IS SECURE COMMUNITIES KEEPING OUR 

COMMUNITIES SECURE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Serial No. 112–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

IS SECURE COMMUNITIES KEEPING OUR COMMUNITIES SECURE? 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

71–404 PDF 2012

IS SECURE COMMUNITIES KEEPING OUR 

COMMUNITIES SECURE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Serial No. 112–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

[Vacant] 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

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

WITNESSES 

Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

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

Julie Myers Wood, President, ICS Consulting, LLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

Sam Page, Sheriff, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Rockingham County, NC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Arturo Venegas, Jr., Project Director, Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 4 

Material submitted by the Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ..................................................................... 55 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement ....................................................................................... 64 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 67

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

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 68 

(1) 

IS SECURE COMMUNITIES KEEPING OUR 

COMMUNITIES SECURE? 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:40 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, Lofgren, Jackson 

Lee, and Waters. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian White, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Hunter Hammill, USCIS Detailee. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Call to order the Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement to order. Over the past year, the Obama 

administration has taken several steps to grant relief to illegal immigrants and other removable aliens without approval of Congress. 

These actions strain the constitutional separation of powers and 

will defy the will of the American people. They are part of the Administration’s unrelenting effort to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. 

Unfortunately, the Administration is imperiling the Secure Communities program as part of this effort. Secure Communities is a 

powerful law enforcement tool that allows U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement to detain removable aliens arrested by local 

law enforcement agencies. 

Secure Communities grew out of a local law enforcement program that we established in the mid-1990’s. In the 1996 illegal immigration reform bill, I included a provision that established a pilot 

program in Anaheim and Ventura County, California, that authorized local law enforcement officials to screen criminals in local jails 

prior to being arraigned. And in 1997, this program was expanded 

to jurisdictions throughout the United States. 

Today this program, which is now called Secure Communities, is 

supported by local law enforcement organizations across the Nation, including the Major County Sheriffs Association. 

Ultimately, Secure Communities assists local law enforcement 

with the identification and remove of criminal aliens, making it a 

vital tool for protecting the safety of our streets and neighborhoods. 

Yet, amnesty groups remain stubbornly opposed to it and claim 

that Secure Communities results in racial profiling. However, it is 

2 

perplexing how a computer can racially profile when everyone who 

comes to the attention of law enforcement is checked through a 

database. 

From the outset, the Administration has failed to enforce our immigration laws and has effectively placed its own political agenda 

ahead of its constitutional responsibilities to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. Secure Communities is certainly no exception. 

The Administration is taking what is otherwise a useful law enforcement tool and making changes to it, not to strengthen the program, but to undermine it. 

The Administration has taken several steps to satisfy the desires 

of pro-amnesty groups, including the formation of a task force consisting largely of amnesty supporters that is designed to tell the 

Administration how and when it should ignore the laws written by 

Congress. Never before, to my knowledge, has an outside group 

composed largely of members with little enforcement and operational knowledge of the Department of Homeland Security been 

permitted to provide advice on enforcement immigration laws. 

I, along with other Members, have urged the Administration to 

reverse the policy of granting administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants by misusing so-called priorities. 

The Administration needs to focus on creating jobs for American 

citizens and legal workers instead of looking for backdoor means to 

permit illegal immigrants to stay in this country. 

I, at this time, would yield to the gentlelady, my friend from 

California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The title of the hearing 

is simple, ‘‘Is Secure Communities Keeping Our Communities Secure?’’ And I think that is the central question we need to ask in 

this hearing on SCOM. Whether the program is a success depends 

entirely on whether it is actually making our communities safer 

and more secure. 

Some of us on the Subcommittee have opinions on this subject, 

and I am sure that DHS has opinions on the subject, but none of 

us really are experts and we really need to ask those we entrust 

with community safety and learn their views about whether this is 

working to protect and serve our communities. 

Now some have been arguing about enforcement numbers and 

prosecutorial discretion and so-called administrative amnesty. 

While we were doing this, law enforcement officials all over the 

country have been speaking out and asking for help. Sheriffs, police 

chiefs, prosecutors, both Democrats and Republicans, have been increasingly vocalizing concerns about SCOM as it is currently designed, saying that it actually threatens public safety and endangers the communities they are sworn to protect. 

Now SCOM was advertised to State and local law enforcement 

as a simple, voluntary, race-neutral, information sharing program 

focused on catching the most serious criminals. And as advertised, 

that program would make a great deal of sense. In a world of limited enforcement resources it is just common sense to prioritize the 

removal of dangerous criminals. And an electronic information 

sharing program to find and catch such individuals, that would be 

a laudable thing. That’s especially true when the program would be 

implemented with the consent of, and coordination and consultaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:45 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\113011\71404.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71404
3 

tion, with State and local law enforcement officials who, after all, 

know best how to protect their own communities. 

But according to a growing number of these State and local law 

enforcement officials, SCOM has failed to live up to its advertising 

in almost every respect. 

Now while SCOM was originally sold as a voluntary program, we 

all now know that’s not the case and actually probably never was. 

Despite signed agreements and promises ensuring input from State 

and local authorities, and an option for opting out of the program 

if it fails to work for a given community, DHS now intends to move 

forward in a mandatory fashion without any such input. 

The program is also failing to live up to the promise that it 

would focus on serious criminals. According to ICE’s own figures, 

over half of those identified and deported through SCOM either 

had no criminal convictions or were convicted of minor offenses, including driving without a license and other traffic offenses. It includes witnesses, bystanders, even victims, including even victims 

of domestic violence. And this is damaging community policing efforts. Ask any police chief or sheriff in the country what is his or 

her primary duty, and you will get the same answer, which is keeping our streets safe from serious criminals. To best accomplish 

that, they will probably also tell you they need the full trust and 

cooperation of the communities they serve. Community policing efforts are widely accredited for declining crime rates over the last 

decade. 

Now as SCOM is currently being run by ICE, a growing number 

of sheriffs and police chiefs believe the program is distracting them 

from their primary function, diverting their resources, and also 

damaging trust, especially in immigrant communities. Without 

trust, crimes go unreported, investigations go unsolved and decades 

of community policing efforts are destroyed, which could leave us 

all less safe. Mark Curran, the Republican chair of Lake County Illinois once supported SCOM; he no longer does, because of the fear 

and distrust the program is engendering in the communities he is 

sworn to protect. 

Expressing similar concerns are Salt Lake City police chief Chris 

Burbank, San Antonio police chief Bill McManus, Austin police 

chief Art Acevedo, former San Francisco Sheriff Michael 

Hennessey, and Boston police commissioner Ed Davis. You can’t 

just dismiss their concerns by saying they don’t believe in the rule 

of law. I mean, these are law enforcement officers from all over the 

country who are deeply committed to fighting crime and protecting 

the communities they serve. 

Experts are also worried, Mr. Chairman, about SCOM’s susceptibility to racial profiling. The program was advertised as being immune from racial profiling because it runs fingerprints on anyone 

who is arrested and booked, regardless of race or nationality. But 

the real problem is that SCOM may lead to pretextual arrests by 

officers who know that all fingerprints will be checked against ICE 

databases. If an officer chooses to issue tickets to White drivers 

without their license, but arrest Latinos in the same situation, 

SCOM would not be race neutral. 

A recent report by U.C. Berkeley’s Warren Institute found that 

between 2008 and January 2010, 93 percent of those identified 

4 

through SCOM were Latino. Now some of this may have do with 

the locations where the program is operating, but 93 percent is a 

staggering statistic because Latinos do not make up 93 percent of 

the removable immigrants in this country. 

Now, I know the Department is taking steps to ameliorate these 

concerns. They have this advisory council. ICE has issued guidelines to clarify enforcement priorities. And they are good steps, but 

I think the hearing today is probably scheduled to attack these 

small baby steps forward. I am sure we will hear with displeasure 

the recent report of the SCOM task force which included sheriffs 

and police chiefs. They had extensive field hearings and consultations, and the report raises very serious concerns about racial 

profiling. And it recommends that ICE would hold off on enforcement action on minor traffic offense as these offenses are most likely to be pretextual. 

I think the systematic use of prosecutorial discretion is absolutely necessary if the Department chooses to push forward with 

nationwide Secure Communities by 2013. We have dramatically increased enforcement resources over the last decade, but the capacity in detention centers is about 300,000, and we have a backlog 

of over 300,000 cases pending in immigration courts. 

What that backlog means is there are some serious criminals 

waiting, and our resources are being spent on things that are 

minor in scope. So I am hopeful that we can learn from this hearing. I would ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the 

record. I look forward to hearing from the witness and I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection the full statement will be part 

of the record of the hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

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

The title of this hearing is simple: ‘‘Is Secure Communities Keeping Our Communities Secure?’’ I agree that is the central question we should be asking at a hearing 

on S-Comm. Whether the program is a success depends entirely on whether it is 

actually making our communities safer and more secure. 

Some of us in this Subcommittee may have opinions on this subject. I’m sure DHS 

officials have their opinions. But none of us are experts. If we truly want to know 

whether S-Comm is making communities safer, shouldn’t we ask those who are 

most entrusted with community safety? Shouldn’t we ask the law enforcement officials most responsible for protecting and serving those very communities? 

While some have been arguing about enforcement numbers, prosecutorial discretion, and so-called administrative amnesty, law enforcement officials all over this 

country have been speaking out and asking for help. Sheriffs, police chiefs, and 

prosecutors—both Democratic and Republican—have been increasingly vocalizing 

their concerns that S-Comm, as currently designed, actually threatens public safety 

and endangers the communities they are sworn to protect. 

S-Comm was advertised to state and local law enforcement as a simple, voluntary, 

and race-neutral information-sharing program focused on catching the most serious 

criminals. As advertised, this program made a good deal of sense. 

In a world of limited enforcement resources, it is just common sense to prioritize 

the removal of dangerous criminals. And an electronic information-sharing program 

to find and catch such individuals is laudable. This is especially so when the program is implemented with the consent of and in coordination with state and local 

law enforcement officials, who know best how to protect their communities. 

But according to a growing number of these state and local law enforcement officials, S-Comm has failed to live up to its advertising in almost every respect. 

While S-Comm was originally sold as a voluntary program, we all know now that 

is not the case and it never was. Despite signed agreements and promises ensuring 

5 

input from state and local authorities and an option for opting out of the program 

if it failed to work for the community, DHS now intends to move forward in a mandatory fashion without any such input. 

The program is also failing to live up to the promise that it would focus on serious 

criminals. According to ICE’s own figures, over half of those identified and deported 

through S-Comm either had no criminal convictions or were convicted of only minor 

offenses, including driving without a license and other traffic offenses. It has swept 

in witnesses, bystanders, and even victims—including even victims of domestic violence. 

This is damaging community policing efforts. Ask any police chief or sheriff in the 

country what his or her primary duty is and you’ll get the same answer—keeping 

our streets safe from serious criminals. To best accomplish that, they will tell you 

that they need the full trust and cooperation of the communities they serve. Community policing efforts are widely credited for declining crime rates over the last 

decade. 

As S-Comm is currently being run by ICE, a growing number of sheriffs and police chiefs believe the program is distracting them from their primary functions, diverting their resources, and damaging trust with immigrant communities. Without 

this trust, crimes go unreported, investigations go unsolved, and decades of community policing efforts are destroyed—leaving us all less safe. 

Mark Curran, the Republican sheriff of Lake County, Illinois, once supported SComm. He no longer does because of the fear and distrust the program is engendering in the communities he is sworn to protect. Expressing similar concerns are 

Salt Lake City police chief, Chris Burbank; San Antonio police chief, Bill McManus; 

Austin police chief, Art Acevedo; former San Francisco sheriff, Michael Hennessy; 

and Boston Police Commissioner, Ed Davis. You cannot simply dismiss their concerns by saying they do not believe in the rule of law. These are head law enforcement officers from across the country who are deeply committed to fighting crime 

and protecting the communities they serve. 

Experts are also worried about S-Comm’s susceptibility to racial profiling. The 

program was advertised as being immune from racial profiling because it runs fingerprints on anyone who is arrested and booked, regardless of race or nationality. 

But this ignores the real problem—that S-Comm may lead to pre-textual arrests by 

officers who know that all fingerprints will be checked against ICE databases. If an 

officer chooses to issue tickets to white drivers without their license, but arrest 

Latino drivers in the same situation, S-Comm can hardly be said to be race neutral. 

A recent report by UC–Berkeley’s Warren Institute found that between 2008 and 

January 2010, a full 93% of those identified through S-Comm were Latino. Some 

of this may have to do with the locations in which the program was operating at 

that time, but 93% is still staggering. Latinos do not make up anywhere near 93% 

of the removable immigrants in this country. 

To DHS’s credit, the Department has taken steps to ameliorate some of these concerns. DHS created the S-Comm Advisory Council Task Force to study the program 

and make recommendations for its improvement. And ICE issued updated guidance 

clarifying the country’s enforcement priorities and the use of prosecutorial discretion 

for non-priority cases. 

These are good steps. But they do not fully address the problems just discussed. 

Much more clearly needs to be done to address law enforcement concerns. 

Yet I suspect that the Majority scheduled this hearing today specifically to attack 

these small, recent attempts to improve Secure Communities. 

I am sure you will hear displeasure with the recent report of the S-Comm Task 

Force, which included sheriffs and police chiefs from across the country. Issued after 

extensive field hearings and consultations, the report raises concerns about racial 

profiling and community policing, and it recommends that ICE withhold enforcement action on minor traffic offenses—those offenses most likely to be pre-textual. 

The report also recommends that ICE better make use of prosecutorial discretion 

in appropriate cases. 

I am sure you will also hear continued attacks on the recent agency guidance concerning enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion. ICE just released additional guidance and announced pilot programs in Denver and Baltimore for reviewing cases pending before the immigration courts. 

This systemic use of prosecutorial discretion is absolutely necessary if DHS chooses to push forward with nationwide Secure Communities by 2013. 

While Congress dramatically increased enforcement resources over the last decade, it did not provide commensurate resources to DOJ’s immigration courts. This 

has resulted in detention centers filled beyond capacity and a backlog of over 

300,000 cases pending in our immigration courts. 

6 

This backlog means some serious criminals wait while resources are spent on children, spouses of military families, and farmworkers. This makes no sense and will 

only get worse as a nationwide Secure Communities program potentially pours in 

hundreds of thousands of new cases into our already overburdened system. 

Given limited resources, DHS made the sensible decision to put those who would 

do us harm—terrorists and serious criminals—first in line for removal. This is simply sound law-enforcement. It is just common sense. 

Yet the Majority, at numerous prior hearings, has decried the use of prosecutorial 

discretion—widely accepted everywhere else in the law enforcement world—as ‘‘administrative amnesty.’’ This charge is premised on the ridiculous allegation that this 

Administration is failing to enforce our nation’s broken immigration laws. 

Rather than make political attacks, we should actually discuss how to fix S-Comm 

to address concerns from dedicated law enforcement officials across the country. 

Failure to do so will lead a system overwhelmed past the breaking point—and to 

communities that are anything but secure. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. With that, I would yield the gentleman the Chairman of the full Committee Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Immigration and Custom 

Enforcement’s primary mission is to promote public safety through 

criminal and civil enforcement of Federal immigration laws. As 

part of ICE’s mission, the agency attempts to identify and remove 

illegal immigrants. Through Secure Communities, ICE uses existing information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice to quickly and accurately identify immigrants who are arrested for a crime and booked 

into local law enforcement custody. 

Under this program, the fingerprints of everyone arrested and 

booked are checked against FBI criminal history records and DHS 

immigration records to determine if immigration enforcement is required. 

Secure Communities is an important and effective immigration 

law enforcement program. This program simply makes sense. Who 

wouldn’t want to deport a criminal immigrant? 

But advocates for amnesty have raised opposition for one reason: 

Security Communities works. 

Unfortunately, Secure Communities has fallen prey to the White 

House’s demands that DHS bypass Congress and use discretionary 

Executive Branch authorities to grant back-door amnesty. While 

the program will be operational in all jurisdictions by 2013, DHS 

has announced changes to Secure Communities that could potentially allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid deportation and work in the U.S., taking jobs away from Americans. 

On August 22 I sent DHS a written request for information 

about removable illegal and criminal immigrants brought to the attention of ICE through Secure Communities on whom ICE elected 

not to take action. The Committee needs to determine which of 

these immigrants went on to commit additional crimes. 

To date, I have not received the information requested which 

forced the issuance of a subpoena. Apparently, the Administration 

doesn’t want the American public to know the facts. 

The Obama administration’s refusal to fully enforce immigration 

laws allows illegal immigrants to work legally in the United States, 

forcing millions of unemployed Americans to compete with them for 

scarce jobs. 

7 

The Obama administration remains on the wrong side of the 

American people when it comes to illegal immigration. According a 

recent poll, two-thirds of the American people want to see our immigration laws enforced. 

The Administration is putting illegal immigrants ahead of the interest of American taxpayers and unemployed Americans. The Administration should enforce all the laws on the books, not just the 

ones it likes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. We have a really distinguished group of witnesses on our panel today. I want to welcome 

you and say from the onset that your written statement will be 

made a part of the record of the hearing in its entirety. I would 

ask all of you to try to summarize your verbal presentation in 5 

minutes because of the time period we have here today, and we 

would like to give everyone an opportunity to interact with questions. 

With that, I introduce our witnesses the first is Mr. Gary Mead. 

Mr. Mead is executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, at the 

Department of Homeland Security. The enforcement removal operation promotes public and safety and national security by removing 

national security threats, high risk criminal aliens and illegal 

aliens fugitives. 

Prior to joining ICE in 2006, Mr. Mead spent his entire Federal 

law enforcement career with the U.S. Marshal Service. Mr. Mead 

holds a Master’s degree and has received two senior executive service presidential rank awards. 

Our second witness is Ms. Julie Myers Wood. Ms. Wood is president of the ICS Consulting and Immigration and Custom Solutions, 

LLC. Prior to founding these companies, Ms. Wood’s served as Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the U.S. Immigration 

Customs Enforcement for nearly 3 years. Under her leadership, the 

agency sent new enforcement records with respect to immigration 

enforcement, export enforcement and intellectual property rights. 

Ms. Wood earned her bachelors degree at Baylor University, and 

J.D. from Cornell Law School. 

Our third witness is Sheriff Sam Page. Sheriff Page is an elected 

official and the chief law enforcement officer of Rockingham County, North Carolina. Sheriff Page serves as the 2011, 2012 chairman 

of the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association and formally served as 

president of the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association in 2010. In addition, he has served the National Sheriff’s Association Border and 

Immigration Committee since 2010. Following his high school graduation, Sheriff Page served the United States Air Force, from 1975 

to 1980, he is also a graduate of the National Security Institute. 

Our fourth witness, Mr. Arturo Venegas, is the former chief of 

police for the City of Sacramento, California. He began his law enforcement career in 1969 with the Fresno Police Department and 

served in various ranks. After graduating high school, he entered 

the military and served in the 101st airborne division in the U.S. 

in Vietnam. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. Venegas has a bachelor’s degree from the University of San 

Francisco, a Master’s degree from California State University, PolyVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:45 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\113011\71404.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71404
8 

technic in Pomona and also a graduate of other California posts accredited studies. 

So with that, we will start where the Mr. Mead, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY MEAD, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf the Secretary Napolitano and Director Morton, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Secure Communities. 

Secure Communities is smart, effective immigration enforcement, it 

provides real-time leads to the ICE criminal alien program, greatly 

reducing the likelihood that criminal aliens will be released from 

State and local custody back into the community. Secure Communities is now active in more than 1,700 jurisdictions in 44 States 

with full deployment on track for 2013. 

Since its inception, more than 109,000 convicted criminal aliens 

have been removed as a result of Secure Communities. However, 

to fully understand Secure Communities, it needs to be placed 

within the context of the ICE immigration enforcement and priorities. Simply put, it is ICE’s responsibility to identify and remove 

from the country those persons unlawfully present. Like any law 

enforcement agency, ICE has priorities to focus the use of its resources. The ICE priorities are clear and straightforward: They include criminal aliens and those who pose a threat to our communities, immigration fugitives, repeat immigration violators and recent border crossers. 

However it is important to note that does not mean cases outside 

the priorities will be routinely ignored. In fiscal year 2011, ICE removed a record setting 397,000 unlawfully present aliens, 90 percent of which fell into these priorities. Secure Communities is a 

valuable tool in meeting these priorities. 95 percent of the more 

than 149,000 persons removed as a result of Secure Communities 

fell into one these 4 priority categories. 

Last fiscal year alone, more than 58,000 of the record-setting 

216,000 criminal alien removals came from Secure Communities 

leads. While Secure Communities is smart, effective immigration 

enforcement, the ICE communications surrounding Secure Communities has been anything but smart or effective. 

In addition, some early deployment decisions have lead to unintended, and at times, difficult-to-explain consequences. Accordingly, 

I would like to take a minute to explain what Secure Communities 

is and is not. It is the result of a fiscal year 2008 congressional directive that ICE improved and modernized its efforts to identify 

and remove criminal aliens. It utilizes a 2002 Federal statute requiring the sharing of information between Federal agencies. 

It compares electronic criminal justice fingerprint data in the 

possession of the FBI with fingerprint data in the possession of 

DHS. When matches occur, they are reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis by trained ICE officers who determine what, if any, immigration action is appropriate. It is very important to note that Secure 

Communities does not authorize local law enforcement officers to 

9 

enforce immigration laws or divert them or their resources from 

their local law enforcement work. It does not target victims of or 

witnesses to crime, particularly in domestic violence cases. It does 

not promote racial profiling. MOUs with the States were not required for deployment. Other than to stop sending fingerprints of 

those individuals arrested and booked on local crimes to the FBI, 

it is not possible for States or local jurisdictions to opt out of Secure 

Communities. 

While the fundamentals of Secure Communities have remained 

sound and unchanged since its inception, we have recognized a 

number of areas for improvement, many of which were included in 

the recent Secure Communities task force report. Some of the more 

significant changes include the following: Creation of new public 

ICE Web site, clearly explaining Secure Communities; the issuance 

of updated guidance on prosecutorial discretion and protections for 

victims of and witnesses to crime. 

The DHS office of civil rights and civil liberties and ICE have 

begun providing public and law enforcement outreach materials, including the first in the series of DVDs; implementation of a joint 

CRCL complaint process for those who feel Secure Communities is 

in a particular jurisdiction is being misused; the creation of a 

CRCL statistical early warning tool, to help analyze and identify 

any potential of racial profiling and jurisdictions where Secure 

Communities has been activated; a soon-to-be released revised 

version of the ICE detainer form which will inform local law enforcement to apply the detainer only upon conviction for certain low 

level misdemeanors. 

We are also working to identify low-level misdemeanors that 

would typically be outside ICE priorities and reviewing whether it 

would be possible to provide a post conviction model to them. 

In conclusion, I would like to restate that Secure Communities 

is smart, effective immigration enforcement and a valuable tool in 

achieving our overall priorities. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Mead. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:] 

10 


Mead-1.eps
11 


Mead-2.eps
12 


Mead-3.eps
13 


Mead-4.eps
14 


Mead-5.eps
15 


Mead-6.eps
16 


Mead-7.eps
17 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Wood. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIE MYERS WOOD, PRESIDENT, 

ICS CONSULTING, LLC 

Ms. WOOD. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate 


Mead-8.eps
18 

the opportunity to testify before you today about the importance of 

Secure Communities and the ongoing challenges faced by the agency in implementing the program. My name is Julie Myers Wood, 

and I am the former assistant secretary at ICE. 

As Gary Mead indicated, ICE has made some significant strides 

in implementing Secure Communities and ensuring that serious 

criminal aliens are being identified and deported. When considering the remaining challenges the agency has, it is important to 

remember how far the agency has come. When I first arrived at 

ICE, we did not have a good handle on the population of criminal 

aliens in jails and correctional institutions, despite our obligation 

to monitor the criminal alien population and reduce releases into 

society. In fact, we really a patchwork approach. In some areas, 

ICE had full coverage and every criminalized alien that was there 

was identified and processed. In other areas, ICE had no presence 

at all, this was simply unacceptable. 

We also did not make full use of technology to ensure that we 

were processing criminal aliens efficiently. It was this frustration, 

the frustration that ICE was failing to identify criminal aliens and 

that ICE was often inefficient in processing and apprehending 

criminal aliens that it did identify that lead to the creation of the 

Secure Communities program. 

As Gary noted, Congress played a critical role in urging the 

agency to improve its efforts in this regard. A key goal of Secure 

Communities was to create uniformity and to ensure that all individuals who are arrested and convicted by local and statement law 

enforcement would not simply blend back into society without an 

encounter by ICE. It was to take away the randomness of local programs that allowed releases to occur. Making the program voluntary or allowing localities to opt in would undermine a central 

goal of the program that Congress required. 

The agency has made significant strides in implementing Secure 

Communities, but some challenges do remain. In particular, ICE 

has to continue to assess how to best utilize its limited resources. 

Some of this can be done by prioritization. However, it is critical 

for the agency to aggressively use tools that increase efficiency in 

removal proceedings without sacrificing fairness. For example, the 

agency should increase use of the programs that places individuals 

in immigration proceedings while they are serving time in Federal 

or State institutions, known as the institutional removal program. 

The agency also should increase the use of voluntary stipulated removals and, where appropriate, the use of the Rapid REPAT program, a program that provides for conditional early release of 

qualifying non-violent criminal aliens on the condition that they 

voluntarily agree to their removal, they waive any appeal rights, 

and agree to be deported. This saves money both on the State and 

local side, and saves money on the Federal side while encouraging 

aliens to abide by court orders. 

While seeking to increase efficiency with the resources currently 

allocated to the program, ICE must ensure it doesn’t reduce transparency or any fairness in the process. In this area, there is some 

room for improvement by the government. In particular, there 

could be enhanced education about how to avoid racial profiling, in 

addition to the education that is currently in place. Routine trainVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:45 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\113011\71404.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71404
19 

ing could be implemented at the time the Secure Communities is 

started in a particular community. The solution to potential problems, however, must be education, and it cannot simply be the fly 

spec every underlying crime and arrest that subjects an immigrant 

to the Secure Communities process. 

In summary, the agency plans to insure that all facilities are covered through Secure Communities by 2013 will go a long way in 

keeping our communities secure. But in order to ensure long-term 

success of the program, ICE must continue to address resource efficiency and fairness issues and must have the support of Congress 

in this regard. I thank you very much, and I look forward to any 

questions that you have. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Ms. Wood. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood follows:] 

20 


Wood-1.eps
21 


Wood-2.eps
22 


Wood-3.eps
23 


Wood-4.eps
24 


Wood-5.eps
25 


Wood-6.eps
26 


Wood-7.eps
27 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Sheriff Page. 

TESTIMONY OF SAM PAGE, SHERIFF, CHIEF LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC 

Sheriff PAGE. To the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and to Members, I give you greetings from Rockingham 

County, North Carolina. I would like to thank you all for allowing 

me to come before you and to give testimony and answer your 

questions. 

I have talked to a lot of sheriffs over the past couple of years 

across the country and in my State of North Carolina. Sheriffs see 

an increase in criminal illegal alien activity home based in our 

communities. Secure Communities—the question was is Secure 

Communities keeping or communities safe? I believe it does. And 

what I think is important about Secure Communities is that it provides additional access to information and the ability to communicate that information to other law enforcement agencies, including ICE, who we partnered with. 

Prior to 2009, we did not have all the access that we have now. 

As of March 2011, all counties in North Carolina now have the Secure Communities program, and we all participate in this program 

because we see the importance. I am not going repeat the main 

mission, because Mr. Mead has already addressed that, but Secure 

Communities is very simple: A person first has to get arrested, he 

ends up in a local jail facility. The information is provided to us 

through interviews that the person was not native born, we run 

him through the process of the FBI and also through the immigration’s fingerprint database. We wait on hit confirmations or information that comes back and we conduct interviews working with 

our ICE agents. ICE makes the determination as has already been 

stated, whether to detain or not. If the person has a bond and detainer is not issued and the person posts bond, we release that person. If a detainer is issued and he posts bond, the person is released to ICE, they have 48 hours to pick them up. 

Secure Communities was designed to take serious criminal illegal aliens off the streets of our Nation. It was designed to help 

identify criminal offenders in the U.S., and that information assist 

in the deportation process. It gives local police, sheriffs and jails a 

great law enforcement tool to better identify those persons that 

have been arrested and are in custody. 

I run a jail, the most important thing I can do as a sheriff in 

North Carolina and a sheriff in America is to be able to identify 

who is coming in my jail and who is being released back into the 

community. I relate to my citizens and sheriffs, and I would think 

anyone else as a sheriff or law enforcement official would believe 

the same thing. 

Since October 2010 to the present, successes using Secure Communities, we have identified 58 criminal illegal aliens, of those, 

ICE has issued 49 detainers; 36 of the 58 persons arrested have 

been picked up by ICE; 25 of the 58 were charged with DWI offenses, driving while impaired. Ten of the 58 have reoffended and 

returned back to my community, by their own arrest in my jurisdiction. As of today, none of the 10 have been deported. Four of the 

58 were charged with assault upon a female, domestic related. One 

28 

of the 58 was charged with assault with deadly weapon, inflicting 

serious injury, attempted murder, domestic. 

I appreciate having Secure Communities in North Carolina and 

having access to the immigration automatic fingerprint system to 

improve our print identification process. I know this law enforcement office has more information. The quicker we get information, 

the more information we have, we have a better chance of solving 

crimes in our communities. 

The last fact about ICE is, a question in which someone asked, 

how much does it cost? Well, first off, it didn’t cost us anything. 

Second of all, it is very limiting amount of training, so I don’t lose 

officers. And also, this program was asked for by all the sheriffs in 

North Carolina because we believe in it. And again, our primary 

response when we arrest people and they bring them to our jail facility, is to try to identify that person is to the best of our ability 

before that person is released because that person may be going 

back out to our communities to reoffend, we want to know what the 

person is. Ladies and gentlemen I thank you and honor any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Page follows:] 

29 


Page-1.eps
30 


Page-2.eps
31 


Page-3.eps
32 


Page-4.eps
33 


Page-5.eps
34 


Page-6.eps
35 


Page-7.eps
36 


Page-8.eps
37 


Page-9.eps
38 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Sheriff. 

Mr. Venegas. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTURO VENEGAS, JR., PROJECT DIRECTOR, 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVE 

Mr. VENEGAS. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to review the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Secured Community program with you. My name is Arturo Venegas. 

I am the retired chief of police for the city of Sacramento. I also 

believe I am probably the only American citizen veteran that is 

also an immigrant. 

I now direct the law enforcement engagement initiative, a national effort to engage law enforcement executives across the country in a sensible dialogue over immigration policies that promote 

public safety and community cohesion. 

This past summer, I served on the DHS task force on Secure 

Communities until the very end of the process. I concluded that the 

task force did not go far enough in recommending specific enforceable changes to repair the damage that the program has had on 

the relationship between immigrants and local police. 

DHS initially introduced the Secure Communities program as 

only targeting those with serious criminal convictions. As a result, 

many of my law enforcement colleagues initially saw it as positive 

alternative to the 287(g) program assuming that the use of Federal 

database wouldn’t allow for racial profiling. However in 2010, advocates gain access to DHS statistics on who exactly was being deported through the program, many of my colleagues views began to 

show. The data showed that 60 percent of the people deported 

through the program committed either low level offenses, like traffic violation, or no offense at all. These statistics led not only to 

more opposition from law enforcement leaders, but from governors. 

In May and June, the governors of Illinois, New York and Massachusetts all formally requested removal of their States from the 

program, citing, number 1, the deportation of non criminals and its 

negative affect on community policing. And number 2, the fact that 

ICE misled law enforcement by leading them to believe that serious criminals were being deported. 

In June, DHS created a task force to review Secure Communities, and a letter to us, my colleagues from the National Latino 

Peace Officers Association made three very specific recommendations for changes to Secure Communities: Number 1, tailor the program to focus only on individuals convicted of serious crimes; number 2, clarify the limits of police authority to enforce civil immigration laws; and number 3, create accountability mechanisms so 

these changes aren’t merely voluntary. 

The recommendations contained in the task force report fell short 

on these principles, and I chose not to sign on. In Secure Communities in its current form, and even if the recommendation of the 

task force are implemented, individuals simply arrested for minor 

violations, including traffic offenses, are still being put through the 

system. Immigrants continue to fear that contact with the police 

could lead to deportation. Crimes go unreported, leaving criminals 

39 

free to prey on others. Civil immigration enforcement continues to 

trump crime control in our communities. 

What is more, immigrants charged with more serious, oftentimes 

violent, or even minor offenses, are never convicted. We will find 

no protection whatsoever in the current policy or the task force recommendations. It seems that we are agreeing to turn the longstanding principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head for 

certain groups of people. If you are an immigrant and you are 

charged with a serious offense or even a minor offense you are 

guilty until proven innocent and you will be referred for deportation. 

As an immigrant myself, and as an American citizen, I cannot 

support that different standard. While I felt the recommendations 

and the task force fell short, I did agree with some of its premises, 

it elaborated on the need to use agency resources more effectively 

through the long-standing practice of prosecutorial discretion and 

express their support to DHS and their recent announcement of 

this new policy. The fact that this policy is now being politicized 

make no sense to me. Prosecutorial discretion is a fundamental tool 

of all law enforcement agencies. Police and prosecutors constantly 

use their discretion to decide which cases to investigate, which to 

prosecute and which to dismiss. They consider the factors like seriousness of the criminal violation, any record of previous violations, 

availability of investigative and prosecutorial resources, strength of 

the evidence and the violations impact on the community safety. 

But as important as prosecutorial discretion is, the Administration’s new policy will not fix the problems inherent in secured communities. The policy is only triggered after an individual is put into 

the system, but every time someone is stopped and arrested for a 

minor violation and detained, because of their immigration status, 

the immigrant community learns that police are to be feared. Immigrants need to know that local police is there to help them, not 

deport them. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to address you 

on this very important topic. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Venegas. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Venegas follows:] 

40 


AV-1.eps
41 


AV-2.eps
42 


AV-3.eps
43 


AV-4.eps
44 


AV-5.eps
45 


AV-6.eps
46 


AV-7.eps
47 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Mead, ICE has identified over 300,000 criminal immigrants through the Secure Communities whom it has decided to release back on to our streets. Do you have any concern 

that some of these released aliens will go on to commit additional 

crimes? And how would you answer a victim of one of these crimes 

who said you had it within your power to prevent their attack, but 

opted not to do that? 

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the figure that 

we released 300,000 criminal aliens back on to the street. But I can 

tell you that we have removed more criminal aliens last year than 

we have removed ever before. We are working at almost maximum 


AV-8.eps
48 

capacity in terms of total removals. And our number one priority 

in terms of immigration enforcement is the identification and removal of criminal aliens. It would be extremely rare, extremely 

rare for us to knowingly let a serious criminal offender walk loose 

in the community. It would have to be some extraordinary circumstance probably beyond our control to do that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You would yield that many, you say you are not 

familiar with the 300,000 number, but let’s say it is only 286,000 

or 192,000 that have been deemed to be illegally in the United 

States, have committed some crime, maybe something as simple as 

a third- or fourth-time drunk driving arrest, spousal abuse, something like that. Why are they released back into the public in a socalled catch-and-release situation? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, again I am not familiar with any catch-and-release situation that may exist. Whether it is Secure Communities 

or the criminal alien program, we are doing everything possible to 

identify—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay, but—— 

Mr. MEAD [continuing]. Detain, and remove criminal aliens. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So you are not familiar with any individual, 

criminal alien that has been released back into the community 

prior to a deport hearing? 

Mr. MEAD. As I said, there certainly could be circumstances like 

that, you could have a legal permanent resident who has been 

charged with a crime, not convicted of that crime—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But a legal—— 

Mr. MEAD [continuing]. Not subject to removal. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. With all due respect, a legal, a person who has 

legal status is not an illegal immigrant. I am talking about people 

that are illegally in the country that have been identified through 

this program, the IDENT program, Secured Communities, however 

you want to refer to it, that have been turned over to your custody 

within, I believe as the Sheriff said, 48 hours or the time that you 

are notified. And you are not aware of any that have just been released back into community? I am not talking about legal residents, I am talking about illegal aliens. You know of no case where 

that has happened? My numbers show at least 300,000, but let’s 

say—you can go on record as saying you don’t know of any policy 

that would allow this to happen for an illegal; is that correct? 

Mr. MEAD. No, what I am saying is I wasn’t familiar with your 

number. I said it is not our policy to release back into the community dangerous criminal aliens. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. How do you determine whether they are dangerous? Let’s say hypothetically, a second drunk driving arrest, 

would that be considered dangerous? 

Mr. MEAD. A first drunk driving arrest would be considered dangerous. Just looking at Secure Communities statistics since its inception, ICE removed over 16,000 DUIs last year, we removed 

35,000 DUI cases in the United States so a first case is very serious to us. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Based on that, it would be safe to say that it is 

your understanding that someone direct arrested for a drunk driving arrest, driving under the influence and then turned over into 

your custody pending a hearing would not be released? 

49 

Mr. MEAD. It is possible they could be granted bond—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Bond, would that mean OR? 

Mr. MEAD. No, it would be bond, a cash bond, it could be they 

are put on an alternative to detention. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I appreciate your answer. 

Let me go quickly to the sheriff. Sheriff, you mentioned in your 

testimony that there is relatively no expense to the sheriff’s department for this program, and added expense to the local jurisdiction; 

is that correct? 

Sheriff PAGE. Yes, sir. I just want to let you know—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you find that using Secure Communities is 

difficult or onerous on the part of your deputies? 

Sheriff PAGE. No, sir I have a few staff members that are trying 

to do the data check. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So it hasn’t put an added burden on your ability 

to do day-to-day law enforcement? In fact, you would say it is a 

benefit? 

Sheriff PAGE. No, sir, I think it has actually complemented our 

work to be able to better identify criminally-charged illegal aliens 

in our jail. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Sheriff. The gentlelady 

from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before asking my questions, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to enter some items into the record; a November 17 letter from 32 Members of Congress to the President calling 

for an end of Secure Communities, a November 17 letter from the 

members of the Secure Communities task force expressing support 

for prosecutorial discretion; a letter from the New York State Senator Gustavo Rivera; a series of letters and statements prepared for 

today’s hearing by over 250 organizations, including 44 organizations serving victims of domestic violence; 50 faith-based organizations and leaders; over 80 civil rights, human rights and immigrant 

advocacy groups; over 75 LBGT organizations; and a sign-on letter 

by 43 national, State and local organizations working with survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is included in the Appendix.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t get to ask my questions? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Oh, oh. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That was a unanimous consent request to put it 

in the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I stand corrected. With all due respect, I will 

yield now to the gentlelady for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You can’t blame me for trying. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would blame myself for letting you succeed. I 

want to thank all of the witnesses for being here, and especially 

Mr. Venegas, you not only have a background in law enforcement, 

but you served on this task force. And sometimes I think it is important before we ask questions to establish what we do agree on. 

And I think everybody who I have talked to who has concerns 

50 

about this program doesn’t have a concern about having violent, 

dangerous criminals removed. 

So actually, there is more commonality here than we might expect. Where we get into trouble is when it is somebody who hasn’t 

committed an offense, or they are pulled over for a faulty taillight 

and the impact that has on policing generally. 

I am wondering, one of the comments, Sheriff Mark Curran who 

said he once supported the Secure Communities, this is his quote, 

he said ‘‘Fear is running through communities right now, the squad 

car rounds the corner, and you will see people scram, it is not because they are engaged in criminal activity necessarily, it is because they have this perception that they are illegal or they know 

somebody who might be undocumented, and they don’t want to 

have anything to do with law enforcement,’’ and that this has created problems for them in terms of getting people to call 911 or 

being willing to be witnesses, or if you are a victim of domestic violence, to call for help. What would be necessary? This is not only 

what we are doing, but the perception of what we are doing. What 

do you think would be necessary to get this program back on the 

right track? 

Mr. VENEGAS. Thank you, Congresswoman. Your first point, and 

I think it is an absolutely important one that needs to be said 

again. And I have been fortunate to literally have traveled now all 

four corners of our great country. I have not been in a single immigrant community or any community at all where they are saying, 

hey, it is okay to have a burglar or robber or rapist living next to 

me. Even the immigrant communities are saying get those people 

out of here, that’s it. And that is the way the program was initially 

sold. I think the good sheriff from Illinois was talking about, and 

with all due respect to my colleagues, they are in a real pickle. But 

the fact of the matter is, is that when you activate a county, as an 

example, when you activate, when they did activate Los Angeles 

County, nobody asked the 50 or 60 other law enforcement agencies 

that booked into the jail whether they wanted to participate in Secure Communities or not, they got activated de facto. 

And the other part that is very important, I think, is that a lot 

of these communities, those chiefs had been working on community 

policing and recognizing that relationships are absolutely essential, 

not only for public safety and the neighborhoods and community, 

but for the country. The reality is, is that, you know, as a Nation 

we grew our own homegrown idiots, and the information that is 

very important to us and good public safety and national security 

often comes from the local officers and their relationships that they 

have with those communities. 

Whenever you start impacting the trust between the law enforcement agency and the communities they served at the neighborhood 

and that level, you start impacting good policing for the entire community and put the Nation at risk in national security. And I think 

that’s what the sheriff was talking about. I don’t think that is just 

in Illinois, I think that is true in all of the communities that really 

are saying, hey, what are we doing? If this was done as it was initially intended with the serious felons, nobody would be have any 

problems at all. 

51 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Mead, let me ask you a question, because in 

California, there is a group called The Partnership to End Domestic Violence. It is a statewide coalition of domestic violence shelters 

and service providers. And they have contacted me and this is what 

they have said: ‘‘Many of the immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors we now see are too afraid to report the crimes 

they have suffered to law enforcement, and many others are too 

afraid to even seek services.’’ They have said despite the Administration’s efforts to ameliorate this program through an ICE memorandum on prosecutorial discretion, it is not clear how effectively 

that goal is being implemented, and the fears that are out there 

have impacted accessing the judicial system that this is a growing 

problem. 

So here is the question I have for you: Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, decided that if you are a victim of domestic violence we 

want you to complain. As a matter of fact, we have a special visa, 

so if you are a victim of domestic violence you can have access to 

that because we think it is better to do that than to have dead victims. And yet, this policy apparently is having an adverse impact 

on that national goal. 

What can we do? What is the agency prepared to do to make 

sure that many domestic violence victims, or victims of human trafficking are assured that they can go ahead and call 911 and not 

end up in a deportation proceeding? 

Mr. MEAD. First of all, we agree completely that victims of domestic violence should not be deterred in any way from coming forward and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Unfortunately, several of them have been deported 

for doing that. 

Mr. MEAD. I would say, an immediate response to that, we have 

not found a single case where a victim of domestic violence has 

been removed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have cases, I will provide them to you. 

Mr. MEAD. And we would be happy to get that information from 

you so we can run it down, because we have not been able to find 

anyone but going back to your original question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Here is the point, it has been reported to me by 

law enforcement and it has been in the newspaper, so we can do 

that off camera. The issue is if I call 911, my kid is going to get 

deported, therefore I better risk being beaten up or trafficked in a 

sexual manner. How do we overcome that if what you are saying—— 

Mr. MEAD. A couple of things have already started, one Director 

Morton issued, and it is on our Web site, his policy on victims of 

crime, and particularly victims of domestic violence stating clearly 

it is not our policy to use the immigration laws to adversely affect 

those people and deter them from reporting the crimes. 

We have been getting information out to local law enforcement 

about the new visas that you are talking about and other protections we can afford victims of domestic violence using prosecutorial 

discretion. We have been in California doing public roundtables on 

this, and whenever we have offered to come out again and meet 

with any community group that would be interested in hearing 

52 

more about our program and policies because it is not our policy 

to use immigration law to remove victims of domestic violence. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me just ask that—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentlelady—just so you know, the 

lights are about 4 minutes behind now. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Then I will ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, I will yield the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. To say to Mr. Mead, I certainly do not challenge 

your sincerity, but this was just received, this is the reputable 

group in California and it is not working. So we need to do something more if we are actually going to get the victims of crime to 

do what we hope they can do which is to be safe. And I thank the 

Chairman for the additional time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mead, thank you for 

being here today. I understand you are recovering from the flu, so 

thank you for making an effort to testify. 

What information today does ICE compile on those individuals 

who have almost 300,000 individuals who have been released into 

our communities that the Administration has refused to detain. 

Mr. MEAD. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of information on 

those people that we have taken action on, including those that we 

have released on bond or orders of supervision. We can tell you 

where they were arrested, why they were arrested, and what form 

of—— 

Mr. SMITH. Does ICE have information in hand that would enable those of us who are interested to determine whether the individuals released have committed additional crimes? I am not talking about information you might get from the FBI, but do you have 

all of the information in hand that the FBI would need to determine whether they have committed additional crimes. 

Mr. MEAD. I am not sure what information the FBI would need. 

We have the sort of information that you are talking about. There 

is a group of people, however, where we have had some contact 

with them, but not taken an action where we don’t have as complete information. 

Mr. SMITH. What percentage of the whole would that be? 

Mr. MEAD. If we are talking about the universe of IDENT 

matches that came out of Secure Communities it could be, and this 

is just a rough guess, 25, 30 percent, but I can’t—— 

Mr. SMITH. Say approximately three-quarters of the individuals 

who have been released, you do have that adequate information? 

Mr. MEAD. We have the information that I mentioned. 

Mr. SMITH. As you probably know, I was once told by the staff 

at ICE what you just told me that they had the information, they 

were going to give it to us in the next day or 2, and suddenly, ICE 

decided not to give us that information. Sooner or later we will get 

it, that is why we had to issue the subpoena. 

Do you know who would have made the decision, or changed 

their mind about not giving us that information? 

Mr. MEAD. I am not aware that a decision has been made not 

to give you the information. 

53 

Mr. SMITH. It is pretty obvious that we haven’t received it, so 

somebody made that decision. 

Mr. MEAD. We are working with two issues with the Department: 

One is how to provide information that isn’t under the control of 

the FBI, and we are in dialogue with the FBI on that; and how do 

we drill down into that group of cases where we don’t have good 

information. 

Mr. SMITH. On the cases that you do, the 75 percent, are you confident I am going to get that information in the near future? 

Mr. MEAD. I am confident that we will supply the information 

that you have requested. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, that is good news and I welcome that, thank 

you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you Mr. Smith. Mr. King.—- Oh, I am 

sorry. Ms. Waters came in. 

The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I did not 

have time to review the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement document here, the statement of Mr. Gary Mead, but I just 

looked it over here. Mr. Mead, reading this, it sounds as if you 

were taken into consideration concerns about Secure Communities, 

and that you have done everything—done a lot of things to address 

those concerns, even to the point of training and videos, and on and 

on and on. Why then, do we still have so many complaints about 

mistakes that are made? And why do we have such concentration 

on one group of immigrant Latinos? What happens with people 

from Kosovo and other places that are here illegally? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, Congresswoman, first of all, we take all of the 

complaints seriously, and as you said, we tried to address those 

that we felt we could address. I can tell you that of the 1,700 jurisdictions that we have active and the 44 States, the number of concerns are relatively small, that notwithstanding, as I said, we have 

taken them seriously and tried to address them. As far as enforcing 

the immigration laws, we don’t do that in any predetermined way 

in terms of nationality. We enforce the laws equally. We don’t racially profile, we don’t have targets based on countries of origin. 

And the end results are what they are. 

Ms. WATERS. So what lead to the overwhelming arrest of Latinos, 

I understand that 93 percent of individuals arrested through the 

program are Latinos. 

Mr. MEAD. Again, it is not as a result of racial profiling or country of origin. We have enforcement programs that look for those 

persons that are here unlawfully and we apply the law equally to 

them. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Venegas, in your testimony you stated that you 

made three recommendations to DHS task force on Secure Communities. Can you elaborate on those recommendations and explain 

why you believe they would make the program more effective. 

Mr. VENEGAS. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me— 

number one was to tailor the focus of the individuals convicted on 

serious crimes. That was the original intent of the program, and I 

don’t think any of the communities across the country would have 

any problems with having a murderer, a rapist, a serious offender, 

action taken. And in fact, the chiefs and sheriffs of this country 

54 

have said before you do any deportation, also make sure that they 

are brought before our systems of justice and that they are held accountable, number one. The clarification of the police authority to 

enforce civil immigration, your question right now to Mr. Mead, I 

think it has been a problem with DHS-ICE for a long time that 

they failed to recognize that it is a but-for scenario. And but-for to 

the program, the immigration enforcement that has taken place at 

the local levels now, the numbers that you listed, and very correctly, would not be in place. 

The reality is that through the creation of Secure Communities 

nationwide, we have empowered individuals in our agencies, and I 

assure you, my colleagues here have fired some of those people, 

that have allowed their biases or their bigotry to come into play, 

and so they target individuals that normally would not be but-for 

to this program. It didn’t exist with 287(g). That that they tried to 

create nationwide only ended up with 60 agencies actually participating, so now trying to do it nationally. 

The other part is the creation of accountability mechanisms. 

DHS refuses to accept the fact that they have an obligation for the 

enforcement that begins actually at the point of contact and eventually puts people into their system. Or to the fact that it also involves the FBI. And a recognition that, truly, I think it was the 

good intent of Congress that said back then agencies should talk 

to each other. But the reality is is that no accountability measures 

have been put in place since the inception of this program, not only 

for the Federal agencies and how they work in the field, but the 

local law enforcement agencies that are now active participants either by the fact that they want to or de facto. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentlelady is expired. Mr. King. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have two submissions if this would 

be the proper time to do them. I ask unanimous consent that this 

letter to Governor Jerry Brown of California dated January 10, 

2011 be included in the record. I also ask unanimous consent that 

a letter from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los 

Angeles, that is CHIRLA, express some serious concerns with the 

Secure Communities program such as lack of transparency, et 

cetera, also be included. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

55 


71404A48-1.eps
56 


71404A48-2.eps
57 


71404A48-3.eps
58 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. I 

just first note Mr. Venegas that you announced in your testimony 

you are likely the only immigrant on the panel. And I wonder if 

you could tell us how it was you were inspired to come to the 

United States? 

Mr. VENEGAS. My mother actually was an American citizen and 

she was kidnapped. It is quite a long story. Do you have time for 

a book? 

Mr. KING. Well, I would just like to have the short version. 


71404A48-4.eps
59 

Mr. VENEGAS. A very short version. My mother actually was kidnapped by my grandfather and taken back to Mexico where he was 

from. Eventually he was killed and she was raised by an aunt. 

Over time, she connected with her mother who was a resident in 

Ventura County, California. And her desire was for us to come 

back to the United States and actually filed immigration papers in 

Walahra at the consulate where she found a very compassionate 

U.S. employee at the embassy. And through the process we were 

able to come to the United States and resided initially in Santa 

Maria, California. 

Mr. KING. Can you just tell us what year and what visa then, 

Mr. Venegas? 

Mr. VENEGAS. That was 1958. I couldn’t tell you the name of the 

visa or whatever. 

Mr. KING. Well, thank you. 

Mr. VENEGAS. But I am an American citizen now, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. I congratulate you. 

Mr. VENEGAS. Actually, I became an American citizen after I 

served in Vietnam. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. And that is the answer to my question. 

I appreciate that. I have another question for you, and that is the 

number of times I heard at least a tonal amendment about racial 

profiling. Can you point to any statute that prohibits racial 

profiling? 

Mr. VENEGAS. There is statutes all over that prohibit racial 

profiling, however, I will tell you this, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Could you just point to one for this panel? 

Mr. VENEGAS. That prohibits racial profiling? 

Mr. KING. Yes. Is there a Federal statute that prohibits racial 

profiling? 

Mr. VENEGAS. Yeah, the Civil Rights Act. 

Mr. KING. Actually, I don’t think when they wrote the Civil 

Rights Act that they even knew what racial profiling was, Mr. 

Venegas. 

Mr. VENEGAS. And the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the 

United States Constitution prohibits racial profiling and discrimination. And our oath of office. 

Mr. KING. I have the floor now. Thank you. I looked at your testimony, and the number I wanted to get as a clarification, that 60 

percent of those deported committed either low level or no violations at all, that basis, what universe is that that you are speaking 

to? I noticed that wasn’t in your written testimony, so could you 

tell us where that fact comes from, or that statistic? 

Mr. VENEGAS. Those were the facts actually that were taken out 

of the ICE’s Web page. If you go into ICE they have all of their 

numbers. I have to tell you this about them, they have a lot of stuff 

that is on for their record. 

Mr. KING. And a universe of that is at the United States of 

America? Is it a State, a county, how broad a universe is that? 

Mr. VENEGAS. No, the United States of America. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that. And I 

heard your ask on that. And I would ask you if 100 percent of those 

that were deported had committed no crime, no serious crime, no 

crime at all, and not even a misdemeanor, would that trouble you? 

60 

Mr. VENEGAS. First of all, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. KING. And why? 

Mr. VENEGAS. But I don’t think that my point or anybody’s point 

is that 100 percent of those deported have not committed any offense. I think—and I think I have said it for the record here and 

a number of places that the folks, and some of them have committed very serious offenses, number one, they should be held accountable at the local level or State; and then two, action should 

be taken by ICE. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And three was create accountability. Are 

you aware of how many arrests there have been of criminal aliens 

in the United States for the purpose—the number of arrests of 

criminal aliens in the United States for homicide? 

Mr. VENEGAS. I do not have the exact number. 

Mr. KING. I would point your attention that that would be a 

study that was done and completed in March of this year 2011 by 

a GAO study that was commissioned by this panel. And that number is 25,064. And so I would just make this point, that when we 

deport people after the crime, there are already victims to crime, 

and I am concerned about that tone. I would turn my direction over 

to Ms. Wood, whom I welcome back. 

Mr. VENEGAS. May I respond to that? 

Mr. KING. I thank you for your testimony. I didn’t have a question. But Ms. Wood, you stated that you wanted to ensure that 

criminal aliens are identified and deported. Was that a selected 

term, ‘‘criminal aliens,’’ or would that also include those who came 

into the United States who were not guilty of a crime? 

Ms. WOOD. That also were not—are you talking about lawful permanent residents whose crimes made them subject to removal? 

Mr. KING. Well, I am really talking about those who overstayed 

their visa who would be guilty of a serious misdemeanor. 

Ms. WOOD. No, I think I was including kind of everyone within 

that category, all individuals who would be amenable to removal. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. And I appreciate 

that. I knew that precision would come from you. Mr. Mead, is 

there anything in the policy of Secure Communities that address 

the sanctuary cities that have a policy that refuses to cooperate? 

Mr. MEAD. Not specifically. Again, it is information sharing as a 

result of fingerprint submission. So whether or not a city chooses 

to honor our detainers is really not a subject for Secure Communities. If the jurisdiction is activated in Secure Communities, their 

prints come to us and we are able to do the matching against our 

databases. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And then in conclusion, can you point to 

any existing statute that prohibits racial profiling? 

Mr. MEAD. I can’t answer that question. 

Mr. KING. Could you, Ms. Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. No. I am aware obviously of the DOJ guidelines 

against racial profiling. And they may refer to something. 

Mr. KING. A guideline as far up the ladder as we go. Congress 

has never acted on racial profiling. 

Ms. WOOD. That is right. But ICE does use those guidelines in 

training, and that is what I would point the panel to. 

61 

Mr. KING. No objection, just clarifying. And I think, Sheriff, you 

were leaning ahead. Did you have anything you wanted to add to 

that before I yield back? 

Sheriff PAGE. Well, you are talking about the racial profiling. I 

have got to say that we have six sheriff offices in the State of North 

Carolina that participate in 287(g), and all 100 in Secure Communities. But the problem that we are seeing with the ICE side, if I 

can just go to this real quick, is that we helped identify criminal 

illegal aliens using our local resources according to the ICE study 

goals and we do everything they ask us to do by the book, but then 

the Justice Department comes down on us with lawsuits that are 

unfounded, troublesome, and ICE doesn’t really step up to help us. 

We are following the program, we are following the rules and we 

are getting hammered. 

Mr. KING. We needed to hear that, Sheriff. 

Ms. WOOD. And one of the things, I do want to point out regarding Secure Communities is that reviewing everyone actually reduces a potential for racial profiling. When I was at ICE, sometimes we would have trouble with bad actors or individuals in 

State and local law enforcement that would act on their own and 

would go ahead and call up ICE and do something kind of inappropriate. Secure Communities ensures that everyone who comes into 

the system, no matter your color, how you speak, anything else, is 

screened through the program. And so I do think that, with education, can help reduce it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentleman is expired. 

Mr. KING. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the—and I would be happy in 

just a moment if the Chairman would indulge me as he did Mr. 

King, the gentlelady has a point. But let me thank the Ranking 

Member and the Chairman for this very important hearing. Let me 

be very clear that Congress’share of come and go, and I think you 

have seen a delineation of some on this panel who are championing 

the Secure Communities and some that may have reasonable and 

rational questions. One thing I think that none of us will disagree 

with is that we support our local law enforcement, Members of 

Congress fight for resources to come to the local community. 

May I just make a humorous comment, and that is, sometimes 

when we are cutting the ribbon or passing a check, the Congress 

people are the potted plants and you local guys are banging your 

chest. But that is all right. We are servants and we don’t mind 

that. I enjoy, and I know my colleagues enjoy doing that. We want 

to make things work for you, but I do want to make it very clear 

that one person’s championing of the sledge hammer approach is 

here today and gone tomorrow. The responsibility that we have is 

to do the right thing. And if it takes making the laws more clarified, then we should do that. And so I am going to pose my questions to Mr. Mead and Mr. Venegas. 

Mr. VENEGAS. Venegas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Venegas. Thank you so very much. I was 

going French and I should have gone another direction from CaliVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:45 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\113011\71404.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71404
62 

fornia. But I am just teasing you. Thank you for clarifying that pronunciation. 

Mr. Mead, let me try to find out what kind of people are your 

field folk focusing on under the Enforcement Removal of Operations for the U.S. Immigration and Customs, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, as I said earlier in my testimony, we focus on 

four key priorities, criminal aliens, fugitives, these are people who 

have been ordered removed from the country and have not departed, repeat immigration violators and recent border crossers. 

Those are our highest priorities. And last year of the 397,000 people that we removed, 90 percent of those removals fell into one of 

those four categories. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you hold to racial profiling, is that how you 

go and find the individuals that you deport? 

Mr. MEAD. I am sorry? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you adhere to, do you seek out—your 

framework, is it about racial profiling? Do you go and pick out 

brown people and others that may look like they shouldn’t be here, 

is that how you do it? 

Mr. MEAD. Absolutely not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is it fact-based, is it fact-based? 

Mr. MEAD. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Then let me ask my first question. 

Why does the Department of Homeland Security refuse to mandate 

data collection with racial profiling related indicators by State and 

local enforcement as a precondition for participating in 287(g) Secure Communities and criminal alien programs? 

Mr. MEAD. We expect that any 287(g) partner follow the guidelines. Where we get indications that there may be problems with 

how they are applying the program investigations ensue and we 

aggressively monitor them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me tell you as someone who has the greatest respect for ICE officers, we work with them all the time, we 

tout the work they do, we are saddened by the loss that was experienced this last year, voluntary we think they are doing is one 

thing, but mandating and determining whether or not there is racial profiling is another. I am going to make an official request that 

you should carry back to the leadership to answer, and I certainly 

welcome that response to this Committee why it is not mandated. 

The confusion I hear the sheriff caring for is he needs to know 

what to do. And I am going to be offended by his deputies who are 

racially profiling. If it was clear that that is unacceptable he would 

not do it. Let me move quickly. 

So I am making that official request for a mandate on data collection. I want to move to the gentleman from California. We just 

came out of Alabama on H.B. 56. Are you familiar with that bill? 

Mr. VENEGAS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can you craft the failures of the Secure Communities and by extension, your understanding of H.B. 56. That is 

obviously the extreme, people being thrown out of their apartments, people not getting light bills and various other necessities, 

can’t go to school. What are you seeing? This is a fair announceVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:45 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\113011\71404.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71404
63 

ment that the ICE has said, people who are frequent and criminal. 

But you are seeing more, are you not? 

Mr. VENEGAS. Absolutely. I think what, you know, and with all 

due respect to the elected officials in Alabama and other States, the 

reality is the impact of their legislation has affected communities 

in a wide swath that is negatively impacting their States, not only 

people and families and lives, their educational systems, their 

health systems and every aspect of the State of Alabama. With 

that, I would suggest to you that Secure Communities is doing precisely that across the country. 

One of the law enforcement leaders in the task force made this 

analogy which, to me, very honestly, was ludicrous, and that was 

we all agreed that Secure Communities was broken and that something needed to be done. He said, you know, this is like an airplane 

that is flying and sometimes you got to fix the plane while it is on 

the air. Ladies and gentlemen, I fly a lot. I trust my pilot to fly 

the plane. I don’t know that he or she is a hell of a good mechanic. 

And I would suggest to you that Secure Communities is exactly in 

the same boat. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentlelady is expired. I would 

yield for the purpose of unanimous consent to Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request to introduce into the record a copy of an article in the 

Daily Herald titled ‘‘Elgin sex offender facing his third burglary 

charge skips bail.’’ This document identifies the consequences of 

sanctuary cities in the face of this discussion. I ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection that will be the order. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

64 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I want to thank all of our witnesses today. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The lady will state her parliamentary inquiry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Members have the privilege of submitting 

commentary into the record. Is it relevant to inquire what answer 

or what is the premise of his submission to the record? Was he answering a Member’s questioning or was he responding to a witness’ 

point that was made? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would like to expand on his— 

I don’t necessarily see that that is a requirement, but if it would 


71404A49.eps
65 

make the gentlelady feel a little more at ease, I would give the gentleman an opportunity to respond. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlelady 

from Texas for the inquiry. This addresses a subject matter that we 

discussed here in this hearing with regard to the effect of sanctuary cities. And I did ask the specific question, does that change 

the policy with Secure Communities? And this article demonstrates 

how an individual who had twice been arrested for serious felonies 

before was released because of a city ordinance that rather than to 

be released—rather than to be held for ICE. The city ordinance 

was a sanctuary city-city ordinance. He was released into the community and he broke into a home with a young lady in it and 

robbed her, and now he is on the loose. So this is the kind of thing 

that illustrates, I think, the crimes that we could prevent if we 

have effective Secure Communities. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reserving the right to object, so I can say something. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would yield to the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Because I will not object. We have a very expansive—when I chaired the Committee and the current Chairman has 

a very expansive view toward putting things in the record, and I 

think that is the appropriate approach. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I think that the record would show that we have 

been pretty liberal—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I agree. 

Mr. GALLEGLY [continuing]. With everyone’s request. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to object to being called 

liberal. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to note however, again reserving the 

right to object, I could put in a dozen cases of people who were 

pulled over because of a taillight or because they had their high 

beams on and they were arrested because they didn’t have a license because they were undocumented or because they were 

Latino, which is why we have 93 percent of the people removed are 

Latino does not reflect the demographics. And with that, I lift my 

reservation. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I reserve the right to object? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You certainly have the right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will not object. Following the gentlelady’s comment, I wanted to say to Mr. 

King I was not objecting to the Chairman’s very right order of allowing you to submit. I wanted to clarify that we were not indicting 

ICE because I just had ICE list all the bad guys they try and get, 

and that is a bad guy that you would certainly be in line to find. 

And I just wanted to be clear that you weren’t putting it in to 

say that ICE had not done their job. I don’t know about sanctuary 

cities. I think we need to find common ground. But I know that 

ICE is carrying on their duties as they should. 

Mr. KING. If the gentlelady would yield. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I will allow the gentleman from Iowa to respond 

and then we will move on. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman. 

66 

Mr. KING. I would just state that the gentlelady from Texas and 

I don’t disagree with the intent of this discussion, in that this article that I have introduced into the record actually clarifies that 

ICE wanted to hold them and respond but the city ordinance directed them to release. So I would yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentleman has expired. Again, I 

would like to thank the witnesses again, not only for your testimony, but for listening to our discussion up here on whether or not 

we should enter things into the record. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional 

written questions for the witnesses which we will forward to the 

witnesses to respond as promptly as you will be able to get answers 

back to us so that we make them a part of the record of the hearing. And without objection all Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit any additional materials for inclusion into the record. 

Again, thank you all for your participation today, and even more 

for the service that you provide every day. Thank you. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) primary mission is to promote 

public safety through criminal and civil enforcement of federal immigration laws. 

As part of ICE’s mission, the agency attempts to identify and remove illegal immigrants. Through Secure Communities, ICE uses existing information sharing between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) to quickly and accurately identify immigrants who are arrested for 

a crime and booked into local law enforcement custody. 

Under this program, the fingerprints of everyone arrested and booked are checked 

against FBI criminal history records and DHS immigration records to determine if 

immigration enforcement action is required. 

Secure Communities is an important and effective immigration law enforcement 

program. This program simply makes sense. Who wouldn’t want to deport a criminal immigrant? But advocates for amnesty have raised opposition for one reason 

and one reason alone: Secure Communities works. 

Unfortunately, Secure Communities has fallen prey to the White House’s demands that DHS bypass Congress and use discretionary Executive Branch authorities to grant back-door amnesty. While the program will be operational in all jurisdictions by 2013, DHS has announced ‘‘changes’’ to Secure Communities that could 

potentially allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid deportation 

and work in the U.S, taking jobs away from Americans. 

On August 22, 2011, I sent DHS a written request for information about removable illegal and criminal immigrants brought to the attention of ICE through Secure 

Communities on whom ICE elected not to take action. The Committee needs to determine which of these immigrants went on to commit additional crimes. 

To date, I have not received the information requested, which forced the issuance 

of a subpoena. Apparently, the administration doesn’t want the American public to 

know what the facts are. 

The Obama administration’s refusal to fully enforce immigration laws allows illegal immigrants to work legally in the United States, forcing millions of unemployed 

Americans to compete with them for scarce jobs. 

The Obama administration remains on the wrong side of the American people 

when it comes to illegal immigration. According to a recent poll, two-thirds of the 

American people want to see our immigration laws enforced. 

The administration is putting illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American taxpayers and unemployed Americans. The administration should enforce all 

the laws on the books, not just the ones it likes. 

f 

68 

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

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 


71404A1-1.eps
69 


71404A1-2.eps
70 


71404A1-3.eps
71 


71404A2-1.eps
72 


71404A2-2.eps
73 


71404A2-3.eps
74 


71404A3-1.eps
75 


71404A3-2.eps
76 


71404A4-1.eps
77 


71404A4-2.eps
78 


71404A4-3.eps
79 


71404A4-4.eps
80 


71404A4-5.eps
81 


71404A4-6.eps
82 


71404A4-7.eps
83 


71404A4-8.eps
84 


71404A4-9.eps
85 


71404A4-10.eps
86 


71404A4-11.eps
87 


71404A4-12.eps
88 


71404A4-13.eps
89 


71404A4-14.eps
90 


71404A4-15.eps
91 


71404A4-16.eps
92 


71404A4-17.eps
93 


71404A4-18.eps
94 


71404A4-19.eps
95 


71404A4-20.eps
96 


71404A4-21.eps
97 


71404A4-22.eps
98 


71404A4-23.eps
99 


71404A4-24.eps
100 


71404A4-25.eps
101 


71404A4-26.eps
102 


71404A4-27.eps
103 


71404A4-28.eps
104 


71404A4-29.eps
105 


71404A4-30.eps
106 


71404A4-31.eps
107 


71404A4-32.eps
108 


71404A4-33.eps
109 


71404A4-34.eps
110 


71404A4-35.eps
111 


71404A4-36.eps
112 


71404A4-37.eps
113 


71404A4-38.eps
114 


71404A4-39.eps
115 


71404A4-40.eps
116 


71404A4-41.eps
117 


71404A4-42.eps
118 


71404A4-43.eps
119 


71404A4-44.eps
120 


71404A4-45.eps
121 


71404A4-46.eps
122 


71404A4-47.eps
123 


71404A4-48.eps
124 


71404A4-49.eps
125 


71404A4-50.eps
126 


71404A4-51.eps
127 


71404A4-52.eps
128 


71404A4-53.eps
129 


71404A4-54.eps
130 


71404A4-55.eps
131 


71404A4-56.eps
132 


71404A4-57.eps
133 


71404A4-58.eps
134 


71404A4-59.eps
135 


71404A4-60.eps
136 


71404A5-1.eps
137 


71404A5-2.eps
138 


71404A5-3.eps
139 


71404A5-4.eps
140 


71404A5-5.eps
141 


71404A5-6.eps
142 


71404A5-7.eps
143 


71404A5-8.eps
144 


71404A5-9.eps
145 


71404A5-10.eps
146 


71404A5-11.eps
147 


71404A5-12.eps
148 


71404A5-13.eps
149 


71404A5-14.eps
150 


71404A5-15.eps
151 


71404A5-16.eps
152 


71404A5-17.eps
153 


71404A5-18.eps
154 


71404A5-19.eps
155 


71404A5-20.eps
156 


71404A5-21.eps
157 


71404A5-22.eps
158 


71404A5-23.eps
159 


71404A5-24.eps
160 


71404A5-25.eps
161 


71404A5-26.eps
162 


71404A5-27.eps
163 


71404A5-28.eps
164 


71404A5-29.eps
165 


71404A5-30.eps
166 


71404A5-31.eps
167 


71404A5-32.eps
168 


71404A5-33.eps
169 


71404A5-34.eps
170 


71404A5-35.eps
171 


71404A5-36.eps
172 


71404A5-37.eps
173 


71404A5-38.eps
174 


71404A5-39.eps
175 


71404A5-40.eps
176 


71404A5-41.eps
177 


71404A5-42.eps
178 


71404A5-43.eps
179 


71404A5-44.eps
180 


71404A5-45.eps
181 


71404A5-46.eps
182 


71404A5-47.eps
183 


71404A5-48.eps
184 


71404A5-49.eps
185 


71404A5-50.eps
186 


71404A5-51.eps
187 


71404A5-52.eps
188 


71404A5-53.eps
189 


71404A5-54.eps
190 


71404A5-55.eps
191 


71404A5-56.eps
192 


71404A5-57.eps
193 


71404A5-58.eps
194 


71404A5-59.eps
195 


71404A5-60.eps
196 


71404A5-61.eps
197 


71404A5-62.eps
198 


71404A5-63.eps
199 


71404A5-64.eps
200 


71404A5-65.eps
201 


71404A5-66.eps
202 


71404A5-67.eps
203 


71404A5-68.eps
204 


71404A5-69.eps
205 


71404A5-70.eps
206 


71404A5-71.eps
207 


71404A5-72.eps
208 


71404A5-73.eps
209 


71404A5-74.eps
210 


71404A5-75.eps
211 


71404A5-76.eps
212 


71404A5-77.eps
213 


71404A5-78.eps
214 


71404A5-79.eps
215 


71404A5-80.eps
216 


71404A5-81.eps
217 


71404A5-82.eps
218 


71404A6-1.eps
219 


71404A6-2.eps
220 


71404A7-1.eps
221 


71404A7-2.eps
222 


71404A8-1.eps
223 


71404A8-2.eps
224 


71404A8-3.eps
225 


71404A9-1.eps
226 


71404A9-2.eps
227 


71404A9-3.eps
228 


71404A9-4.eps
229 


71404A10.eps
230 


71404A11-1.eps
231 


71404A11-2.eps
232 


71404A11-3.eps
233 


71404A11-4.eps
234 


71404A11-5.eps
235 


71404A12-1.eps
236 


71404A12-2.eps
237 


71404A12-3.eps
238 


71404A12-4.eps
239 


71404A12-5.eps
240 


71404A13-1.eps
241 


71404A13-2.eps
242 


71404A14.eps
243 


71404A15-1.eps
244 


71404A15-2.eps
245 


71404A16.eps
246 


71404A17-1.eps
247 


71404A17-2.eps
248 


71404A18-1.eps
249 


71404A18-2.eps
250 


71404A19-1.eps
251 


71404A19-2.eps
252 


71404A19-3.eps
253 


71404A19-4.eps
254 


71404A19-5.eps
255 


71404A19-6.eps
256 


71404A19-7.eps
257 


71404A19-8.eps
258 


71404A19-9.eps
259 


71404A20.eps
260 


71404A21-1.eps
261 


71404A21-2.eps
262 


71404A22.eps
263 


71404A23-1.eps
264 


71404A23-2.eps
265 


71404A24-1.eps
266 


71404A24-2.eps
267 


71404A25-1.eps
268 


71404A25-2.eps
269 


71404A25-3.eps
270 


71404A26-1.eps
271 


71404A26-2.eps
272 


71404A27.eps
273 


71404A28.eps
274 


71404A29-1.eps
275 


71404A29-2.eps
276 


71404A29-3.eps
277 


71404A30-1.eps
278 


71404A30-2.eps
279 


71404A30-3.eps
280 


71404A31-1.eps
281 


71404A31-2.eps
282 


71404A32-1.eps
283 


71404A32-2.eps
284 


71404A32-3.eps
285 


71404A32-4.eps
286 


71404A33-1.eps
287 


71404A33-2.eps
288 


71404A34.eps
289 


71404A35.eps
290 


71404A36-1.eps
291 


71404A36-2.eps
292 


71404A36-3.eps
293 


71404A36-4.eps
294 


71404A37.eps
295 


71404A38-1.eps
296 


71404A38-2.eps
297 


71404A39-1.eps
298 


71404A39-2.eps
299 


71404A39-3.eps
300 


71404A40.eps
301 


71404A41-1.eps
302 


71404A41-2.eps
303 


71404A42-1.eps
304 


71404A42-2.eps
305 


71404A43-1.eps
306 


71404A43-2.eps
307 


71404A44-1.eps
308 


71404A44-2.eps
309 


71404A45-1.eps
310 


71404A45-2.eps
311 


71404A46-1.eps
312 


71404A46-2.eps
313 


71404A47-1.eps
314 


71404A47-2.eps
315 


71404A47-3.eps
316 


71404A47-4.eps
317 


71404A47-5.eps
318 


71404A47-6.eps
319 


71404A47-7.eps
320 


71404A47-8.eps
321 


71404A47-9.eps
322 


71404A47-10.eps
323 


71404A47-11.eps
324 

Æ 


71404A47-12.eps