer is, yes, they will be able to qualify—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. They will not be eligible for public benefits 

of the type that most people would receive—— 

Mr. ROGERS. But Medicare and Social Security, they would. 

Secretary JOHNSON. You would generally, as I understand it, be 

eligible, if you are around long enough, to get back what you put 

in, what you invested originally, but not—— 

Mr. ROGERS. So the answer is yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. The normal public benefits we 

would think of. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, participating in Medicare and Social Security, 

both of which are struggling financially through solvency, to have 

this added burden I think is irresponsible. 

Now, you made a point about being given documentation for a 

work permit. Is that accurate? This program will issue affirmatively a document to an illegal saying they have a legal status of 

some sort? 

Secretary JOHNSON. As a separate matter, those who apply for 

deferred action can also apply for a work authorization, which is 
22 

not a green card. It is a separate form of work authorization that 

the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to provide. 

Mr. ROGERS. But it will be a legal status of some sort. 

Secretary JOHNSON. They can be considered lawfully present in 

the country, just like the DACA kids. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you know how much it will cost for the Department of Homeland Security to establish and carry out that program 

of providing that documentation? How expensive will it be for you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the program will be fee-driven. An applicant has to pay a fee. I believe that we are contemplating that 

the fee be $460 per applicant, which is what it is for DACA. USCIS 

is a fee-based organization. It pays for itself. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Keating from Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

the hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The title of today’s hearing is ‘‘Open Borders: The Impact of Presidential Amnesty on Border Security.’’ 

Before this hearing gets too far, let me be very direct, Mr. Secretary. Is this amnesty? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. No, in my judgment. 

Mr. KEATING. Not legally, and is it even functionally amnesty? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The current situation amounts to amnesty. 

We want people to be accountable, to come out of the shadows, get 

on the books, and pay taxes for the 3-year period of deferred action. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I have another question. Does this represent a permanent solution, this Executive Action, in your opinion? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. 

Let me say again, I would welcome the opportunity to work with 

the Members of this committee who I know are interested in immigration reform on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, since I 

have been in office, we have not had a willing partner in the House 

of Representatives. 

But I continue to want to work with Members of this committee 

and Members of the House and Members of the Congress on a comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. Because you are 

correct; this is not a permanent solution. But it is in our existing 

legal authority to issue to fix the broken system, and we feel that 

we had no choice. 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Secretary, General Barry McCaffrey served as 

a witness during a border-security hearing before this committee in 

the last Congress, and he unequivocally said that the lack of comprehensive immigration reform is a direct threat to our National 

security. 

Would you comment on that, please? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Part of comprehensive immigration reform 

that was passed by the Senate enhanced border security—more resources, more technology, more surveillance. I support that, and I 

agree with that. I am hoping that the Congress will act on our 

pending request for added border security on the Southwest Border 

in response to last summer’s spike. 
23 

Border security is integral to National security. So I agree with 

that, sir. 

Mr. KEATING. Okay. 

I know that there are some limitations on what you can say, and 

most of the Members of this committee have been briefed in a Classified manner on this issue. But can you enlighten us and the 

members of the public, too, as to some of the means that have been 

implemented in terms of border security, particularly use of satellites to a greater extent and use of military assets that we have 

that we no longer need that can be surplussed and used on the border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. When I go down to the border, the Southern 

Border, and I talk to our Border Patrol about what they need, they 

almost always tell me more vehicles, more surveillance, more technology. 

We are moving in the direction of a risk-based strategy to border 

security, homeland security, aviation security, because we now 

have the capability to surveil high-risk areas of the border. So we 

need to continue in that direction. We need more technology. That 

includes aerial surveillance as well as mobile surveillance on the 

ground and a number of other things. 

We have made considerable investments, Congressman, over the 

last 15 years, which has shown some good results, but I believe 

that we can do better and we should continue to do better in this 

regard. 

Mr. KEATING. I am disappointed we do not have a vote in the 

House at this stage on the Senate bill or a bill like that. 

But let me ask you another question, my last question. That is, 

there was some discussion by Members that asked you questions 

in terms of your ability to send people back. Can you be clear about 

your fiscal resources to do that right now, what you are capable of? 

Are you capable of sending everyone back? 

If we are really serious about this, how much do we need to fund 

your agency so that we can do what the Members of this committee 

are asking you to do? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the answer to that question is reflected 

in our current budget request. 

Let me say this. I know that there are some contemplating some 

form of short-term CR for the Department of Homeland Security to 

get us to March. That is, in my judgment, a very bad idea for 

Homeland Security, because during that period of a CR we cannot 

engage in new starts. We have some Homeland Security priorities 

that need to be funded now. 

For example, we are back in a Presidential election cycle. I cannot hire new Secret Service agents until I get an appropriations bill 

passed by this Congress, not another CR for a couple of months. 

I cannot continue to fund our enhanced detention capability in 

Texas with another CR that gets me to March. 

I need the help of Congress to support and build upon border security, which I believe all of you support. So I am urging that we 

act on our current appropriations request now for the purpose and 

for the sake of border security and homeland security. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for those direct answers. 
24 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mrs. Miller from 

Michigan. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your attendance here 

this morning. 

Obviously, there is a huge divide, certainly in Congress and I 

think out there in the heartland as well, about whether or not this 

is a Constitutional overreach by the President. 

Just listening to your testimony and I read through your testimony last night and hearing the answers to some of the questions, 

you obviously had a very heavy, heavy, heavy reliance on the 

OLC’s opinion, their 33-page opinion that they issued in here 

through Mr. Holder’s Department of Justice. 

I wrote a note when you said that they were very, very thorough, 

but yet it seems to me that the questions that you did ask them 

were specifically tailored. The three questions that you asked the 

OLC were very specific in nature. Perhaps there were some questions that you could have asked that you did not. 

But I would just—could you tell us the process in which you actually asked these three specific questions of the OLC? Because I 

see some of the States are going to be suing. I am sure this is going 

to be a question that is probably determined by the courts, and 

your department had such a heavy reliance on them. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I know from my days at the Department of Defense, and now, that the way we typically work with 

OLC is to put to them specific questions. Do we have the authority 

to do X? Do we have the authority to target XYZ military objective, 

for example? So we developed the two or three most significant 

questions that would be part of this Executive Action package to 

be put to OLC for them to consider. They came back with this very 

thorough opinion. I will say that, as a lawyer myself, and as someone who has been a lawyer for a Government agency, I am fully 

comfortable with what is in here because I know that at the end 

of the day I am going to have to be the one here to defend it. 

Mrs. MILLER. Well, if I could, in 2012, when this administration 

created the DACA policy, there is nothing that we could find of any 

opinion from the OLC regarding that. It just would seem to be sort 

of a glaring oversight from there. Is there such a memo? If there 

is such a memo, I guess we would like to see that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can only speak to 2014, and we wanted to 

be thorough, so—— 

Mrs. MILLER. But certainly as you were looking at this you would 

have asked OLC, was there ever a memo in regards to DACA? You 

never asked that question? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not aware of one. Based on everything 

I have asked and been told, I am not aware of one. I have not seen 

one. I wanted to be thorough this time around, though. 

Mrs. MILLER. Yeah. We think there was a glaring omission about 

that as well. Again, in regards to the OLC, and this will be determined in the courts, I think, since, I mean, I certainly believe this 

was a Constitutional overreach by this administration. As I say, it 

appears that some of the States are going to court on that. 
25 

I was also taking notes here, Secretary, as you mentioned about 

the fees, a $460 fee. I did some quick math, it is probably not right, 

but times 4 million, $1.84 billion. I am just wondering because, 

again, the OLC is saying you need to do it, guarantee it in an individualized case-by-case review, is what they are saying. So some of 

the questions even this morning were talking about the limited 

amount of resources that you have. 

So you are going to do 4 million case-by-case reviews. How in the 

world are you going to pay for this? I mean, really, is that going 

to be enough? I mean, right now you have a couple of dozen field 

stations. I am not quite sure of the mechanics of actually doing a 

case-by-case review. I think that will be such an important, critical 

component for the Department so that you are not just doing a 

free-for-all and just rubber stamping and really taking a look at all 

of this. So how do you envision that all unfolding as you do a caseby-case review of over 4 million individuals? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we have an implementation period, a 

start-up time of 6 months. DACA was 60 days. We determined that 

for this one we needed 6 months to make sure that we get it right. 

We know from the DACA experience that the program, if the fee 

is set at the right level, will pay for itself. So the fee for DACA was 

$460 per applicant, and that is the same fee that we will be charging here. 

With regard to the number 4 million, let me say this: 4.1 million 

is the estimated potential class of those who would be eligible. Not 

all of those will come forward, as the DACA experience shows. The 

estimated potential class of DACA kids is over a million, but the 

number of those who are actually enrolled is somewhere about 

600,000 or 700,000. Then of those who come forward, some will not 

qualify because they didn’t survive the background check or for 

some other reason; they didn’t establish proof of living here for 5 

years. So the number 4.1 is the estimate of the total potential class, 

but not all of those will be enrolled in the program. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much. I think my time has expired 

here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. 

The Chairman recognizes Mr. Barber from Arizona. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I want to 

start by just saying how much I appreciate, and I think I am joined 

by other Members on both sides of the aisle of this committee, how 

much I appreciate the forthrightness with which you approach the 

questions and the concerns that we have and the leadership you 

have provided to the Department over almost the last year. 

As you know, Mr. Secretary, you visited my district within a 

month of your appointment, your confirmation, and you saw firsthand and you heard first-hand from people who live along the border, work along the border, what their main issue is. They are concerned about people coming here illegally seeking work, but they 

are even more concerned about the traffic of drug smugglers and 

the potential violence that comes with them. 
26 

That is one of the reasons I cosponsored, along with many Members of this committee, the Border Security Results Act, which 

passed unanimously here—it is important to stress unanimously in 

this committee—and has yet to be brought to the floor. I also cosponsored with almost 200 other Members H.R. 15, a bipartisan 

bill that would include the Border Security Results Act and the immigration provisions of the Senate bill which bipartisan passed the 

Senate. 

I have said from Day 1 that Congress needs to act, and we have 

failed in our responsibility to act to secure the border and to fix the 

broken immigration system. Because of that failure, unfortunately 

Executive Action has been taken. I believe it should be done in concert with Congress, but we have failed on our side of the bargain. 

I fully support the McCain-Flake bill which is sitting there ready 

for us to take up. 

Could you, Mr. Secretary, initially my first question is, could you 

address how the Executive Action comports with the McCain-Flake 

bill, particularly as it regards both border security and immigration? I know it is not comprehensive, it can’t be. But to what extent 

was that bill a template for action that can be taken and must be 

taken to secure the border and to fix the system? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the Executive Actions that we have 

taken are no substitute for S. 744, which does a number of things, 

including an earned path to citizenship. That is what is contemplated in the bill. We do not have Executive authority to provide an earned path to citizenship. We do have Executive authority 

to provide deferred action for those who have been here for years, 

similar to the bill, who have not committed any crimes and who 

have basically become integrated members of the American society, 

to offer them the opportunity to be accountable. That is not citizenship. That is not lawful permanent residence. It is simply you are 

deemed lawfully present in the country for a period of time. 

We also are, through Executive Actions, enhancing border security in a number of ways. But, again, border security is something 

that is not cost-free. So we have reprioritized recent illegal entrants, which we plainly have the authority to do, but I need help 

with resources. I need help on the Southern Border in Arizona, in 

Texas, New Mexico, for added detention capability, added surveillance capability, added vehicles, added equipment, and I am hoping 

the Congress will support me on that. 

I received your letter about the Eastern Border along Arizona, 

and I plan to, if you will have me, come back early next year to 

Arizona. I owe the ranchers another visit. I want to come back to 

Arizona now with the benefit of a year’s experience in the job to 

talk more about border security and see what we can do. 

Mr. BARBER. I appreciate your willingness to come back and look 

forward to having you there. 

Let me just focus in my remaining time on the issue of border 

security. I think the answers, from my experience, having worked 

on this issue for Congresswoman Giffords and in my own right, is 

pretty straightforward: Border Patrol Agents at the border, not 10, 

15, 20 miles back under the defense-in-depth strategy, which I 

think has failed in that area; more horse patrols in the rugged territory; aerostats that will allow us to have radar looking down into 
27 

the mountains to see where the smugglers are coming from; more 

mobile surveillance systems at the border. I hope that your task 

force that you have established, the western task force, will look at 

these strategic options and include stakeholders, such as ranchers, 

business people, residents of the communities there, as well as others, to make sure we get it right going forward. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, I can affirm for you, when I 

talk to the Border Patrol myself the one thing they mention always, aerostats. So I believe that is a border security priority. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman 

from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

hearing. 

It comes as no surprise that I disagree with the President and 

what he has done with this Executive Action. It is not as much the 

issue of immigration and dealing with undocumented workers as it 

is what he actually did. I think he crossed a line with the Constitutional separation of powers. But I hear a lot of doublespeak in his 

speech and in the words that I have heard today. I will give you 

an example. The President said in his November 20 speech about 

this unconstitutional Executive Action that, ‘‘Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be 

held accountable.’’ That is directly from his speech. ‘‘Felons, not 

families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who 

is working hard to provide for her kids. We will prioritize, just like 

law enforcement does every day.’’ 

But in The Hill publication, May 2014, it documented that DHS 

released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. ‘‘Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year released 

68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions.’’ That comes 

from an end-of-year ‘‘Weekly Departures and Detentions Report.’’ 

How do you reconcile, Mr. Secretary, what the President said with 

the actions of the agency? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, with regard to those who are released 

from immigration detention, this is something I have worked on 

myself. First of all, there is a Supreme Court case, Zadvydas v. 

Davis, which you may have heard of, which mandates that after 6 

months if the person is not going to be repatriated in the foreseeable future, we have to let them go unless—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. So why aren’t we repatriating these people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that is something that requires a willing partner on the other end, which I have had conversations with 

the State Department about to further encourage countries to take 

these people back faster. But if I may—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. We had a hearing in the Foreign Affairs Committee 

about that last week, and countries should take these. I mean, they 

are required to take these back. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. If I could finish my sentence, yes, thank you. 

So a number of releases are mandated by law and Supreme Court 

jurisprudence. A number of releases are ordered by an immigration 

judge. 
28 

With regard to the instances where an immigration official who 

works for me releases somebody with a criminal record, what I 

have recently directed is that the approval for that be at a higher 

level of the ICE field officer. I want to know that we are applying 

a consistent standard to those circumstances because they may 

jeopardize public safety. I have also directed that a person should 

not be released because of reasons for fiscal constraint, which is 

what we faced when we had sequestration in fiscal year 2013. We 

will find a way to pay for it if we believe somebody should not be 

released for reasons of public safety. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think some reports came out, Mr. Secretary, that 

sequestration really had nothing to do with the release of folks last 

year. I could go back and find the documents. 

Let me ask you this. At the end of the year of 2014, how many 

criminal aliens have been released? What will your year-end 

‘‘Weekly Departures and Detention Report’’ show for 2014? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe it is less than fiscal year 2013. Fiscal year 2013, I believe, was 36,000. I think the number for fiscal 

year 2030 will be about 30,000, and I think it should be lower. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So about 30,000, plus or minus, criminal aliens 

have been released? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Pursuant to legal requirements, orders of a 

judge, I believe it should be lower, which is why I have enhanced 

the approval authority. I have raised the approval authority for 

that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think one of the biggest problems with getting 

any kind of immigration issues passed through the United States 

Congress is a lack of trust of the American people in the administration to enforce the laws. They have told me, and I know my colleagues have heard it on both sides of the aisle, why would you 

pass another law when the administration fails to enforce the current laws that are on the books? Why pass another one that is not 

going to be enforced either? 

Then you hear about 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that have 

been released, that further erodes the trust of the American people. 

The American people want to see border security. They want to see 

deportations. They want to see enforcement of the law. When they 

see that 50 percent, 50 percent, 49 percent I will give you that, of 

the illegals in this country are visa overstays, these are people that 

we are not chasing a footprint in the desert. We know who they 

are. We have got their name. They have had an interview at a consulate or an embassy. They came here on a visa. We know who 

they are. That is low-hanging fruit for enforcement. 

So I ask you this: How many of the visa overstays are granted 

immunity through the President’s action? Any? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Off-hand I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that. Congressman, I will say this, though. I would like to 

see this Congress pass a bill. I would like to work with Congress 

on passing a bill. The President has said that would be his preference. The problem is we have no partner in Congress. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think Congress can pass a bill when the American people start regaining trust in the administration to actually 

do their job and enforce the laws that are already on the books. I 

yield back. 
29 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman recognizes Mr. O’Rourke from 

Texas. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to begin by thanking you for your accountability. You mentioned that you have been before Congress 13 

times in the 12 months you have been here, 5 times before this 

committee. Your responsiveness to our requests and our questions 

and your commitment to transparency, I think there is a long way 

to go still within the Department, but in the last 12 months we 

have seen more transparency than we have seen in years, and so 

I really appreciate that. 

Through you I want to thank the President for this very difficult 

decision that he made, a very imperfect decision by its very nature, 

a temporary way to address some of the fundamental problems 

that require a legislative response. But I think the status quo is 

untenable. As you and others have said, it amounted to effective 

amnesty, and we are going to gain some accountability, and we are 

going to bring families and people who are working in our communities out of the shadows. 

In a community like mine, El Paso, where 25 percent of the population are immigrants, more than 40 percent of the kids who live 

in my community are raised by parents who are immigrants, this 

is going to be a boon. It is going to make us more secure, a city 

that is already the safest city in America today, and I tell people 

not in spite of the number of immigrants who there, but in large 

part because of them. So on behalf of the people I represent, I want 

to thank you and I want to thank the President. 

I do, however, want to address an issue that Congressmen Smith 

and Duncan brought up, and that is the release of convicted criminals. Senator Cornyn and I wrote a letter to ICE and have yet to 

receive a response, almost a month ago, with important questions 

about the status of those who have been released, where they are, 

how we improve our working with local law enforcement so that 

our police and sheriff’s departments know when these criminals are 

released and are able to track them and account for them. So I 

would just appreciate your commitment to getting me and Senator 

Cornyn a response to that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. One of the things I have directed when it 

comes to releases of those with criminal records is that we notify 

local law enforcement when that happens. I think that should be 

done. I will personally look for your letter, from you and Senator 

Cornyn, and make sure it is responded to promptly if it hasn’t been 

already. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. But I will look to make sure. We have a general rule of responding within 14 days to Members of Congress. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Secretary, I would like to make a point and 

try to turn it into a question about the President’s response to our 

immigration system thus far. I feel like there has been this implicit 

political bargain where there is going to be stepped-up enforcement 

and deportations. I believe this President has deported more people 

from this country than any President prior, 2 million at this point, 

and unfortunately in many cases that is breaking up families, 

which this current action I think will help reduce. I think the bar-
30 

gain was that in return we were going to be able to gain the trust 

of both parties in Congress and be able to pass meaningful immigration reform. That obviously has not happened. 

So I am concerned about some comments that you have made 

and the President has made about stepping up border security, 

about prioritizing the deportation of recent arrivals. I spent some 

time in Artesia, the family detention center there, which really has 

effectively become a deportation machine. I think we are short-cutting due process, and I think we threaten to return families and 

have returned families and children into some very dangerous situations. Certainly there are those who should be deported, but certainly there are those who qualify for asylum in our country, and 

I think we need to honor that process. So when you mentioned the 

facility in Dilley, Texas, I want to make sure in our effort to satisfy 

security concerns we don’t shorten due process for those. 

Then when it comes to border security, you and others have said the border has never been more secure. We are spending $18 billion a year, 20,000 Border Patrol Agents. In the El Paso Sector, the 

average agent apprehends 4.5 people a year, not in a week, not in 

a month, but for the entire year. So when we talk about stepping 

up border enforcement and this Southern Border Campaign Strategy, I would like to know what that means for my community. Is 

that simply repositioning resources along the border, as my colleague Congressman Barber said, moving the Border Patrol up to 

the line of the border instead of being set back, or are you asking 

for ultimately more Border Patrol Agents, more walls, more of 

these militarization measures, which I think show us that we have 

a problem with diminishing returns right now. You mentioned 1.6 

million apprehended in 2000, not even 500,000 this year. At what 

point do we have enough security on the border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, I have been to Artesia myself. 

That facility there, it is being closed. I want to make sure that we 

have adequate ability for effective attorney-client communications. 

We made some enhancements there, but it is being closed in lieu 

of a larger facility in Dilley, Texas, as I mentioned earlier. I want 

to make sure that the conditions of detention there are adequate 

and meet the appropriate standards. 

I believe that added detention capability on the Southern Border, 

and some disagree with me, is essential to border security, and it 

is essential to border security going forward in the future. It is correct that apprehensions are way down from where they were 15 

years ago, resources are way up. But I believe we can do better. 

So I am not going to sit here and declare we have a secure border. 

We can do better. I think we know how to do better. The Congress 

and the Executive branch together can spend the time and effort 

to do better on border security. We have made great strides, but 

there is more to do. 

Our Southern Border campaign plan is not simply repositioning 

assets. It is to bring a more strategic, consolidated approach toward 

how we secure our border, bringing to bear the assets across my 

Department, not in a stovepipe fashion, but in a more coordinated 

way, region by region, so that there is one person in the Southwest 

who is responsible for bringing to bear all of the assets of my Department on border security in Arizona, New Mexico, and in Texas. 
31 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chairman now recognizes the incoming Chairman of Government Reform and Oversight. Congratulations. Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I thank the Chairman for holding this 

hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here. I hope you are able 

to convey the love and gratitude for the men and women who serve 

in the Customs and Border Patrol, the ICE Agents who put their 

lives on the line every day for this country. We thank them for 

their service. 

My question for you, Mr. Secretary, is: What do you say to someone who believes the President took action to change the law? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We did not change the law. We acted within 

the law. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can you play the clip? 

This is from November 25. This is the President in Nevada talking about this. 

[Video shown. President Obama: ‘‘But what you are not paying 

attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the 

law.’’] 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you say he didn’t change the law, but the 

President says he changed the law. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We acted within existing law. We acted 

within our existing legal authority. Listen, I have been a lawyer 30 

years. Somebody plays me an eight-word excerpt from a broader 

speech, I know to be suspicious. Okay? That was very nice. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It says, I am going to read it back, ‘‘Now, you are 

absolutely right that there have been a significant number of deportations. That is true. But what you are not paying attention to 

is the fact I just took action to change the law.’’’ So that is point 

No. 1. 

Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works, and he goes 

on. He is pretty clear, and he is the President of the United States. 

This is why we have a hard time believing that Homeland Security 

is doing the right thing. I think the gentleman from South Carolina 

made a very good point. 

Let me move to something else real quickly. You and I had an 

interaction the last time you were here about these four people 

with ties to a terrorist organization were caught illegally crossing 

the border into Texas in September. You said they would be deported. Did you deport them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, not at this point. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What is the disposition of those four people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Two are detained. The two others were released by the judge. Not my preference. They were released by the 

judge, and they fled to Canada, and they are seeking asylum in 

Canada. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you told the world that you were going to deport these four people with ties to a terrorist organization. That is 

not what happened. Two of them were released—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. They are in deportation proceedings. An immigration judge released two of the four, and they fled to Canada. 

My intent is that they be deported, but two of them are in Canada 

seeking asylum. 
32 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Where did these two, where were they anticipated 

going, and where did they actually go? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure of their exact whereabouts, 

sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But they are currently being held in Canada? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is my understanding. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Are you going to ask that they be brought back 

to the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t generally get involved in individual 

immigration cases. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But these people had ties to a terrorist organization. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think, as we talked about this last time, 

there is some question about whether their affiliation is with what 

one should consider a terrorist organization. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It is a terrorist organization designated by the 

State Department, correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. They are or were a member of the Kurdish 

Workers Party. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That is designated by the State Department as a 

terrorist organization, correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I refer you to the State Department. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That is the accurate statement. 

Mr. Secretary, this is the problem, you come and you say, you 

tell the world that you are going to deport these four people tied 

to terror. These are terrorists. You don’t. They get released. My understanding is they go to Arizona. They go to the State of Washington. They cross illegally into Canada. They each put up $25,000 

bonds. Doesn’t that beg a lot of questions about what you are doing 

in deporting criminals? These people have terrorist ties. 

I am getting tired of the Democrats with this righteous indignation saying that we can’t find a Congress we can work with. Well, 

the first 2 years of the Obama administration the Democrats had 

the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and they did nothing 

on immigration. I sat on the subcommittee. They brought Stephen 

Colbert in to testify. That is how bad it was. 

The country made a change. We actually passed an immigration 

bill. It was my bill. Nearly 390 people voted for it. It is as bipartisan as it gets. Worked on high-skilled immigrants. Dealt with 

family-based visas. Took the per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 

percent. It went to the United States Senate under Harry Reid. It 

had nothing happen to it. Nothing. 

So I want to continue to work with this administration. There is 

common ground that can be had. But the President and the record 

is clear. When they had the chance with the House, the Senate, 

and the Presidency, they didn’t even introduce a bill into the committee, let alone bring it through the process. 

I appreciate the time. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Vela. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I offer something into the 

record? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. The gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are three 

articles or letters or statements emphasizing the approach of the 
33 

1Memorandum from Secretary Jeh Johnson, ‘‘Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and 

Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,’’ Nov. 20, 2014, http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/ 

files/publications/14l1120lmemolprosecutorialldiscretion.pdf. 2Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Global Burden of Armed Violence 

2011, Oct. 2011, http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/GBAV2/GBAV2011lCH4lrev.pdf. 

President in deporting felons and not families. One is from the National Immigrant Justice Center, dated December 2, 2014; from the 

American Immigration Lawyers Association, dated December 2, 

2014; and from the Southern Border Communities Coalition and 

the ACLU, dated December 2, 2014. I ask unanimous consent to 

submit these statements into the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MARY MEG MCCARTHY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL IMMIGRANT

JUSTICE CENTER

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the Committee 

on Homeland Security: Drawing upon our vast experience working with children 

and families from Mexico and Central America, Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) submits this testimony to demonstrate that the reason 

families and children are coming to the United States is to escape violence and is 

not related to the President’s Executive Action. Pervasive violence and the absence 

of the rule of law in Central America drive migrants to the United States in search 

of safe haven. 

While the President’s Executive Action will provide security to millions of families 

with deep roots in the United States, unfortunately it puts those fleeing recent violence in Central America at greater risk. NIJC welcomes President Obama’s recent 

announcement to expand eligibility for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA) program and to extend eligibility for deferred action to parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to allow them to contribute to our communities 

and economy. This temporary relief should allow the administration to refocus immigration enforcement on those who pose a National security threat or risk to public 

safety,1 not those who come to our borders seeking refuge. 

This testimony will discuss lessons learned from the arrivals of children and families from Central America during 2014, including the root causes of migration, the 

need for greater due process protections, and the need for improved accountability 

and oversight of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) border screening 

process. 

NIJC is an NGO dedicated to safeguarding the rights of noncitizens. With offices 

in Chicago, Indiana, and Washington, DC, NIJC advocates for immigrants, refugees, 

asylum seekers, and survivors of human trafficking through direct legal representation, policy reform, impact litigation, and public education. NIJC and its network 

of 1,500 pro bono attorneys provide legal representation to approximately 10,000 

noncitizens annually, including thousands of unaccompanied children. NIJC is the 

largest legal service provider for unaccompanied children detained in Illinois, conducting weekly legal screenings and legal rights presentations, which provide an 

overview of the child’s legal rights and responsibilities in the immigration system, 

at nine Chicago-area shelters. Through our direct legal services, we have heard of 

the horrors that force children to leave their parents behind and make treacherous 

journeys in hope of finding refuge in the United States. 

I. VIOLENCE FORCES CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TO FLEE CENTRAL AMERICA

Growing violence and danger in home countries is the primary reason children 

and families are fleeing their countries and seeking safety in the United States. The 

majority of these new arrivals are from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, are among the most dangerous countries in the 

world, particularly for women and children. In 2011, El Salvador had the highest 

rate of gender-motivated killing of women in the world, followed by Guatemala 

(third-highest) and Honduras (sixth-highest).2 In addition, children in these coun-
34 

3See e.g., Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)/Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), 

A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System, http:// 

www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf; U.S. 

Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Mission to Central America: The Flight of Unaccompanied Children to the United States, 2014, http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/ 

upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf; Women’s Refugee Commission, Forced from 

Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America, 2012, http://womensrefugeecommission.org/ 

forced-from-home-press-kit; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children 

on the Run, 2014, http://www.unhcrwashington.org/children/reports. 4 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Hidden in Plain Sight: 

A statistical analysis of violence against children, Sept. 2014, http://files.unicef.org/ 

publications/files/HiddenlinlplainlsightlstatisticallanalysislENl3lSeptl2014.pdf, p. 

36. 5 Id. 

6 Chavez, S. & Avalos, J., The Northern Triangle: The Countries That Don’t Cry for Their 

Dead, INSIGHT CRIME—ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE AMERICAS, April 2014, http:// 

www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/the-northern-triangle-the-countries-that-dont-cry-for-theirdead. 7 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Global Study on Homicide, 2013, 

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014lGLOBALlHOMICIDElBOOKlweb.pdf. 8 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Mission to Central America: The Flight of Unaccompanied Children in the United States, p. 4, November 2013, http://www.usccb.org/about/ 

migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf. 9See Tom K. Wong, Statistical Analysis Shows that Violence, Not Deferred Action, Is Behind 

the Surge of Unaccompanied Children Crossing the Border, CENTER FOR AMERICAN 

PROGRESS, 2014, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2014/07/08/ 

93370/statistical-analysis-shows-that-violence-not-deferred-action-is-behind-the-surge-of-unaccompanied-children-crossing-the-border. 10 Id. 11 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals (DACA), October 2014, http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca; Memo from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, Nov. 20, 2014, Exercising 

Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 

tries face pervasive violence, persecution, and abuse.3 El Salvador led the world in 

child murders in 2012 with 27 children murdered per 100,000 population.4 Overall, 

the region has the highest rate of child homicides in the world.5

‘‘One of those children is Alex, a 13-year-old boy and NIJC client who was murdered 

for refusing to join a gang in Guatemala. A year after his murder, his friend Oscar 

(pseudonym) fled to the United States to escape gang violence. For the past two 

years, the same gang that killed Alex had been threatening to kill Oscar if he did 

not join the gang. Initially, the gang tried to force Oscar to do things he did not 

want to do, like use drugs. As time went on, their efforts to force Oscar to join the 

gang escalated, but Oscar could not go to the police for help because the gang 

threatened to kill his family. Oscar decided to leave after a friend told him that the 

gang had set a date and time to kill him. He came to the United States to seek 

refuge with his father, who has lived in the United States for nearly 10 years.’’ 

Oscar is one of many children targeted by gangs who cannot obtain police protection because violence in these countries is perpetrated with impunity. For instance, 

over the past 3 years, 48,947 people were murdered in the Northern Triangle, where 

the total population is just over 30 million inhabitants. Countries achieved convictions in 2,295 of those homicide cases, representing a regional impunity rate of 95 

percent for homicides over that 3-year period.6 In 2012, Honduras had the highest 

homicide rate in the world with 90.4 homicides per 100,000, El Salvador had the 

fourth-highest homicide rate with 41.2 homicides per 100,000, and Guatemala had 

the fifth-highest homicide rate with 40 homicides per 100,000.7 Alliances between 

drug-trafficking organizations and local gangs have increased the efficiency and frequency of violence in this region.8 The DHS’s own statistical analysis has shown 

that children and families are fleeing the countries in Latin American with the 

highest rates of homicides and the most dangerous security conditions.9 Additionally, impoverished Latin American countries with lower rates of violence and homicide, such as Nicaragua, are not sending large numbers of children.10

II. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FLEEING VIOLENCE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE

PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ACTION

Central American migration patterns are not tied to U.S. immigration policy making. The relief provided by DACA is unavailable to anyone who has entered the 

United States since January 1, 2010. The qualifications for DACA, whether under 

the 2012 directive or the more recent November 20, 2014 announcement, require 

continuous residence in the United States for at least 5 years.11 Historic trends fur-
35 

and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents, http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14l1120lmemoldeferredlac- tion.pdf. 12See Alfaro Garcia et al. v. Johnson et al., No. 14–cv–01775, slip op at 18 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

21, 2014) (denying Government’s motion to dismiss and granting class certification). 13 UNHCR, Unaccompanied Minors: Humanitarian Situation at U.S. Border http:// 

www.unhcrwashington.org/children. 14See Complaint to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and Inspector General, Re: Systemic Abuse of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, June 11, http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/ 

immigrantjustice.org/files/FINAL%20DHS%20Complaint%20re%20CBP%20Abuse%20of%20- 

UICs%202014%2006%2011.pdf. 15 Id. at pp. 8–9. 16See Complaint to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and Inspector General, Re: Inadequate U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

screening practices block individuals fleeing persecution from access to the asylum process, Nov. 

13, 2014, http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/FINAL%20DHS- 

%20Complaint%20re%20CBP%20Abuse%200f%20UICs%202014%2006%2011.pdf. 

ther corroborate this argument. The increase in child migration to the United States 

began in October 2011, more than 6 months prior to President Obama’s announcement of the DACA program. Furthermore, a recent Federal court decision cited a 

steady increase over the past 8 years in the number of individuals with prior removal orders expressing a fear of persecution.12

If a perceived change in immigration policy was fueling the current migration, 

there would be comparable numbers of immigrant children from other regional 

countries besides El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but this has not been the 

case. In addition, the United States is not the only country seeing an increase in 

refugees from these three countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees (UNHCR) has documented a 712 percent increase in the number of asylum 

applications from Salvadoran, Honduran, and Guatemalan citizens to Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize from 2008 to 2013.13 These numbers demonstrate that the current crisis is a regional problem caused by country conditions 

in the sending countries, rather than a perceived change in immigration policies in 

the United States. 

III. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION NEEDS GREATER OVERSIGHT AND

ACCOUNTABILITY

NIJC and its partners have documented reports of abuses by Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) for years, most recently in two civil rights complaints on abuse of 

children in CBP custody and the unjust deportation ofindividuals with fear of persecution in their home countries. These complaints demonstrate the need for greater 

oversight and accountability of CBP. 

In June of 2014, NIJC and several partner organizations filed a mass complaint 

on behalf of 116 children who were abused and mistreated while in CBP custody.14

The complaint documents how CBP agents verbally and physically abused children 

in custody, denied access to necessary medical care to children as young as 5 

months old, confiscated and withheld legal documents and personal belongs, and 

strip-searched and shackled children in three-point restraints during transport. 

‘‘D.G. is a 16-year-old girl who fled to the United States from Central America. 

Shortly after CBP arrested her, officials mocked her and asked her why she did not 

ask the Mexicans for help. When they searched her, officials violently spread her 

legs and touched her genital areas forcefully, making her scream. D.G. was detained 

with both children and adults. She describes the holding cell as ice-cold and filthy, 

and says the bright fluorescent lights were left on all day and night. D.G. became 

ill while in CBP custody, but when she asked to see a doctor, officials told her it 

was ‘‘not their fault’’ that she was sick and ignored her. CBP officials did not return 

all of D.G.’s personal belongings when she was released.’’15

D.G. is one of many children whose abuse was documented in NIJC’s complaint. 

These types of abuses occurred in clear violation of standards on the treatment of 

children and American values. The volume and consistency of the complaints overall 

indicates long-standing, systemic problems with CBP policy and practices that require increased training on working with children and improved oversight by independent entities. 

In addition, NIJC and nine other organizations recently filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of nine men and women who were unjustly deported by CBP Officers to countries where they faced persecution.16 Under the 1951 Convention Relat-
36 

17 ‘‘No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever 

to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his 

race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’’ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees [hereinafter ‘‘Refugee Convention’’], art. 33–1, 189 UNTS 

150. 18 Although the United States did not sign the Convention, the Protocol includes by reference 

the rights and duties set forth in the Convention. Refugee Protocol art. 2 (‘‘The States Parties 

to the present Protocol undertake to apply Articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the Convention to Refugees as hereinafter defined.’’) The Protocol expanded these rights and duties to all refugees, 

whereas the Convention only applied to those displaced by the Second World War and its aftermath. Hereinafter, this statement cites to specific articles of the Convention when discussing 

the Protocol. 19 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 433 (1987) (citing the abundant evidence of an intent 

to conform the definition of ‘‘refugee’’ and our asylum law to the United Nation’s Protocol to 

which the United States has been bound since 1968). 20Supra note 16 at page 18. 21 Bekiempis, Victoria, ‘‘Is U.S. Customs and Border Protection Kicking Out Refugees?’’ Newsweek, Nov. 15, 2014, http://www.newsweek.com/us-custom-sand-border-protection-kicking-outrefugees-284433. 

ing to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) and the 1967 Protocol Relating 

to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Protocol), the United States is required to recognize as refugees anyone with a ‘‘well-founded fear’’ of persecution in their home 

countries, to accord refugees certain legal rights, and to refrain from returning them 

to countries where their safety would be threatened.17 The United States ratified 

the Refugee Protocol 18 and in 1980, the United States enacted the Refugee Act to 

ensure compliance.19 These obligations were also codified into the CBP Field Inspector’s Manual. Despite this, NIJC and its partners across the country see many individuals who are either denied a chance to express fear of return or are ignored, and 

consequently sent back to places where their lives are threatened. 

‘‘R.S.C. is a woman from Guatemala who sought protection in the United States due 

to repeated persecution on account of her status as an indigenous woman. R.S.C. 

was harassed, abused, and raped on four occasions before fleeing her country for the 

first time in January 2014. She was deported twice from the United States and consequently suffered additional persecution in Guatemala. The first time she came to 

the United States, she tried to express her fear of return, but Border Patrol agents 

told her, ‘Don’t talk. These are all lies. Stop speaking... All Guatemalans are 

telling the same lies.’ Upon her return to Guatemala, she was drugged, raped, and 

impregnated.20 She returned to the United States in April 2014 seeking safety, and 

was again denied an opportunity to express her fear of return and was deported 

within days. She came to the United States for a third time with her 8-year-old son 

in July 2014, and they were placed in detention at the Artesia Family Residential 

Center in Artesia, New Mexico. Because CBP previously deported R.S.C., she is legally barred from applying for asylum and can only seek ‘withholding of removal,’ 

a much more limited form of protection with a higher burden of proof and no guarantee of permanency. Her son, however, is eligible to apply for asylum. As of the 

date of this writing, R.S.C. and her son remain detained while her removal proceedings are on-going.’’ 

R.S.C. is one of many who have been denied asylum protections due to inadequate 

screening by CBP Agents.21 In addition to the nine complainants in NIJC’s complaint, six legal service providers in Texas, California, and Arizona also provided 

statements showing that the complainants’ experiences are not isolated incidents, 

but symptoms of systemic failures that result in permanent and life-threatening 

harm to hundreds—potentially thousands—of asylum seekers. 

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recent immigration from the Northern Triangle of Central America has been driven by violence and persecution and without addressing root causes in countries of 

origin, the trend that will likely continue. The increase in recent arrivals at the border may appear correlated in time with the availability of immigration relief for others with long-standing ties in the United States, but no causation between new arrivals and Executive Actions has been credibly established. Based on its experience 

and expertise, NIJC makes four recommendations that urge DHS to focus its attention on improvements at the border that promote due process and respect for the 

dignity of asylum seekers, including unaccompanied immigrant children: 

(1) End family detention.—Because persecution is the main driver of migration 

for mothers and children from Central America, DHS should not use family detention as a deterrent nor signal that asylum seekers will be swiftly deported. 
37 

22See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4); CBP Inspector’s Field Manual, supra, 

note 36, at 113–14. 

Families should receive individualized custody determinations, particularly once 

they have established a credible fear of persecution, and be considered for alternatives to detention, including bond, release on recognizance or orders of supervision, and community-based alternatives. 

(2) Improve training of CBP Officers to ensure their understanding and compliance with existing law and procedure—including directives in the agency’s own 

manual—with respect to the treatment of asylum seekers who are apprehended 

at the border or a point of entry.22

(3) Promote clear information domestically and abroad on the parameters of recent Executive Action on immigration.—Instead of seeking to deter asylum seekers from seeking safe haven in the United States, DHS should focus its effort 

on providing clear information through popular media in Spanish and indigenous languages, on the eligibility criteria for deferred action. 

(4) Ensure that children are treated fairly and humanely at the border.—CBP 

must ensure that children are not held in their custody for more than 72 hours 

(and ideally not more than 24 hours) and promulgate binding short-term detention standards that apply to those held in CBP facilities. 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is the National association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members. 

AILA has over 13,000 attorney and law professor members. 

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a package of reforms to the 

immigration system. AILA welcomes this plan which, for the most part, provides 

critically-needed changes to many aspects of our broken system. Almost 2 decades 

have passed since a major reform was enacted to the country’s immigration laws, 

and despite efforts in recent years, Congress has been unable to complete the task. 

Though the Senate passed a comprehensive bill in 2013, the House has not yet 

passed any bills, including a border security bill that was passed by the Homeland 

Security Committee. In the absence of legislation, it would be irresponsible for the 

President to wait and do nothing while American families, businesses, and communities languish under the current system. 

BORDER SECURITY

The President’s announcement calls for additional border security measures at a 

time when the border has never been more secure. In the past decade, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deployed unprecedented amounts of personnel, resources, and technology to secure the Nation’s borders. Last year, in our 

report ‘‘Border Security: Moving Beyond Past Benchmarks,’’ AILA urged lawmakers 

to stop the massive expenditure of resources on border security. AILA is disappointed that the President highlighted the plan in the 2013 Senate bill to add 

20,000 more Border Patrol but offered no explanation for such an incredible increase. Until DHS provides justification for the need for such resources, this request 

for a dramatic increase in border personnel appears to be an unnecessary and 

wasteful expenditure of taxpayer resources. 

AILA also opposes the planned surge in resources to the border that began this 

summer in response to the spike in families and unaccompanied children fleeing violence in the Northern Triangle in Central America. The surge included a massive 

expansion in family detention in gross violation of U.S. asylum and humanitarian 

law. It is undeniable that the violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador 

has reached crisis proportions. Through AILA’s volunteer project which provides 

legal representation for hundreds of families now detained in Artesia, NM, AILA 

has found that these families qualify for asylum at extremely high rates. Immigration judges have rendered decisions in 10 asylum cases where the mothers and children were represented by AILA attorneys, and in all 10 of those cases, the judges 

granted asylum. America is not confronted with a border security problem but a humanitarian crisis that affects the entire region. The crisis demands a humanitarian 

response not a deterrence-driven, border lockdown. 
38 

In the coming weeks and months, there will almost certainly be efforts to blame 

the continuing flow of unaccompanied minors and families fleeing violence in Central America on the President’s two newly-announced deferred action programs (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability). Such claims came during the summer despite the overwhelming evidence 

that what drove the surge in families and children to our country was the violence 

in those Central American countries. It is important to recognize that the United 

States has not seen large numbers of refugees from other extremely poor countries, 

such as Nicaragua, because Nicaragua has not experienced the same levels of uncontrollable violence. 

Finally, the President’s announcement, as of yet, includes nothing to address the 

grave and long-standing concerns about the lack of oversight and accountability of 

Border Patrol. Reports persist of Border Patrol abuses—including the excessive use 

of force resulting in civilian deaths at the border—deplorable detention conditions, 

racially-motivated arrests, coercive interrogation tactics, and the denial of access to 

asylum and the right to counsel. AILA recommends that the committee turn greater 

attention to these problems that are likely to grow more severe once DHS adds even 

more Border Patrol Agents to the Southern Border. 

AMNESTY AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

The President’s announcement has already engendered partisan debate and controversy. Many have alleged that his actions amount to a grant of amnesty. It is 

AILA’s judgment that the President has acted well within his legal authority and 

that the deferred action programs do not constitute an amnesty. Unlike the 1986 

amnesty President Reagan signed into law, deferred action does not confer formal 

legal status to the individual but merely a reprieve from immigration law enforcement, specifically deportation. Moreover the grant is temporary, so those granted 

the status could be at risk of deportation if the status expires. Finally, deferred action, by itself, does not provide a path to a green card or citizenship. 

The Executive branch’s authority to grant deferred action is derived from the Federal immigration statute and regulations as well as the long-standing principle of 

prosecutorial discretion used by every law enforcement agency. It is common practice for law enforcement agencies and their individual officers to decide how and to 

what extent to pursue a particular case based on established priorities. A law enforcement officer who declines to pursue a case against a person has favorably exercised prosecutorial discretion. In a 1999 letter, 28 Republican and Democratic Members of Congress (including the Chair of the Judiciary committee at that time, 

Lamar Smith) called for prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement: ‘‘The 

principle of the prosecutorial discretion is well-established.’’ 

Prosecutorial discretion ensures the smart use of finite enforcement resources. 

DHS cannot possibly deport everyone who is living unauthorized in the United 

States. Such a mass deportation is not only completely unrealistic but also an unwise policy choice as it would gravely fracture American society, negatively impact 

businesses, and hurt the economy. For these very reasons, Republican and Democratic leaders have spoken against the idea of deporting over 11 million undocumented immigrants. DHS and every other enforcement agency must choose priorities. Keeping America safe by focusing on those who present real threats to our National security and public safety is the right focus. 

In the past 50 years, Republican and Democratic presidents have designated various groups of people for temporary relief from immigration enforcement by granting 

deferred action or using a similar tool. In 1990, President Bush provided blanket 

protection from deportation for up to 1.5 million unauthorized spouses and children 

of immigrants, about 40 percent of the total unauthorized population at the time. 

Other Presidents have provided temporary protection to victims of domestic violence, the family members of military service members, widows and widowers, as 

well as people from specific countries or regions such as Cuba, Haiti, Southeast 

Asia, or the Persian Gulf. 

Deferred action is a vital tool that has been used historically to protect vulnerable 

populations. If DHS could not grant deferred action it would be unable to ensure 

that victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other 

crimes are protected from deportation while their applications for protections under 

the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are processed. 

WHY IS IT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ACT NOW?

In the absence of reform, the immigration system has become increasingly broken 

and is failing American families, businesses, and communities. Nation-wide polling 

has shown that Americans want major reform. A January 2014, Fox News poll 
39 

showed that 68 percent of Americans supported allowing illegal immigrants to remain the country and eventually qualify for citizenship if they meet certain requirements like paying taxes, learning English, and passing a background check. After 

the November 2014 election, Edison Research, which does exit polling for the consortium of major news networks, found that 57 percent of voters preferred that ‘‘illegal 

immigrants working in the U.S.’’ be offered legal status instead of deportation. 

AILA hears daily from businesses that cannot hire workers and are stymied by 

the slow and dysfunctional operations of the immigration system. Every day families 

are kept separated because of long backlogs in the visa system. Now 11.5 million 

people are living in the country without legal status. Most have families and jobs 

but cannot work legally and must exist in the shadows. These individuals are also 

subject to immigration enforcement and deportation. In the past several years, DHS 

has deported hundreds of thousands of parents of U.S. citizens—approximately 23 

percent of all deportations—causing painful separations of families. 

America’s immigration system is in urgent need of reform. AILA supports the enactment of legislation, the only way to provide lasting change. Until that happens 

AILA applauds the efforts of the President and DHS to improve the system and implement reforms to the fullest extent permitted by law. AILA welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress and the President to make our system better for 

America. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA W. MURPHY, DIRECTOR, AND CHRISTOPHER RICKERD, POLICY

COUNSEL, ACLU WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE; VICKI B. GAUBECA, DIRECTOR, 

AND BRIAN ERICKSON, POLICY ADVOCATE, THE ACLU OF NEW MEXICO, REGIONAL

CENTER FOR BORDER RIGHTS; CHRISTIAN RAMIREZ, DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN BORDER

COMMUNITIES COALITION; AND RYAN BATES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN

UNITED, RICH STOLZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ONEAMERICA, AND STEVE CHOI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, NORTHERN BORDERS COALITION

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

I. INTRODUCTION

For nearly 100 years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been our 

Nation’s guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU takes up 

the toughest civil liberties cases and issues to defend all people from Government 

abuse and overreach. With more than a million members, activists, and supporters, 

the ACLU is a Nation-wide organization that fights tirelessly in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, for the principle that every individual’s rights must 

be protected equally under the law, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or National origin. The ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office 

(WLO) conducts legislative and administrative advocacy to advance the organization’s goal of protecting border residents’ and immigrants’ rights, including supporting a roadmap to citizenship for aspiring Americans. 

The ACLU of New Mexico’s Regional Center for Border Rights (RCBR) stands 

with border communities to defend and protect America’s Constitutional guarantees 

of equality and justice for all families. The RCBR works in conjunction with ACLU 

affiliates in California, Arizona, Texas, Michigan, Washington, and New York, as 

well as advocates throughout the border region who comprise the Southern Border 

Communities Coalition (SBCC) and the Northern Borders Coalition (NBC). SBCC 

brings together more than 60 organizations from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas, to ensure that border enforcement policies and practices are accountable and fair, respect human dignity and human rights, and prevent loss of life in 

the region. NBC is a union of organizations along the Northern Border working to 

stand up for civil and human rights together. The Coalition helps build shared strategies amongst members to address new border challenges, and collaborates with 

partners in the Southwest to share best practices. The ACLU, SBCC, and NBC submit this statement to provide the committee with an appraisal of the civil liberties 

implications of border security proposals. 

The ACLU, SBCC, and NBC oppose exorbitant spending on border enforcement, 

spending which is taking place without thoughtful consideration of current community and security needs. Current proposals to throw money, personnel, and equipment at the border would exacerbate the problems border communities face with 

militarization today and ignore that: 
40 

1 Chen, Greg and Kim, Su. ‘‘Border Security: Moving Beyond Past Benchmarks,’’ AMERICAN 

IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, (Jan. 30, 2013), available at: http://www.aila.org/ 

content/default.aspx?bc=25667143061. 2 Carson, E. Ann. U.S. Department of Justice, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, ‘‘Prisoners in 2013’’ (Sept. 2014), available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf. 3 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2013 ANNUAL REPORT, Chapter 5, available at http:// 

www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reports-andsourcebooks/2013/2013lAnnuallReportlChap5l0.pdf; see also ACLU of Texas and ACLU, 

Warehoused and Forgotten: Immigrants Trapped in Our Shadow Private Prison System. (June 

• Deployment of additional border security resources along the U.S.-Mexico border would not be rooted in true border security needs. Over more than a decade, 

the U.S. Government has built a massive and comprehensive enforcement regime that has produced the most enforced border in U.S. history. Adding more 

resources would not only be wasteful and unnecessary, but would also be at 

odds with the top-of-the-charts safety, economic vitality, and diversity of border 

communities. • Overall, border-wide apprehensions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) are at their lowest levels in 40 years and net migration from Mexico at 

zero. This summer’s migration of families and children fleeing violence in Central America and turning themselves in was correctly identified by CBP leadership as a humanitarian matter. • Spending, with particular emphasis on the Southwest Border, has increased 

dramatically over the last decade with no commensurate accountability measures, resulting in civilian deaths at the hands of CBP personnel, unnecessary 

migrant deaths in the desert, and many other civil and human rights abuses 

on both our Nation’s Southern and Northern Borders. 

The U.S. Government cannot afford to throw money down the border-security 

drain, particularly because this spending has also damaged quality of life in border 

communities. The committee must not, without transparent and broad-ranging 

metrics, uncritically adopt the erroneous conventional wisdom of inadequate border 

security. Suggesting in a vacuum of information that more border enforcement resources are needed lacks fiscal responsibility and fails to give due attention to the 

true needs of border communities suffering from a wasteful, militarized enforcement 

regime. Moreover, justifying the additional deployment of border enforcement resources and family detention as an appropriate response to a humanitarian crisis 

in Central America contradicts our core values of compassion and justice for scared 

mothers and children. 

The ACLU, SBCC, and NBC urge the committee to focus its efforts on ensuring 

that future border security is conducted humanely and in accordance with best police practices. Legislation should bring greater oversight and accountability—not 

war equipment or more boots on the ground—to CBP: Our Nation’s largest law enforcement agency. 

I. BORDER-SECURITY PROPOSALS MUST REJECT THE MISGUIDED, WASTEFUL APPROACH

OF THE SENATE’S CORKER-HOEVEN ‘‘BORDER SURGE’’ AMENDMENT. INSTEAD, CON- GRESS SHOULD END THE ABUSIVE MILITARIZATION OF BORDER COMMUNITIES. 

a. The ‘‘Mini-Industrial Complex’’ of Border Spending 

The committee has to this point, commendably, not followed the severely-misguided approach incorporated last year in Senate Bill 744’s ‘‘surge’’ of border security resources. Such proposals ignore the fact that border security benchmarks of 

prior proposed or enacted legislation (in 2006, 2007, and 2010) have already been 

met or exceeded.1 In the last decade, the United States has relied heavily on enforcement-only approaches to address migration, using deterrence-based border security strategies that have continued and expanded to record levels under the 

Obama administration: 

• CBP has become an interior law enforcement agency through its vast claimed 

authority to patrol within 100 miles of all land and sea borders, an unnecessary 

overreach based on outdated regulations issued in the 1950s. 

• Because of ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ initiatives like Operation Streamline, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now refers more cases for Federal prosecution than the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) law enforcement agencies. Under 

President Obama, immigration-related Federal prosecutions have reached 

record levels at tremendous cost to U.S. taxpayers. Federal prisons are already 

more than 30 percent over capacity, due in large part to indiscriminate prosecution of individuals for crossing the border without authorization, often to rejoin 

their families.2 The majority of those sentenced to Federal prison in 2013 were 

Latinos, who are now held in large numbers in substandard private prisons.3
41 

2014), available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-report-online.pdf. 4Michele Mittelstadt et al., ‘‘Through the Prism of National Security: Major Immigration Policy and Program Changes in the Decade since 9/11.’’ (Migration Policy Institute, Aug. 2011), 3, 

available at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubsFS23lPost-9-11policy.pdf. 5Department of Homeland Security. ‘‘Budget-in-Brief: Fiscal Year 2015,’’ available at http:// 

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB.pdf. 6 U.S Border Patrol, ‘‘Nation-wide Illegal Alien Apprehensions Fiscal Years 1925–2013,’’ available at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20- 

Fiscal%20Year%20Apprehension%20Statistics%201925-2013.pdf. 7 Immigration Policy Center, Second Annual DHS Progress Report. (Apr. 2011), 26, available 

at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/2011lDHSlReportl041211.- 

pdf. 

8Ted Robbins, ‘‘U.S. Grows An Industrial Complex Along The Border.’’ NPR (Sept. 12, 2012), 

available at http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/160758471/u-s-grows-an-industrial-complexalong-the-border. 

• Since 2003, the U.S. Border Patrol has doubled in size and now employs more 

than 21,400 agents, with about 85 percent of its force deployed at the U.S.-Mexico border. So many Border Patrol Agents now patrol the Southern Border that 

if they lined up equally from Brownsville to San Diego, they would stand in 

plain sight of one another. This number does not include the thousands of other 

DHS officials, including CBP Office of Field Operations officers and one-fourth 

of all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel deployed at the 

same border. It also does not include 651 miles of fencing, 333 video surveillance systems, and at least 10 drones for air surveillance. 

From a fiscal perspective, from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2012, the budget for CBP increased by 94 percent to $11.65 billion, a leap of $5.65 billion; this following a 20 percent post-9/11 increase of $1 billion.4 By way of comparison, this 

jump in funding more than quadrupled the growth rate of NASA’s budget and was 

almost 10 times that of the National Institutes of Health. For fiscal year 2015, the 

administration’s budget request for CBP was about $12.8 billion.5 U.S. taxpayers now spend more on immigration enforcement agencies ($18 billion) than on the FBI, 

DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and Secret Service—combined. 

CBP’s spending runs directly counter to data on recent and current migration 

trends and severely detracts from the true needs of border security. Much attention 

has been paid to increased apprehensions of children and families in south Texas, 

many of whom are fleeing terrible violence in Central America. When analyzed border-wide and over time, however, migrant apprehensions remain lower than at any 

time since the 1970s. Between 2000 and 2010, apprehensions by the Border Patrol 

declined more than 72 percent to about 463,000. In fiscal year 2013, Border Patrol 

apprehended almost 421,000 illegal crossers in total—fewer than in 2010 and an 

equivalent of less than two apprehensions a month per agent.6

The costs per apprehension vary per sector, but are generally at an all-time high. 

The Yuma, Arizona sector, for example, has seen a 95 percent decline in apprehensions since 2005 while the number of agents has tripled. Each agent was responsible 

for interdicting fewer than 7 immigrants in 2013, contributing to ballooning per capita costs: Each migrant apprehension at the border now costs five times more, rising 

from $1,400 in 2005 to over $7,500 in 2011.7

The Committee should heed House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers’ warning about the irrationality of border spending: ‘‘It is a sort of a mini industrial complex syndrome that has set in there. And we’re going to have to guard 

against it every step of the way.’’8 The committee’s data-driven, bipartisan approach 

to border security, as embodied by H.R. 1417, the Border Security Results Act, is 

an improvement over proposals like the Corker-Hoeven ‘‘border surge.’’ However, 

H.R. 1417’s narrow focus on border security remains misplaced at a time when border enforcement is at an all-time high and continues to have a detrimental impact 

on border communities. It also sets flawed benchmarks in seeking a 90 percent ‘‘illegal crossing effectiveness rate’’ across the Southwest Border without contemplating 

a thorough study of border needs, particularly greater oversight and accountability 

and cross-border economic exchange. 

b. Congress Must Expand Oversight and Accountability to Mitigate CBP Corruption 

and Abuse. 

Unprecedented investment in border enforcement without corresponding oversight 

mechanisms has led to an increase in human and civil rights violations, traumatic 

family separations in border communities, and racial profiling and harassment of 

Native Americans, Latinos, and other people of color—many of them U.S. citizens 

and some who have lived in the region for generations. Corruption and criminal conduct have also plagued the dramatically and recklessly expanded CBP force, which, 
42 

9Graff, Garrett M. ‘‘The Green Monster: How the Border Patrol became America’s most outof-control law enforcement agency,’’ POLITICO MAGAZINE (Nov./Dec. 2014), available at 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/border-patrol-the-green-monster-112220.- 

html#.VHdurlfF8Wk. 10Skoloff, Brian. ‘‘Border Patrol Shot Mexican Teen Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez 8 Times: 

Autopsy,’’ ASSOCIATED PRESS (Feb. 8, 2013), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 

2013/02/08/border-patrol-shot-mexican-teen-jose-antonio-elena-rodriguez-autopsylnl2646191.- 

html. 11 Crosby, Cherrill. ‘‘Change occurring after Republic’s border investigation,’’ ARIZONA REPUBLIC (Aug. 4, 2014), available at: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/investigations/2014/08/02/border-force-republic-investigation-change/13534935/. 12 Becker, Andrew. ‘‘Removal of border agency’s internal affairs chief raises alarms, ‘‘CENTER 

FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING (June 12, 2014), available at: http://cironline.org/reports/ 

removal-border-agencys-internal-affairs-chief-raises-alarms-6443. 13Planas, Roque. ‘‘Woman’s Lawsuit Alleges Horrifying Abuse By Border Officers, Including 

Cavity Searches And Forced Bowel Movements,’’ HUFFINGTON POST (Mar. 6, 2014), available 

at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/border-cavity-searchlnl4907225.html. 

as reported by Politico Magazine, had nearly one CBP Officer or Agent arrested for 

misconduct every single day from 2005 to 2012.9 Politico Magazine’s expose ́ of CBP 

closely examines the now well-documented deficiencies in CBP’s use-of-force policy 

and practice, which have led the agency to become one of our Nation’s ‘‘deadliest’’ 

and most ‘‘out-of-control’’ law enforcement agencies. Since January 2010, at least 31 

individuals have died from lethal force by CBP Officers and Agents. These cases include 14 individuals who were U.S. citizens and 6 individuals who were shot and 

killed while standing in Mexico—three of whom were teenagers, ages 15, 16, and 

17. 

In numerous cases individuals were shot multiple times, including through the 

back, such as Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez who was struck by at least eight bullets—all but one in the back—across the border fence in Nogales, Sonora by agents 

responding to alleged rock throwing.10 Also among the most well-known cases is 

that of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas who—by the happenstance of a witness video— 

was shown to be handcuffed and prostrate on the ground, contrary to the agency’s 

incident reporting, when dozens of agents beat and Tased him to death. The San 

Diego coroner classified Mr. Hernandez’s death as a homicide, noting in addition to 

a heart attack: ‘‘several loose teeth; bruising to his chest, stomach, hips, knees, 

back, lips, head and eyelids; five broken ribs; and a damaged spine.’’ Both of these 

cases, and many more, illustrate common shortcomings in policy and practice that 

were criticized in an audit of CBP’s use-of-force incidents conducted by the Police 

Executive Research Forum (PERF) and publicly released on May 30, 2014. 

The Arizona Republic documented more than 46 deaths for which CBP is responsible since 2004–2005, and, as noted by the Republic in December 2013, in ‘‘none 

of [these] deaths has any agent or officer been publicly known to have faced consequences—not from the Border Patrol, not from Customs and Border Protection or 

Homeland Security, not from the Department of Justice, and not, ultimately, from 

criminal or civil courts.’’11 Former head of CBP Internal Affairs James F. Tomsheck 

has flagged at least a quarter of 28 lethal force cases as ‘‘highly suspect,’’ and alleged that ‘‘Border Patrol officials have consistently tried to change or distort facts 

to make fatal shootings by agents appear to be ‘a good shoot’ and cover up any 

wrongdoing.’’ Perhaps most alarmingly of all, Tomsheck said he believes that thousands of employees hired by CBP during the agency’s unprecedented expansion after 

9/11 are potentially unfit to carry a badge and gun.12 Lack of accountability for 

these unprofessional and dangerous personnel mars the reputations of officers and 

agents who conduct themselves properly. 

CBP’s failure to establish an institutional culture of accountability has far-reaching consequences for border communities, beyond excessive force. Numerous administrative complaints, legal claims, and reports documenting wide-spread CBP abuse 

in short-term custody facilities detail physical and verbal abuse, denial of medical 

care, failure to provide sufficient food and water, overcrowding, exposure to extreme 

temperatures, denial of communication with family and consular or legal support, 

failure to return personal belongings at the moment of repatriation, and use of coercion to pressure individuals into signing away legal rights. One New Mexican, Jane 

Doe, was held for hours by CBP officials who subjected her to repeated, invasive 

searches at a port of entry in El Paso, TX and subsequently a local hospital. After 

hours of humiliating searches she never consented to and which turned up no contraband, Ms. Doe was released with a hospital bill.13

CBP operates in an antiquated 100-mile zone extending toward the interior from 

any land or sea border, a distance that has no statutory basis and originated with-
43 

4See ACLU, The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone (2014), available at https:// 

www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/constitution-100-mile-border-zone. 15 Echevarri, Fernanda. Group Alleges Border Patrol is Racial Profiling at Arivaca Checkpoint, 

NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (Oct. 20, 2014), available at: https://www.azpm.org/p/top-news/ 

2014/10/20/47393-group-alleges-border-patrol-is-racial-profiling-at-arivaca-checkpoint/. 16See video at ACLU website ‘‘Border Communities Under Siege,’’ available at https:// 

www.aclu.org/border-communities-under-siege-border-patrol-agents-ride-roughshod-over-civilrights. 17 Complaint available at http://www.aclu-wa.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2012-04- 

26--Complaintl0.pdf. 18See, e.g., Frances Burns, ‘‘Rep. Cuellar: Texas cities on the Mexican border have less crime.’’ 

UPI (Nov. 19, 2014) (quoting Congressman Cuellar: ‘‘Many people characterize the southern border as being unsafe but today’s numbers paint a very different picture.’’), available at http:// 

www.upi.com/ToplNews/US/2014/11/19/Rep-Cuellar-Texas-cities-on-the-Mexican-borderhave-less-crime/3971416406308/. 19See ACLU, ‘‘Strengthening CBP with the Use of Body-Worn Cameras.’’ (June 27, 2014), 

available at https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/strengthening-cbp-use-body-worn-cameras. 20See ACLU et al., Recommendations to DHS to Improve Complaint Processing (2014), available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/14l5l5lrecommendationsltoldhsltolimprovelcomplaintlprocessinglfinal.pdf; see also American Immigration Council, 

No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse (2014), 

Continued 

out scrutiny 60 years ago in now-outdated regulations.14 The area includes twothirds of the U.S. population, entire States like Florida and Maine, as well as almost 

all of the country’s top metropolitan areas. This zone has converted CBP, particularly Border Patrol, into an interior enforcement agency that widely roams border 

communities. 

By setting up interior checkpoints and conducting roving patrols many miles from 

the border, CBP does little to further border security goals but much to harm the 

quality of life of those who live and work in the border region. This includes communities like Arivaca, AZ, where residents have petitioned for the removal of one of 

three interior checkpoints that surround their community and have documented 

daily encounters between residents and agents. Their report found that Latino motorists were more than 26 times more likely to be asked to show identification, and 

20 times more likely to be sent to secondary inspection.15 But even non-Latino residents like Clarisa Christiansen and her children live in fear of the Border Patrol 

after agents pulled her over on a rural stretch of road near her house, threatened 

to cut her out of her seatbelt with a knife, and slashed her tires—all because she 

asked to know the reason agents stopped her.16

Northern Border residents have reported Border Patrol Agents conducting roving 

patrols near schools and churches and asking passengers for their documents on 

trains and buses that are traveling far from border crossings. The ACLU of Washington State brought and settled a class-action lawsuit to end the Border Patrol’s 

practice of stopping vehicles and interrogating occupants without legal justification. 

One of the plaintiffs in the case was an African-American corrections officer and 

part-time police officer pulled over for no expressed reason and interrogated about 

his immigration status while wearing his corrections uniform.17

To expand border resources—particularly Border Patrol staffing—would badly 

worsen CBP’s accountability crisis and compound the damage caused by prior hiring 

binges. It would also run contrary to the reality of border communities, which are 

safe,18 diverse, and economically critical to this country. Our communities are forced 

to endure regular aggression, hostility, and intimidation from a significant percentage of CBP Officers and Agents. Border residents, like any community, should not 

have to live with fear and mistrust of law enforcement. 

Border communities are a vital component of the half-trillion dollars in trade between the United States and Mexico, and the damaging effects of militarization on 

them must be addressed by serious oversight and accountability reforms to CBP. 

While the Federal Government has the authority to control our Nation’s borders and 

regulate immigration, CBP officials must do so in compliance with National and 

international legal norms and standards. 

As employees of the Nation’s largest law enforcement agency, CBP officials should 

be trained and held to the highest law enforcement standards. Systemic, robust, and 

permanent oversight and accountability mechanisms for CBP must be the starting 

point for any discussion on border security: 

• Equipping all CBP personnel with body-worn cameras;19

• Implementing enforceable custody standards; 

• Reforming DHS complaint systems to provide a transparent, uniform process 

for filing complaints;20 and 
44 

available at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/no-action-taken-lack-cbp-accountability-responding-complaints-abuse. 21 Robbins, supra. 

• Rolling back the antiquated 100-mile zone. 

Such improvements would create a legacy of CBP reform that would improve the 

quality of life and restore trust for this and future generations of border residents. 

CONCLUSION

Congress should transform border enforcement in a manner that is fiscally responsible, respects and listens to border residents before defining their communities’ 

needs, and upholds Constitutional rights and American values. The ACLU, SBCC, 

and NBC commend the House Committee on Homeland Security for its past commitments to define border security with precision before funneling more resources. 

We urge the committee to prioritize reduction of CBP abuses in the currently-oppressive border and immigration enforcement system which has cost more than 

$250 billion in today’s dollars since 1986.21

Chairman MCCAUL. I want to remind the Members of this committee that the Secretary has 30 minutes left, so if you can keep 

your remarks as short as possible. 

With that, Mr. Vela. 

Mr. VELA. Mr. Secretary, if I had known we could have played 

clips, I was reminded of a scene from Cheech and Chong with the 

background music of coming to America. If anybody had an interest 

they can probably find it on YouTube. But I, too, want to thank you 

for your accessibility since having taken office, and I just want to 

say that since we have been dealing with you and your staff we 

have seen marked changes and progress between communications 

between this committee and yours. 

I think with respect to the idea of border security, you were 

asked about metrics, the fact is, is that this committee in a fully 

bipartisan fashion almost a year ago passed a border security bill 

that would have established those metrics, and we have yet to see 

it on the House floor. We have 2 weeks left before the end of the 

year. If that bill was brought to the House floor, you would have 

a border security bill by the end of the year. 

With respect to the issue of a permanent solution in the context 

of immigration, the fact of the matter is, is our choices are very 

stark in my view. There are those who believe that of the millions 

of people who have been working here in our construction sites, our 

hotels, our restaurants, and all across this country, that what we 

ought to do is rope them up and send them back. There are those 

who believe that we ought to develop a pathway to citizenship and 

a legalization process. What I strongly object to—and remember 

that I agree we need border security. That is why I voted on the 

bill that passed this committee—what I strongly object to is the 

idea that the legalization process ought to be conditioned on border 

security, because to me if you define border security as making 

sure that we prevent people from coming here in the future, I don’t 

see what that has to do with the people that are already here. 

I also cringe when I hear the word border crisis because in my 

view what we are talking about is three separate crises that are 

interrelated. That is the crisis of drug smuggling, human smuggling, and illegal migration. The fact is, is that those are crises that 

do not end or begin at the border. They begin with economic conditions in Mexico and Central America and issues of cartel violence 

in Central America and Mexico as well, and they end with our de-
45 

mand for drugs on this side of the border as well as the fact when 

you consider the fact that over a thousand cities across this country, FBI statistics shows that there is a cartel presence. 

So I really believe that if we are ever going to really address the 

root causes of those three issues, that we really have to start talking about issues of economic development in Mexico and Central 

America and addressing cartel violence. With that in mind, what 

I would ask, and this may be coming from left field because I know 

it is more of a Department of Justice matter, in the last year the 

former governor of Tamaulipas, Mexico, was indicted in the Southern District of Texas and an extradition order has been issued by 

the Federal judge down in Brownsville, and I would just ask that 

you do whatever you can with respect to the other department 

heads to see if we cannot bring this gentleman to justice. Because 

when we talk about drug smuggling, we talk about human smuggling, the fact of the matter is, it is not the coyotes making the 

money, it is the people at the top. 

I yield the rest of my time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, may I respond? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes, sir. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Just briefly. I have this thought listening to 

you, Congressman. Negotiating and arriving at an acceptable piece 

of legislation that addresses our immigration system in a comprehensive way, in my judgment, should not be that hard. I have 

in my private law practice negotiated the most complex civil settlements ever on Wall Street. I believe that if we could just strip 

away the emotion and the politics on this issue and you brought 

me the right group of Members of the House of Representatives, I 

could negotiate a bill with you, and I am issuing that invitation 

again. I believe we could do it. It should not be that difficult. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. 

The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, some people say that our economic security is National security. Nearly 20 million Americans woke up this morning 

either unemployed or underemployed. Now, the President didn’t 

mention these Americas when he announced his plan to grant de 

facto amnesty and work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants. He didn’t discuss the competition this would create for 

them or the impact it would have on their pocketbooks. Your series 

of memoranda outlining this policy for him didn’t mention them either. 

To address this problem and protect the American worker, I introduced legislation prior to the President’s announcement that 

would make clear that illegal immigrants benefiting from his Executive amnesty are not authorized to work in the United States. 

When it comes to illegal immigration, the conversation is always 

about the illegal immigrant, not about the people that it will affect. 

You see, Mr. Secretary, I don’t think it is fair, especially around 

the holidays, to put illegal immigrants ahead of the American 

worker. 

Secretary Johnson, the President keeps saying that his Executive 

Action will boost the economy. So tell me, how will adding at least 
46 

5 million new competitors to the workforce make it easier for the 

unemployed Americans to find a job? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, the fact is, as I am sure you 

know, that we have lots of undocumented in this country working 

off the books. If that is not apparent, then I suggest you spend 

some time in a restaurant here in the Washington, DC, area to see 

it for yourself. What we want to do is encourage those people to get 

on the books, and I will provide them a work authorization so that 

they may legally continue in the employment they now have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But how does that make it easier for the American worker? We keep talking about the illegal immigrant. Here we 

go again talking about the illegal immigrant and how we can make 

it easier for them. How does this help the American worker who 

can’t find work and can’t provide for his family? Who is fighting for 

them? Why don’t we talk about the American worker and what this 

will do to them, not what it will do for the illegal immigrant? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the economy is getting better, as I am 

sure you know. The question of U.S. jobs, American jobs, is in my 

view a separate issue. What I want to do—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So adding 5 million more competitors for these 

jobs will make it easier? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If I may finish my sentence. The estimate is 

that the potential class is up to 4 million. Not all of those will 

apply. The goal is to encourage these people who are now working 

off the books, and we do have undocumented immigrants in this 

country working off the books, to get on the books, pay taxes into 

the Federal Treasury pursuant to a work authorization. The assessment is that that will not impinge upon American jobs with 

American workers. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Secretary, is it true that the illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty will not need to comply with the 

Affordable Care Act? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Those who are candidates for and are accepted into the deferred action program will not be eligible for comprehensive health care, ACA. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So therefore an employer may have a decision to 

make: Do I keep the American worker and provide health insurance or pay a $3,000 fine or do I get rid of the American worker 

and hire someone who I do not have to provide health insurance 

and I won’t get fined? Is that a possibility? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t see it that way. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You don’t think any employers will see it that 

way? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t think I see it that way, no. No, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Following the 9/11 Commission report, the Commission staff issued a report on terrorist travel that made connections between enforcement of our immigration laws and National 

security. On Page 98 of that report it describes how terrorists 

would benefit from any form of amnesty. The report recognized 

that terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, 

needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United 

States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. This tells 

us what we all know, that terrorists want two things. They want 

to get into this country, and then they want to stay here. 
47 

Mr. Secretary, does the President’s Executive Action facilitate 

just that by not heeding the advice of the 9/11 Commission and its 

staff, and how can this administration justify its Executive Actions 

on immigration when it directly contradicts their findings? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The reality is that we have an estimated 

11.3 million undocumented in this country. From my Homeland Security perspective and from the perspective of someone whose principal mission is counterterrorism, I want to see those people come 

out of the shadows. I want to encourage people—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. But you did testify in the last hearing—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. If I may finish my sentence. I want people 

to submit to criminal background checks and come out of the shadows. The problem we have right now is we have 11 million people 

in this country and we do not know who they are from the perspective of what you just read from that 9/11 Commission report. We 

are vulnerable. I want people to come out of the shadows—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Secretary, you testified at the last hearing, 

and you agreed with me and your words were, most criminals do 

not subject themselves to criminal background checks. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I want as many as possible to submit to 

criminal background checks. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Let me just say to the remaining Members, 

due to the time constraints of the Secretary, we are going to limit 

questioning to 3 minutes by unanimous consent. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Swalwell from California. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Secretary, does the number 2,577,516 mean 

anything to you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It sounds familiar. I am not sure why it 

sounds familiar. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would it surprise you to learn that according to 

the American Immigration Council this is the number of immigrants granted temporary relief by Republican Presidents over the 

last 50 years? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is news to me. That is a big number. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would it surprise you that not a single person 

who has sat on this dais with me, particularly among my GOP colleagues, made a single public statement criticizing any Executive 

Actions taken by any Republican Presidents with respect to immigration? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure what to say. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Our Chairman has brought up a number of times 

that we have a bipartisan bill, something that I admire, that he 

was able to shepherd through this committee, yet it has not come 

to the floor for a vote. It is frustrating to me that we are bringing 

you here to criticize the President’s actions, yet Speaker Boehner 

has a bill that addresses border security that has not been brought 

to the floor. I believe that in many ways, by silencing both sides 

of this issue by not allowing a vote, the Speaker in many ways is 

taking his own Executive Action that refuses to allow people who 

oppose immigration reform and those who support it to even be a 

voice of their district and take a vote. 
48 

So with that in mind, I want to know, among the 11.3 million 

undocumented immigrants, do you know, Mr. Secretary, how 

prioritizing felons over families for deportation, what that will do 

to make us safer as opposed to what we have been doing prior? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the guidance that I issued is guidance 

in clearer terms that spells out exactly the types of offenses that 

are priority 1s, priority 2s. When we did our review, we found that 

there was a fair amount of ambiguity in the existing guidance that 

needed to be cleaned up because there was a lot of misunderstanding in the field that led to some of the cases of heartache that 

we all hear about. So the guidance is clearer. 

With that is a restart of the Secure Communities Program. Secure Communities is intended to get at criminals who are undocumented in jail. But there is a lot of resistance now to Secure Communities. So an integral part of this promoting public safety is a 

fresh start on the Secure Communities Program. 

The last thing I will say is when we talk about a bill, I believe 

the Speaker’s desire for comprehensive immigration reform is genuine. I will say again that I am interested in working with Members of this committee, Members of the House of Representatives 

on a piece of legislation or pieces of legislation that addresses our 

system in a comprehensive way, in a way that our Executive Actions cannot reach. 

Mr. KING [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clawson. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Thank you for coming today, Mr. Secretary. I am 

not going to harangue you or badger you, and I will ask you to be 

quick with me so we can get right to what I want to know in all 

sincerity. 

In previous meetings that I have been here, I have been told a 

little bit of what you have said today, which we need more resources. Eight billion dollars is the backlog of CapEx for ports and 

so forth, as I understand. Going to spend $800 million on new ports 

in the next 5 years, some of your border folks have told us. But 

when we ask for operational data to know what the bang for the 

buck is for the taxpayer, we really get very little data. If I was a 

board member and you and I were back in our previous lives, I 

would say, how can I say okay to more resources and more effort, 

more taxpayer involvement, when I don’t know the return on investment for the CapEx and I don’t know what the operational effectiveness is other than really macro data? Can you shed any light 

on that? Am I missing the boat here? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I will shed light on my commitment to 

more transparency. I think part of the problem we have is lack of 

coherent data. So one of the things I directed in the Executive Actions that we issued week before last is I directed the Office of Immigration Statistics to create the capacity to collect, maintain, and 

report to the Secretary data reflecting the numbers of those apprehended, removed, returned, or otherwise repatriated, by any component of DHS. I also intend that this data be part of a package 

of data released by DHS to the public annually. 

So I am sympathetic to what you are saying, and I would like 

to see us in addition to this develop metrics for how we define bor-
49 

der security so that the Congress and the public understands what 

we are driving for. 

Mr. CLAWSON. But I just don’t know how much bang for the buck 

we are getting for the taxpayer dollar. So in addition to how many 

people we are capturing and how many are getting through, what 

is the return on investment for the money we are spending? It is 

hard for me to say yes or no to what is being asked if I don’t know 

how well we are spending the current money and the money that 

has been—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would encourage you, if you haven’t already, to look at the speech I gave on border security in October 

to a think tank called CSIS, where I laid out a lot of the investment and a lot of the data concerning apprehensions of illegal immigrants to get at a clearer picture of what you are getting on the 

return on your investment. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Any data that would help us understand how well 

the Department is working will make it easier for us to be openminded to working together as you say. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. There is a misapprehension that things are 

as worse as they have ever been. In fact, apprehensions of illegal 

immigrants is a fraction of what it used to be, in large part because 

of the investment that this Congress has made in border security 

we are seeing a return on investment. I think we can do better, but 

we have invested a lot in surveillance, personnel, as the Chairman 

knows and others, over the last 15 years, and we have seen a return on investment. Apprehensions used to be 1.6 million. They are 

now down to between 400,000 and 500,000. But I believe we can 

do better. 

Mr. KING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlelady from California is recognized. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary, for being before us. I had the pleasure of 

working with you when you were over at the Defense Department, 

and I am glad you are staying on at Homeland because this is a 

very, very critical time. I am worried, being double-hatted sitting 

on Defense and Homeland, I am worried about threats from ISIS 

and terrorists and coming into our country or being embedded in 

our country or some would say mentoring candidate or what have 

you, but here we are. We are here to protect America and to protect 

Americans. So thank you for the work that you and all the people 

who work in your Department do on our behalf. 

I want to go back to something that you said, the whole issue of 

having background checks on people, because I live in California. 

We have a lot of people there who for whatever reason don’t have 

the right documents to be in our country. Some actually would 

qualify and have qualified under our programs, under the legal, 

but if they have to wait 10 years away from a loved one because 

they have to wait outside of the country, they have probably broken 

that and they have decided to stay and live those 10 years here 

with their loved one or their child rather than do what we do to 

them, which is to push them out for 10 years. There are people who 

just—it has taken too long. The backlog is just so long for some of 

these people to get through the process even though they qualify 

under everything. 
50 

So I am thrilled that we are going to get good people who are 

our deacons in our churches, they are PTA moms, to come forward, 

to give us their data, to give us their fingerprints, to pay a fine, 

and to say, let us work, let us go on with our lives here, especially 

if they have USA-born children or legal residents. I am thrilled 

that the President understands that. 

But I am even more thrilled about it because that allows these 

limited resources that we have to be trained on the people that I 

really want to go after, and that is these terrorists and these 

threats to our country. A lot of people say, well, you are Hispanic, 

Loretta, so you care about the Latino community. I have to tell you, 

I have got one of the largest Asian populations in the Nation. I 

have got Romanians. I have got all sorts of people who have come 

from other countries, many of them working, some of them paying 

taxes, but many of them working and wanting to get on an even 

footing here in the United States. 

So I just want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, because I know that 

you sat down and you took a look and you used your lawyer skills 

and everybody else’s skills to sit down and figure out how do we 

make sure that the limited resources we have are trained on the 

bad guys, not on the people who are really part of our American 

family? So I just want to thank you. 

Mr. KING. Time of the gentlelady has expired. 

Gentleman from South Carolina. 

Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, delighted to be with you again. I have but 3 minutes, I am going to try and ask three quick questions, and therefore 

I would ask for your brevity if possible. 

First question is, I mean, fundamentally a question about fairness, which is I think one of the things that a lot of people struggle 

with on the notion of the President’s Executive and unilateral action is that it will put a lot of families from around the world in 

essence in a second-class bus. My question to you would be: Is it 

fair to those families who have been waiting in the queue in terms 

of immigration to go behind a bunch of folks that in essence will 

get favorable status based on the Executive Action? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that is not what we have done, sir. 

Through Executive Action we cannot grant citizenship, we cannot 

put somebody in the head of the line for citizenship, and we are 

not granting lawful permanent residence. Deferred action is simply 

for a period of time a determination that someone should be lawfully present in the country, which is a significantly lower form of 

status. 

Mr. SANFORD. Fair enough, but it is de facto citizenship in that 

they are able to live here, work here, raise families here, et cetera. 

I will quickly move on to the second question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. In fact, they already are. 

Mr. SANFORD. What is that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In fact they already are. 

Mr. SANFORD. They are, but they don’t have the legal claim to 

our entitlement system that they now will. I mean, if you look at 

our entitlement system, it is $18 trillion in the hole, and most of 

them are based on being lawfully present in this country to be eligible for entitlements. So, I mean, how do you say to that family 
51 

in Mississippi who has been struggling to make it, our entitlement 

system is based in paying for the whole of your life, you get to the 

retirement age, and then you begin to collect, what do you say to 

that family, your retirement system, your health care system as it 

is provided by Government will be less financially solvent than it 

would have been based on this unilateral action? What would you 

say in terms of fairness there? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would say that the people we are talking 

about are already here. They have been here for years. They have 

become integrated members of society, and I want them to come 

forward—— 

Mr. SANFORD. But they are not going to collect Social Security or 

Medicare—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. And contribute to the tax base 

of this country. 

Mr. SANFORD. But they won’t collect the way they will, and the 

question is: Do you get more than you give? The Wall Street Journal had a very interesting editorial within the last 2 weeks on that 

very point. I see I am down to 34 seconds. 

The last question is, in your opening statements, a lot of the attributes that you defined could be handled perfectly by work permits. Why not just do work permits rather than this de facto sort 

of quasi-citizenship that comes with this Executive Action? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Work authorization is something the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to give by statute 

to someone who has been granted deferred action, so that is what 

we did. 

Mr. SANFORD. I see I have 3 seconds, Mr. Chairman. I would go 

for a second question, but don’t have it. 

Mr. KING. You guys speak more slowly than we do. 

The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There was a statement made earlier by the gentleman from 

South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, that I know was a gross generalization about the American people as it relates to the Executive Order 

issued by President Obama. So for the record, overwhelmingly the 

Americans in my district laud and support what President Obama 

has done, and they have your back. 

I want to ask Secretary Johnson, the President’s Executive Action was certainly a step in the right direction, and for many it 

speaks to the moral, social, and family-related reasons that will 

have a positive effect on our civil society. 

However, I want to get to the economics of this, because it has 

been raised by a number of colleagues and particularly Mr. 

Barletta. It was estimated recently by the Center for American 

Progress that this Executive Action will raise an additional $3 billion in payroll taxes in the first year alone, and $22.6 billion over 

5 years as workers and employers get on the books and begin paying taxes for the first time. Even individual States will gain from 

this. Do you believe that the economic factors like these should 

play a role in determining our immigration policy? 

Second, the issue of Securing the Cities. The program fingerprints individuals booked in State and local jails and submitted 

electronically to the FBI for criminal background checks. It allows 
52 

ICE to identify potentially removable individuals. The question is, 

the program has been controversial, both legally and politically, as 

you know. It is my understanding that the Priority Enforcement 

Program, which will replace Securing the Cities under the administration’s plan, will rely on the same technology as Securing the Cities but would focus on individuals in State and local custody who 

have been convicted of felonies and significant misdemeanors. 

Please explain how PEP will maintain the biometrics collection and 

background checks under Securing the Cities while also addressing 

important concerns raised by the courts, advocates, and local communities about Securing the Cities. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, you characterized it accurately. To address the legal concerns that are arising in litigation we are no 

longer going to be putting detainers on people. Instead we will 

have request for notification. A detainer in litigation has often, and 

the court determines that State and local law enforcement did not 

have the legal authority to hold that person simply because of a detainer when they would have otherwise released them. So in place 

of that, we are going to have request for notification so that we are 

notified before the individual is released, unless we have probable 

cause to tell the NYPD, for example, that the person is undocumented and will be removed. 

I agree with your question about, should economics play a role 

in immigration policy? I am not an economist. I will refer you to 

the President’s Council of Economic Advisors’ analysis which was 

issued week before last on the impact of our Executive Actions on 

the economy. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. 

Mr. KING. The time of the gentlelady has expired, and I now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning. 

Secretary, it is good to see you today. Thank you for being here. 

Let me begin my questioning on a positive note. I was in a meeting the other night with a number of Republicans from New York 

who strongly opposed the Executive Order, but several of them 

went out of their way to say they had dealt with you as a lawyer 

and they have the highest regard for your integrity and professionalism. Totally unsolicited, they made a point of saying that 

first. I agreed with them. 

Secretary JOHNSON. It goes downhill from here. Thank you. 

Mr. KING. Downhill, yeah. 

No, I am opposed to the Executive Order for a number of reasons. We can discuss, you know, the legal merits of it, but I am influenced greatly by the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case, where 

Justice Jackson—where the Court struck down the Executive Action by President Truman, and he was saying that Executive Action in questionable cases must be scrutinized with caution. Because he said, what is at stake is the equilibrium established by 

a Constitutional system. 

That is what I see here as being—apart from all the legalities, 

which I think are significant, is the fact that, for the American people to have faith in the Government, they should feel that there is 

good faith coming from both sides. 

In this case, we had the President time and again saying he did 

not have the power to do this. We have the fact that any time over 
53 

the last 6 years the President could have issued this Executive 

Order, the fact that he did not issue the Executive Order until 

after the elections were over. 

If the President felt there was a consensus among the American 

people, then this should have been part of the campaign debates. 

That is how in a democracy people express their views. The fact is, 

they were virtually silent on this issue throughout the campaign. 

The campaign is over, Republicans win both houses, and then the 

President issues this order. 

I would say that if the President is sincere about wanting legislation and if he believes he has the right to issue this order, why 

didn’t he say he realizes things have changed in the Congress, he 

disagrees with the fact that the House did or did not act, and set 

a deadline of July 1, and as of July 1 he could issue his Executive 

Order, we could take what action we want against it, whether it 

is legislative, whether it is appropriations-wise? 

But during that 6 months, the President would have an opportunity to frame the National debate on trying to come to an immigration bill. He would be able to focus attention on it. Then you 

would have seen Republicans in the House and the Senate being 

in a position where they would have to deal with the President. 

Then if July 1 comes along and there is no—I am using that as 

an arbitrary date; it could be any date—then the President could 

issue the Executive Order, and the American people could decide 

who was right and who was wrong. Congress could take what action it felt it had to. The President, through you, could go ahead 

and implement the order. 

So I just feel—and I use these words advisedly—that there was 

bad faith in issuing the Executive Order at this time. If we are trying to get the confidence of the American people, this is not the 

way to do it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I guess, in response, Chairman, I would say 

we did do that. We did exactly that. We said we were going to do 

this in the spring, and the President decided to wait over the summer to see whether the Congress would act. 

The Speaker, whose desire for immigration reform I believe is 

genuine, had hoped that he could get immigration reform through 

the House of Representatives. That did not happen. The President 

said he would wait. The Speaker told him, we are not going to get 

a bill. 

Then we decided to wait until after the mid-terms, even further, 

and here we are. We have done a lot of waiting. We waited for several years, sir. 

Mr. KING. I just think the President’s Executive Order—again, 

the impression it would leave is he is trying to undo the impact of 

the election. If he felt that strongly about it, he should have issued 

it before the campaign. 

But my time has expired, and I am not trying to end your discussion. Again, my respect for you. 

Now my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, always a pleasure to see you here. I want to say 

that I am also delighted that you will be staying on at Homeland 

Security. I think that you, in your time there, have brought that 
54 

organization together tighter and more efficient. For that, I thank 

you. 

It is my understanding that this Executive Order—this Executive 

Action will only last for 2 years under the Obama administration, 

and it is not clear what will happen to the millions who are affected under DACA and now DAPA when the administration is 

over. This creates a lot of uncertainty, in my opinion, and underscores the need for Congressional action to clear up and fix this 

broken immigration system. 

So, in your opinion, what will happen to the children and parents 

who are being encouraged now to come out of the shadows in 2 

years if nothing happens? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the nature of Executive Action is that 

the next Executive can undo it. I would hope that that would not 

happen here. Administration to administration, we do not typically 

undo administrative Actions, Executive Orders, particularly where 

you are affecting in what I think would be a rather harsh manner 

the lives of people who are here in this country. 

So my hope is, first, over the next 2 years, there is legislation 

that, in effect, addresses the same phenomenon in the same way. 

But in the absence of that, my hope is that these Executive Actions 

are sustained as good Government policy. 

Going forward—I want to emphasize this—going forward, those 

apprehended who came here illegally January 1, 2014, under our 

existing policy, are priorities for removal and will not be eligible for 

deferred action going forward. So there is a clear demarcation between those who have been here for years and those who would 

think to come here in the future illegally. Those people will be priorities. 

Mr. PAYNE. How can Congress help ensure that these millions of 

people are not encouraged to go back into the shadows in 2 years? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Support us through legislation. 

Mr. PAYNE. So it is really time Congress stood up and helped fix 

this problem rather than throwing darts at the administration. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is my hope. I believe that it is a solvable problem legislatively, and I believe that if we can remove the 

emotion and the politics we can achieve it. There are several Members of this committee who I believe I could work with on a comprehensive solution legislatively. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL [presiding]. The Chairman recognizes Mr. 

Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary, for being here. You know I have a great 

deal of respect for you. You are an attorney. But I have some fundamental disagreements with a couple of the points that were 

made, and I just need your articulation on this. 

You are the one who said somehow somebody may be—what you 

are doing is creating an opportunity for them to lawfully be here 

in the country. Now, I think it is an unquestioned point that, as 

the law stands today, anybody who illegally enters the United 

States is a deportable alien. That is the Congressional intent. 
55 

But what has happened by this directive is the President has 

stepped into the authority of Congress, the Constitutional authority, to determine that, under the existing law, you have identified 

that somebody will lawfully be here so long as they—using prosecutorial discretion, they won’t be deported if they are not a threat to 

National security, aren’t a threat to public safety, or aren’t a threat 

to border security. 

How can you create a class of people who are beyond prosecution 

and not be violating the Constitutional separation of powers in 

which Congress has clearly articulated its intent? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first, during the period of deferred action—that is what it is, deferred action—you can lose membership 

in that program if you commit a crime, for example. 

Mr. MEEHAN. But you can also have a lawfully articulated ability 

under the President’s directive to be here if you don’t. That is an 

expression of a Constitutional protection that does not exist except 

for the President’s overreach of prosecutorial discretion. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, this type of action has existed 

in one form or another going back decades. It was exercised in the 

Reagan and Bush administrations—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. No, Mr. Secretary, I will not allow you to go there. 

It was exercised after authorized activity by the Congress in which 

they were continuing to—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. To protect a class of people that the Congress did not. 

Mr. MEEHAN. No, but the Congress already clearly articulated an 

intent to include those, and there was the fulfilling of Congressional intent. Here, you have created a class of people in contravention of Congressional intent. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, an assessment of deferred 

action will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Now, if I may, sir, the way I look at it is this. I know you will 

appreciate this. When I was an assistant United States attorney, 

we used to—and I am sure this was true in your office when you 

were a U.S. attorney—we used to enter into deferred prosecution 

agreements with individuals. You committed a crime, or you may 

have committed a crime, you have been charged, but if you, in effect, behave for the next 6 months, 12 months, a year, whatever, 

we are going to defer prosecution—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. I understand that. My time is limited. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is, in effect, what we are doing here. 

Mr. MEEHAN. We all understand prosecutorial discretion. This 

changes that, however, which creates a class of people, despite 

prosecutorial discretion, who may be here because the President 

created that category, not Congress. That is a clear violation of the 

Constitutional principles. Apart from our desire to work together, 

he is acting in a capacity beyond where he has the ability to do so. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sir, I respectfully disagree. 

Mr. MEEHAN. On what basis? 

Secretary JOHNSON. They are present—they are lawfully present 

in this—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Lawfully? How are they lawfully here when the intention of Congress was very clear, they can be deportable? It 

doesn’t mean they will be deportable—— 
56 

Secretary JOHNSON. But, sir—— 

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. But now you are saying—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. The Congress has not given me 

the resources to deport 11 million people. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I appreciate that fact. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That does not exist. They are here. 

Mr. MEEHAN. That is prosecutorial discretion—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. So, if I may—— 

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. If they are not lawfully here. 

Secretary JOHNSON. If I may—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. We are choosing—every speeder on 95 could be 

stopped, but we can’t stop everyone, but that doesn’t mean that 

they aren’t going over the speed limit. Your level says there is no 

speed limit. 

Secretary JOHNSON. If I may finish my sentence. They are here. 

From my Homeland Security perspective, I want them to come forward and get on the books and receive a work authorization—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Secretary, they are here, but you said they 

were lawfully here. Under Congressional intent, they are not lawfully here. Yet the President has created that category out of whole 

cloth. 

Secretary JOHNSON. This is a form of Executive Action that was 

not invented in this administration. It goes back decades, sir. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Secretary, it was. I am sorry to disagree with you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I will work with you, but I disagree with you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, appreciate your service. 

Is there a forged document system present that has been operating for some time that allows illegal immigrants to avoid the 

law? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sorry. What was your question? 

Mr. PERRY. Is there a forged document system present in some 

form around the border, where people that would come here illegally obtain Social Security numbers and other documents that 

provide them access to America to—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. In other words, a criminal network that provides false—— 

Mr. PERRY. Whatever you want to call it. Is there one present? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would imagine that there is, sir. 

Mr. PERRY. Is using forged documents to gain access to the Nation, employment, social services, et cetera, would we consider that 

lawful? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not believe so, no. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. I would agree with you. 

What is the DHS estimate for those here illegally, including 

those with terrorist affiliations or motives, who have used falsified 

documentation to gain access to our Nation and the other things 

I described? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t have that number off-hand, but I can 

get it for you. 

Mr. PERRY. You have a number? 
57 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if there is such an estimate, I will undertake to get it to you. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. Listen, I am sure there is an estimate. I am 

sure it is just an estimate, because they are unlawful. But I will 

also say that we have written your office on several occasions requesting information and have not gotten any answers. So I am 

just concerned about the ability or your willingness to give us those 

answers. 

But let me just cite a couple examples for you. 

We have Major League Baseball players who have become MVPs, 

made millions of dollars, and after the fact we found out as Americans that they weren’t here lawfully and used forged documents. 

These are very high-profile people. 

An individual in California, deported three times, came back on 

the fourth time and shot a police officer dead. 

You have an individual that was residing in North Carolina, 

came up to Baltimore, kidnapped a 13-year-old girl and raped her. 

That person was here illegally and deported on numerous occasions 

and used falsified—all have used falsified documents. 

To that end, Mr. Secretary, my question is: How will your Department screen these folks, including background checks, to ensure the security of the citizens of America? Especially when people 

that don’t, you know, recognize or respect the law, terrorists, people with terrorist ties and affiliations or motives that won’t use 

proper documentation and won’t come forward, how can we as the 

American citizens be confident that this plan to screen up to 5 million people that came here knowingly unlawfully, in many cases— 

in many cases, not all, but many—how can we have any confidence, 

based on those examples that I have already cited, any confidence 

that your agency and that this policy is going to work? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Based on the experience that we had with 

the program 2 years ago, I believe that we will be vigilant in terms 

of looking for fraud in the application process. 

The other part of my answer to your question, sir, is, through our 

reprioritization, I want to get at the criminals. I want clearer guidance so that our ERO enforcement workforce has the ability and 

the capability and the resources and the time to go after the type 

of individuals that you cite. 

Mr. PERRY. We want that, too, but, with all due respect, Mr. 

Chairman, I have no confidence and I don’t think the American 

people have any confidence that that is going to work. We appreciate, you know, your hope. We appreciate that with the resources 

being targeting to those individuals, maybe it could be better. But 

I see no plan and you have given me no plan at this point with any 

specific metrics or anything like that. 

We have been working on this for years. None of us want these 

people in our community. I have two daughters. Heaven forbid one 

of them falls prey to something like that, and I can come to you 

and say, ‘‘Well, what did you do about it?’’, and you said, ‘‘Well, we 

hoped for better.’’ Mr. Secretary, that is just not an adequate answer. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that would not be—— 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
58 

Secretary JOHNSON. That would not be an accurate characterization of my answer either. 

I am happy to brief you and other Members of this committee on 

the implementation plan that CIS has put together. We have spent 

considerable time on it. 

If you let me know the last time you sent me a letter that was 

unanswered and the date, I will be sure that it is answered. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let me just say 

that I don’t envy your position right now, but it has been a productive hearing. I think you have been forthright in your answers. It 

is a very emotional, divisive issue that I hope we can resolve in the 

Congress. 

I can tell you this committee—and I think the Ranking Member 

feels the same way—we are committed to passing in the next Congress a border security bill, and we look forward to working with 

you on that. 

Thanks for being here. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE SUSAN W. BROOKS FOR HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON

Question 1. In your testimony you said, ‘‘We encourage those undocumented immigrants who have been here for the last 5 years, have sons or daughters who are 

citizens or lawful permanent residents, and do not fall into one of our enforcement 

priorities to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pass National security 

and criminal background checks.’’ In this context, please explain what you mean exactly when you say to ‘‘get on the books’’? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. Under the current law and before the Executive Order, where did undocumented immigrants fit into the pipeline of those immigrants waiting to become 

citizens the legal way? 

Now under the Executive Order, where do undocumented immigrants who are 

lawfully present fit into the pipeline of those currently waiting to become citizens 

the legal way? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. From where is USCIS getting the funds to carry out this Executive 

Order? 

Will resources be diverted away from those going through the legal process of becoming a citizen to carry out this Executive Order? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ