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

40–742 PDF 2008

PROBLEMS WITH ICE INTERROGATION,

DETENTION, AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Serial No. 110–80

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Mr. Gary Mead, Assistant Director for Detention and Removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

Mr. James J. Brosnahan, Senior Partner, Morrison & Foerster, LLP 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32

Ms. Marie Justeen Mancha, Student, Tattnal County High School 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35

Mr. Michael Graves, Member United Food and Commerical Workers Union 

Local 1149

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38

Ms. Kara Hartzler, Attorney, Florrence Immigrant and Refugee Rights 

Project 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40

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

Ms. Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Human Rights Fellow, Center for Human Rights 

and International Justice at Boston College 

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

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

Mr. Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 79

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 80

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 93

(1)

PROBLEMS WITH ICE INTERROGATION, 

DETENTION, AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Sa ́nchez, Ellison, King, and Gallegly. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. We have noticed this for a postponement to 2:30. We have a private bill we need to take action on, but 

we need a working quorum to do that. So we will interrupt our 

hearing when we obtain that quorum, and we will begin now with 

our oversight hearing. 

This is the hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. 

And without objection, the Chair will recess the hearing as necessary to accommodate our vote. 

Six months ago, I first heard about a U.S. citizen deported from 

the United States, Pedro Guzman, who had to get himself caught 

by the Border Patrol in order to get back into his own country. 

At that time, I had hoped that this case was an isolated incident. 

I asked the Immigration and Customs Enforcement for answers on 

this case, and specifically for procedures to help prevent another 

deportation of a U.S. citizen. 

Instead, I received a perfunctory response more than a month 

later with no answers and an apathetic attitude toward protecting 

U.S. citizens from deportation. 

Without objection, I would like to enter my letter and the ICE 

response into the record. 

There is never a justification for the deportation of U.S. citizens, 

let alone the negligent attitude toward helping to locate and return 

a U.S. citizen when he or she is erroneously deported. 

Six months ago, I feared this Nation might be entering another 

era that would become one more blight in our Nation’s history. 

Based upon the witness testimony I have read for today and a long 

list of other individual cases, I feel we have arrived at that era 

where an overzealous government is interrogating, detaining, and 

deporting its own citizens while treating noncitizens even worse. 

2

It is true that ICE’s enforcement capacity has grown exponentially in the last several years. But based upon today’s testimony, 

it appears training and oversight at ICE has lagged far behind. 

I am hopeful that this hearing will not only show us where the 

problems lie but also lead us to solutions. I have many questions 

beginning with the long list I asked in my June 26, 2007, letter to 

ICE that was essentially ignored. 

I would like to know specifically what procedures are in place to 

train and oversee ICE agents during detention, interrogation, and 

removal processes. And I would like to know exactly how ICE ensures it is not interrogating, detaining, or deporting U.S. citizens. 

And I would like ICE to explain how it is that its policies, procedures, and management allows for each of the situations described 

today by our U.S. citizens, witnesses, or their representatives. 

At this point, I would now like to recognize our distinguished 

Ranking minority Member, Steve King, for his opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

U.S. citizenship is, of course, an absolute defense to immigration 

removal proceedings. No citizen should live in fear of being detained by immigration officials or deported from the country, so our 

government should do everything reasonably necessary to ensure 

that does not happen. 

I am confident that ICE is taking those steps that we would all 

want it to take to ensure that U.S. citizens are not being detained 

or deported even for brief periods. 

That is not to say that there has never been a U.S. citizen detained or deported. But it is a very rare occurrence, at least statistically. 

ICE will describe a few instances in which a U.S. citizen was detained or deported. 

For instance, a U.S. citizen child was detained after his illegal 

immigrant father was arrested on a fugitive warrant. ICE repeatedly asked the father to provide the name of a caretaker for the 

child, but the father refused to do so. 

So ICE was faced with the choice of holding the boy until Child 

Protective Services could be called or releasing him without supervision. Luckily, after several hours, the father gave ICE the name 

of a caretaker, and the child was released. 

ICE also indicates that some U.S. citizens chose to claim Mexican 

citizenship and agree to voluntary removal to avoid background 

checks that may reveal a criminal record. These persons know they 

can later easily enter back into the United States from Mexico 

using U.S. identification documents. 

There are often extenuating circumstances in these cases of deportation of U.S. citizens. There are safeguards in place to prevent 

the detention and deportation of citizens. 

Those safeguards include everything from questioning and 

records checks by ICE officials to processes set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act for a Federal Court to follow up a claim 

when U.S. citizenship is made. 

ICE does not aim to harass and deport U.S. citizens. It has got 

a lot of work to do. It doesn’t need to take on any more. 

It seems to me that instead of focusing a hearing on the extremely unusual instances where citizens have been accidentally 

3

detained or deported, we should focus on the millions of illegal immigrants who should but are not being removed from this country. 

Last year, ICE removed 238,204 illegal immigrants from the 

United States. That number includes many thousands of expedited 

removals at ports of entry and along the borders. So the number 

of people deported is actually a lot less. 

There are an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the 

United States. I think the number is greater than 20 million. But 

by those numbers, only 1 to 2 percent or less of the U.S. illegal immigrant population was removed last year. 

Our government should be deporting many more people. We are 

hardly ahead of the Mexican government, which deported, by one 

set of records, 125,000 last year. My notes from a speech by Vicente 

Fox just late last fall say that they had deported 250,000. 

In either case, either proportionally or in raw numbers—the population of Mexico is about a third of that of the United States—

they are deporting more people out of Mexico than we are out of 

the United States. 

While I understand the reason behind this hearing, we should 

not take a lack of malice on the part of ICE—we should note the 

lack of malice on the part of ICE to detain or deport U.S. citizens. 

We should note the rarity and brevity of occurrences, and we 

should note the safeguards that ICE has in place to reduce such 

occurrences to the absolute minimum. 

Finally, as to worksite enforcement actions at locations where 

mass lawbreaking is taking place, the U.S. citizens affected should 

blame their reckless employers and illegal immigrant co-workers. 

They should not blame the dedicated Federal officials trying to 

enforce our laws for all our benefit. 

There is a huge human haystack of humanity that crosses our 

border every night that has piled up here in the United States. And 

it is the cumulative effect of lack of enforcement going clear back 

to 1986; employers who break the law, and the incentive that is 

there is a big job that ICE has ahead of them. 

With all of those numbers to work with, and by the way, interdicting my numbers, a year before last, 1,188,000 on our southern 

border—it is a huge number. To deal with all of that without a single mistake would be asking too much of a mortal. 

And so we want you to do your best at ICE. And we want to look 

at these cases and make sure that American citizens are as protected as possible as part of your job in enforcing immigration law 

and also, by enforcing it, protecting American citizens. 

I thank the witnesses in advance for their testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I yield back my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

We have two distinguished panels of witnesses here today to help 

consider the important issues before us. 

Seated on our first panel, it is my pleasure to introduce Gary 

Mead. Gary Mead is the assistant director of management in the 

Office of Detention and Removal Operations at Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement. 

Prior to joining ICE in 2006, he served with the U.S. Marshals 

Service. He worked as the associate director for administration, the 

4

associate director for operations support, and the assistant director 

for management and budget. He holds a bachelor’s degree from 

Sacher University of New York, a master’s from Bowling Green 

State University, and graduated from the management program at 

the National Defense University here in Washington. 

Mr. Mead, your written statement will be made part of the 

record in its entirety. 

We ask that each witness summarize their testimony in 5 minutes or less and help to stay within that timeframe. 

We do have that little machine in front of you. When the yellow 

light goes on, it means you have 1 minute left. And when the red 

light goes on, we do ask you to complete your thoughts and conclude, so that we can get to our questions. 

So we would invite you now, Mr. Mead, to give us your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY MEAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. MEAD. Good afternoon, Chairman Lofgren and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Gary Mead, and I am the assistant director for management in the Office of Detention and Removal Operations at U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Among its many responsibilities, ICE promotes public safety and 

national security by ensuring the safe and efficient departure from 

the United States of all removable aliens through the fair enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws. 

One of its core missions is the apprehension, detention, and removal of inadmissible and deportable aliens. In carrying out this 

mission, ICE officers are ever mindful of their sworn duty to protect the rights of all individuals to the best of their abilities. 

ICE officers must interview hundreds of thousands of individuals 

annually to determine citizenship and immigration status. ICE 

uses its authority to question individuals regarding their citizenship and legal right to be in the United States with the utmost professionalism and respect for individual rights. 

Over the last 4 years, more than one million individuals have 

passed through ICE detention facilities. During fiscal year 2007 

alone, more than 310,000 illegal aliens passed through our custody 

and approximately 280,000 of these were removed from the United 

States. 

At no time did ICE knowingly or willfully place a U.S. citizen in 

detention or remove them from the United States. 

ICE immediately releases individuals who are U.S. citizens or 

who may have a legitimate claim to derive U.S. citizenship. However, it should be noted that some people falsely assert U.S. citizenship in order to evade deportation. 

It is common for ICE’s law enforcement personnel to encounter 

individuals who make false claims about their immigration status 

or citizenship. For example, in 2007, ICE investigators made more 

than 1,530 criminal arrests in cases involving document or benefit 

fraud. 

5

Upon arrival in the United States, all applicants for admission, 

including aliens and U.S. citizens, must present themselves for examination at a designated port of entry and provide proof of citizenship and their right to enter the United States. 

Away from the ports of entry, ICE bears the burden of proving 

that the individual is not a U.S. citizen when he or she is questioned by an immigration officer. ICE may engage in consensual 

encounters like any law enforcement officer. 

Once an individual provides a credible response that he or she 

is a U.S. citizen, questioning regarding alienage must stop. If the 

individual gives an unsatisfactory response or admits that he or 

she is an alien, the individual may be asked to produce evidence 

that he or she is lawfully present in the United States. 

For cases involving detainees in ICE custody who are pending removal from the United States, ICE works actively to ensure any 

claims of U.S. citizenship are timely and properly adjudicated. 

If a detainee makes a credible claim of U.S. citizenship, ICE officers will ask the detainee whether he or she can produce supporting evidence. In addition, the officer will review the detainee’s 

files and query all relevant databases to support the detainee’s 

claims. 

In addition to the many safeguards that are already in place that 

I can discuss further, with the exception of Mexico and Canada, all 

people removed from the United States must obtain a travel document from the country in which they are being removed to. 

Those countries often engage in consular interviews and conduct 

their own detailed review to determine that the person being removed is, in fact, a citizen of the country that they are going to. 

Even though ICE has never knowingly or intentionally detained 

or removed a U.S. citizen, ICE is currently reviewing its policies 

and procedures to determine if even greater safeguards can be put 

in place to prevent the rare instance when this event might potentially occur. 

ICE anticipates having this review completed within the next 60 

days and would welcome any suggestions from the Committee. 

I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

men and women of DRO and ICE. And I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY E. MEAD


GEM-1.eps
7


GEM-2.eps
8


GEM-3.eps
9


GEM-4.eps
10


GEM-5.eps
11


GEM-6.eps
12


GEM-7.eps
13


GEM-8.eps
14


GEM-9.eps
15

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Mr. Mead. 

I am sure we do have questions. I will begin first by asking you 

if ICE has any jurisdiction over United States citizens. 

Mr. MEAD. No, ma’am. We have no jurisdiction. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Code of Federal Regulations specifies that if 

an immigration officer ‘‘has a reasonable suspicion based on specific 

articuable facts that a person being questioned is in the U.S. legally, then the officer may briefly detain the person for questioning.’’

What constitutes a brief period of detention? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, I think that is fact-dependent. During the interview of an individual, ICE officers are trained to ask questions to 

determine whether or not the person is in the country; whether or 

not the person is a citizen to begin with. 

Once in the interior, our officers are obligated to determine the 

threshold question of whether or not this is a U.S. citizen. 

If they satisfy themselves with reasonable suspicion that the person is not a citizen, then they can move on to additional questions 

to determine whether or not the alien is here legally or whether 

they are not here legally. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We have, and I am sure you had available, the testimony of Mr. Mike Graves in the second panel, who testifies that 

he and hundreds of his co-workers in the Swift Plant in 

Marshalltown, Iowa were essentially held prisoner for 8 hours 

without food or water or contact with their families. 

Would you consider 8 hours a brief period of time? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, I think it would depend on the circumstances, 

Congresswoman. 

At a worksite operation, we only enter the facilities pursuant to 

either a civil or a criminal arrest warrant. In rare occasions, we 

have the consent of the manager or the owner to enter. 

Once in the facility, we ask the manager or owner to gather the 

employees in a safe place. And at that point, we begin our due diligence of identifying who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident and identifying who may be an illegal alien. 

Depending upon the number of people there, that can take some 

time. But as soon as people are identified as U.S. citizens, they are 

allowed to leave. Depending upon what their bosses say, they either go home or they go back to work. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Based on your knowledge of ICE’s policy interpreting this regulation, what would you say was the reasonable 

suspicion based on specific articuable facts that would lead an ICE 

agent to handcuff a U.S. citizen like Mr. Graves and search his 

locker and question him about how he was from Iowa? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t know the specific circumstances of what did 

or didn’t happen to Mr. Graves. But during these worksite operations, as I said, our initial emphasis is on separating the citizens 

from the non-citizens who may not have a right to be here. 

Those people who are identified as potentially illegal aliens are 

taken to a process location, a processing center, where a much 

more thorough examination of their situation is conducted, including giving them the right to contact their attorneys if they have 

them, contact free legal services, contact consular officials. 

16

And so it is during that process that even more attention is paid 

to making sure that anyone who is ultimately placed in detention 

is, in fact, a potentially removable alien. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Code of Federal Regulations states that when 

ICE arrests an individual, it must either grant voluntary departure 

or determine whether the person will remain in custody and/or be 

placed in removal proceedings within 48 hours of the arrest, except 

in the event of an emergency or extraordinary circumstances. 

Can you tell me how many times ICE has failed to make this determination within 48 hours and how many times, if that has ever 

happened, that has been due to emergency or extraordinary circumstances? 

And give some example of what would be extraordinary or an 

emergency. 

Mr. MEAD. Off the top of my head, Congresswoman, I don’t know 

how many times that happened. We certainly do everything possible to serve NTA’s on people within the required 48 hours. 

And it would take a truly extraordinary circumstance—off the 

top of my head, I can’t think of one—where we would not be able 

to do that. But if we have such information, I would be happy 

to——

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I have a very large number of questions. My 

time is almost up. But I will be sending the agency my questions. 

And I would hope that I would have an answer to them promptly; 

certainly, within the next 2 weeks. 

I would just, finally, like to clarify. A McClatchy newspaper article describes the plight of—an American with a southern accent, I 

might add, for some reason, ICE thought was a Russian. 

And the spokesman for ICE was quoted in the paper—I don’t 

know if he was quoted directly—that the burden of proof is on the 

individual to show that they are legally entitled to be in the United 

States. 

Is this the agency’s position? And, if so, how would you reconcile 

that with the INS Widbey case which the Supreme Court has gifted 

us with? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t know the context within which that question 

was asked. 

I think I was saying that I don’t recall or I don’t know the context of which the ICE spokesman was answering that question. But 

as I said in my opening remarks, once we are away from the port 

of entry, ICE has the authority to consensually speak with people 

about whether or not——

Ms. LOFGREN. But that is not the question. The question is: Who 

has the burden of proof? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, I was about to tell you that. 

We have the burden of proof to determine if someone is a citizen. 

We do that through questioning——

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Thank you. Then the state will just be.. 

Mr. MEAD. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I turn now to our Ranking Member, Mr. King, for his segment. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. Mead, for your testimony. 

17

The numbers of—I think it was in your testimony—the numbers 

of personnel that are handled by ICE in a year, could you refresh 

me as to that number? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. Over the past 4 years, approximately a million 

people have passed through our detention facilities. And last year 

alone, we had over 310,000 pass through detention. And of that 

number, approximately 280,000 were actually removed from the 

country. 

Mr. KING. And can you tell me, out of that universe of either last 

year’s number of 310,000 or the aggregate of the last 4 years and 

the million, about how many U.S. citizens were deported out of 

that list of people? 

Mr. MEAD. To the best of our knowledge, only one U.S. citizen 

was removed during that period of time. 

Mr. KING. Was that in your original testimony? 

Mr. MEAD. My original testimony? 

Mr. KING. The testimony that you gave here today? 

Mr. MEAD. No. I did not cover that. 

Mr. KING. Could I ask you why you would not have included 

that? 

Mr. MEAD. For the sake of time. It is in our written testimony, 

I believe. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And the individual would be the individual with 

the southern accent who said he was Russian? 

Mr. MEAD. No. It was Mr. Guzman that the Chairwoman mentioned. 

Mr. KING. Okay. That just strikes me as an exceptionally high 

statistical average. If you are an American citizen and you are encountered by ICE, the case that we are talking about here would 

be an extreme exception rather than any kind of a—is there any 

way that there could be a pattern here that I am missing? 

We are trying to fix a policy or put a solution to something that 

there is an anomaly that exists? 

Mr. MEAD. We don’t think so, Congressman. 

There are numerous safeguards in place to prevent the removal 

of a U.S. citizen. And as I said at the end of my statement, not the 

least of which is, other than Canada and Mexico, every other foreign country has to issue travel documents allowing the person to 

be returned. 

And they often do consular interviews, and they do a complete 

record check in their own countries to determine that this is, in 

fact, a citizen of their country. 

Mr. KING. Okay. We have an unpublished report that is part of 

the dialogue here that shows that, perhaps, 125 people were identified for deportation that were actually U.S. citizens. Are you aware 

of that unpublished report? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. We spoke with a representative of the Vera Institute, and they claim that there is no unpublished report. The Vera 

Institute is under contract with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 

Mr. KING. And did the Vera Institute ever maintain any data on 

those 125 people? Could they be analyzed to see why it was that 

they alleged they were——

18

Mr. MEAD. Well, what they said was that of the 124 people in 

question, they said that they planned to seek a claim to U.S. citizenship. The Vera Institute——

Mr. KING. Is there any evidence that they actually did seek a 

claim of U.S. citizenship? 

Mr. MEAD. No. 

Mr. KING. No breakdown of that number of 124 or 125? 

Mr. MEAD. No. They did not keep any biographical data so there 

is no——

Mr. KING. No way to go back and see if it was anything other 

than a fabrication? 

Mr. MEAD. No. But they clearly stated that these were not—they 

did not say that these were U.S. citizens. They just said that they 

planned to pursue a claim of U.S. citizenship. 

Mr. KING. That seems to be the basis of our discussion here, a 

single incident, and then a study that is now being reported that 

can’t be verified. 

But I want to ask you about your practices when you go in and 

conduct a raid on a, say, on a food processing plant, which I am 

quite interested in. How do you deal with people who are clearly 

unlawfully present in the United States who have duties to take 

care of infant children? Say, a nursing mother, for example. How 

do you deal with a case like that? 

Mr. MEAD. We deal with it twice. We deal with it at the worksite. If anyone makes that claim, assuming that they are not a 

criminal or someone who we would otherwise want to detain, we 

release them immediately on an order of supervision. 

We make sure that when we get people to the processing site, we 

ask them these questions again. We go to the, I think, the extra 

step of making sure that these people are interviewed, not by law 

enforcement officers, but by officers of the public health service. 

And, again, if they have a sole caregiver or humanitarian issue, 

barring a criminal record, we would release them. 

Mr. KING. A sole caregiver, a humanitarian issue, or a nursing 

mother illegally present in the United States—unlawfully present 

in the United States and, perhaps, unlawfully working is still released back into society by ICE? 

Mr. MEAD. That is correct. 

Mr. KING. It doesn’t sound very hardhearted to me, Mr. Mead. 

And hopefully the U.S. citizens are treated with the minimum 

standards that you are treating illegals with. 

And I thank you for your testimony, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

[Whereupon the Committee proceeded to other business.] 

[Whereupon the hearing resumed.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. And now we will return to our hearing. 

We now turn to Mr. Gutierrez, in order of arrival at the hearing, 

for any questions he may have for ICE. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

Well, number one, I like the precedent that we are setting on the 

private bill. And I find it so ironic that some of the most anti-immigrant Members of the House, that is Stan Lipinski, who votes 

against immigrants all time, gets this private bill up. 

Vote for a good cause. I am going to vote for it. 

19

But I always wonder where the rest of the private bills are at 

from those of us that actually support immigrants day in and day 

out. Just a comment on that. 

Interesting point about who you detain. Now, in Chicago, you detained, at a working, operating mall, did you not detain a hundred 

people at this mall in Chicago in midday? 

Mr. MEAD. I am sorry. I didn’t hear the question. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Oh, I am sorry. 

Did you not—did not ICE take an enforcement action at 2 o’clock 

in the afternoon at a mall on 26th and Pulaski in the city of Chicago? 

Mr. MEAD. I am not familiar with that action. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You are not familiar with that action. Well, you 

know, you should be up-to-date if you are going to come because 

you are real familiar—when the Ranking Member from the Republican side asks you questions. You guys have a real, you know—

catcher attitude. But when we ask you questions, you don’t remember. 

That is okay. I would have a faint memory if I were you, too, 

about this situation. 

But the fact is that is it not true that ICE will go in to a public 

area and specifically target people of a certain nationality? 

Mr. MEAD. No, sir. That is not true. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is not true? 

Mr. MEAD. No, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Oh. Then you don’t know anything about Chicago? See, because in Chicago, your ICE official went with the U.S. 

Attorney standing next to her and said we were determined to 

walk into this mall and detain every Hispanic male between the 

age of 18 and 45—we have Hispanic males—they asked us—did 

you detain every Hispanic male between the age of 18 and 45, and 

she said, yes, we did. And we subsequently, after that, determined 

whether or not they were the people we were looking for. 

You are telling me you don’t take those kinds of actions? 

Mr. MEAD. No, sir. I am not familiar with that operation. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And why wouldn’t you take such an action? 

Mr. MEAD. As I said, it is not our policy to target people on the 

basis of nationality. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So enlighten me. What should I do as a Member 

of Congress at this particular point so that we could not have this 

happen again? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, sir——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because I already informed your boss. We called 

right away, and he said it was fine. So you have a little problem 

with Chertoff, just so that you understand. 

He said it was fine, the actions of the ICE agents in terms of determining a specific ethnic group with a specific age and walk into 

an area and just arrest them. 

Because I asked him, I said, ‘‘So what if they were looking for 

someone that was White, male, between the age of 25 and 40? 

Would you go into Lord and Taylor? Would you go into Macy’s and 

shut the store down and then stop every White male between the 

age of 25 and 40 and simply stop them and ask them to prove that 

they were not the person you were after?’’

20

And he said, no, we never had such an incident. 

And I know you never had such an incident because those kinds 

of things don’t happen in America. 

But they do happen in specific geographical communities such as 

mine. So you are saying that it is against the policy of ICE to do 

that? 

Mr. MEAD. I said it is not our policy to target people based on 

nationality. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is it against your policy? 

Mr. MEAD. It is against our policy. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is against it. So in other words, what you are 

testifying here is what the ICE official did in the city Chicago, 

blessed by the U.S. Attorney’s office of the city of Chicago, was not 

sanctioned by ICE? 

Mr. MEAD. As I said, I don’t—I am not familiar with the incident. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I know. You know, maybe if I sat over there for 

a while on the Republican side, you would know all the answers, 

and I would have given you all the questions ahead of time. 

Unfortunately, this is an adversarial relationship that we have 

here with ICE because you wouldn’t be doing that in the community of people that I serve. 

Thank you very much for not knowing any of the answers and 

any of the information about a very well, highly-publicized case in 

the city of Chicago in which Secretary Chertoff has been fully 

briefed and informed. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am advised that Mr. Gallegly does not have a 

question——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Perhaps, I would like to pursue, maybe——

Ms. LOFGREN. Then I recognize Mr. Gallegly for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Gutierrez was going—because I am not familiar with it, but 

just because I am not familiar with it doesn’t mean that it didn’t 

happen anymore than our witness. But Mr.Gutierrez, can you give 

us some other information? 

You say that you had—how many people, to your knowledge, 

were detained? You said ‘‘arrested.’’ Actually handcuffed and carried away? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Actually, they were detained. They were handcuffed, taken to the back——

Mr. GALLEGLY. But they were not arrested? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, okay. You want to get—they were detained. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. So they were——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They were detained by ICE. They were handcuffed. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Were any of——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. If you put handcuffs on me, I think a reasonable 

American citizen will say once the police or a government agency 

handcuffs you, detains you, stops you, you are kind of arrested in 

Chicago. We have that standard. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Anyway, that is—maybe we are getting hung up 

on semantics. But as a result of that, of all these folks that were 

detained or temporarily arrested or held, as you would say, perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\021308\40742.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
21

haps, without cause, were any of them, subsequent to that, taken 

into custody or were they all released? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They were all released. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So there wasn’t one person there that they 

deemed to have committed a crime? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. No. They were executing arrest warrants for four 

individuals who were allegedly fabricating false documents at this 

public mall. And so they had the four people. They had their pictures, their addresses——

Mr. GALLEGLY. So they weren’t just looking for illegal immigrants; they were looking——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They were looking for a criminal—leaders of a 

criminal enterprise of false documents at a public—at a mall. That 

is why I gave the example what if I were a credit card person, 

scammer, and I was doing this at a big store like Lord and Taylor 

or Marshall Field or Macy’s——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Did they have——

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. Would they arrest—and let us say 

I was White, between the age of 25 and 40. Would we detain every 

White male in order to find the four people we were——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Did they have a specific description of who they 

were looking for? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They did. They did. They knew and they had pictures because the next day, the U.S. Attorney put the pictures—

and they did arrest the people, subsequently, at their home. That 

is usually the way they do things. 

If you know where a person lives, you go to their home and arrest them at their home. But this was a place of business, and we 

agreed that we should stamp out all of the illegal enterprise——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Was this a specific place of business? See, I didn’t 

go to law school. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is a mall. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I didn’t go to law school, so I don’t have the good 

sense of not asking a question I don’t know the answer to. 

I legitimately don’t know the answer, and I am asking. And you, 

obviously——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I would have gone to law school, but I couldn’t 

afford to. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Well, I couldn’t either. 

But in any event, sometimes it isn’t such a bad idea to have folks 

that ask questions that legitimately don’t know the answer to 

them. 

So in any event, in this situation, I would like to know the real 

specifics of the environment. Was this where it was known to be 

a place of business for these four alleged counterfeiters? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Apparently so. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. And when you say a mall, was it a specific 

place in the mall? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. A mall. It is an open area where you walk in. 

It is a huge building. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So you would—so there is, like, thousands of people that were there? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, there were hundreds of people there at this 

particular point. 

22

Mr. GALLEGLY. But how many were actually arrested? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Detained? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. By your definition, detained? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Detained? Nearly a hundred. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Almost a hundred? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. I am just—Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Next in order of their appearance to the Committee, we would 

recognize Mr. Ellison for any comments or questions he may have. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Mead, how many ICE raids have been conducted since the last 12 months? 

Mr. MEAD. I would have to get back to you with a specific number on that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Can you give me a range of——

Mr. MEAD. My best guess would be maybe a dozen in the past 

12 months. You are talking about worksite——

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Mr. MEAD [continuing]. Enforcement? I am guessing. I would say 

maybe a dozen. I can get you a specific answer very quickly. 

Mr. ELLISON. What criteria do you use before an ICE raid is determined to be executed? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, it usually takes months of planning, involves 

U.S. Attorney. It involves, sometimes, undercover agents, informants to determine whether or not there is a criminal activity involving immigration; you know, fraudulent documents. 

Mr. ELLISON. You have already indicated to Congressman 

Gutierrez that race is not a factor in determining whether to execute a warrant or take an action at a worksite. Is that right? 

Mr. MEAD. Right. They are not predicated on race. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. But let me ask you this: What is the race 

of the people of the last 12 months? Is there any predominant racial class that has been a target of the last ICE raids over the last 

12 months? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, the targets have been the businesses. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. Well, the employees, too, right? 

Mr. MEAD. The employees have been predominantly Hispanic. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Predominantly Hispanic. What percentage 

Hispanic? What percentage not? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t have that off the top of my head. 

Mr. ELLISON. More than 60 percent Hispanic? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t have that percentage. 

Mr. ELLISON. I know. But you must have some idea. I mean, you 

are a trained professional. You have been doing your job for many 

years. There is no way you would come to a Congressional hearing 

without some facts. 

So my question is: What approximate percentage are we talking 

about is Hispanic? Because, of course, you are a trained professional and you know your job. So I know that you know something. 

Mr. MEAD. Well, you asked me what was the predominant——

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. You answered that question, and I thank you 

for that answer. And I thank you for that answer. And now I want 

to know what percentage of the people were Hispanic. 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t have a specific percentage. 

23

Mr. ELLISON. About 50 percent? Okay. Predominant would be 

above 50. 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. 75 percent? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t have a specific——

Mr. ELLISON. So you don’t know between 55 and 99; it could be 

anywhere in there. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. MEAD. I said predominantly Hispanic. That is my best answer without getting back to you. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. So will you get back with the Committee on 

what the racial categorization the individuals who have been arrested in the ICE-related raids was in the last 12 months? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. That is a statistic we can count on you to receive? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Now, why predominantly Hispanic? I mean, 

there are a lot of people in this country who may be here without 

proper documentation coming from every area of the globe. Why 

Hispanics? 

Mr. MEAD. I think you would have to ask the employers why. 

That is the population they are employing. I don’t have a better answer than that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, you would agree with me that Hispanic people are just one of the many groups in America where there may 

be some immigration violations going on. 

I mean, if employers illegally employ people from Russia or other 

parts of the world, that would be as equally violative of the law. 

Wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. MEAD. Absolutely. 

Mr. ELLISON. So tell me about those folks. I mean, why do we 

have this predominant Hispanic bias? 

Mr. MEAD. I am not suggesting we have a Hispanic bias. You 

asked me a question, and I answered it. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. But I want to know why we haven’t seen other 

ethic groups targeted. 

Mr. MEAD. Again, we did not target any ethic groups. The cases 

revolve around the business and those that the business employs. 

We are not targeting the employees. 

Mr. ELLISON. How did it happen to be such a nationality? How 

did it happen that these businesses happen to have a predominant 

number of Hispanic employees? Why aren’t there other ethnic 

groups that are in the mix? 

Mr. MEAD. I can’t answer that. Again, you would have to talk to 

the business owners as to their hiring practices. 

Mr. ELLISON. When an ICE raid is conducted and an individual 

is detained, what happens to that individual’s children? 

Mr. MEAD. As we were saying earlier, if there is a sole caregiver 

issue, we would release that individual to care for their child assuming there was no other criminal issues in their background. 

In cases where that exists, we work with them to arrange a relative or other person to care for their child. 

Mr. ELLISON. Now, you know, we have a case in Minnesota, the 

Swift Meat Packing Plant. Are you familiar with that case? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, sir. 

24

Mr. ELLISON. How many people were detained in that case? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t have the exact number. I am sorry. 

Mr. ELLISON. If I said 500, would you disagree with that number? 

Mr. MEAD. That is possible. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Mr. MEAD. As I said, I don’t have the exact number. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. But would you agree that about 500 was the 

approximate—let me ask you this one last question. 

There was an American person, born in America, but was of 

Latino background. He was a radio host. And he said, I went to the 

meat packing plant to see what was happening, but the ICE officials demanded that I show them my papers because I was Latino. 

Are we sweeping up Latino-Americans in these raids, as these 

raids are being conducted, and presuming that they have to show 

papers on a presumptive basis based on their ethnicity? 

Mr. MEAD. We do not sweep up any group of people. We conduct 

the necessary interviews to determine who may be here illegally, 

and those people are detained. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, that would surprise the people detained at 

the Swift Plant because they were all picked up in a summary 

fashion. It was all corralled in——

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentlemen, your time is expired. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would recognize, now, the gentlelady from California, Miss Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, I would like to thank you for the time and attention you 

have given this subject. A lot of complications and a lot to learn. 

I would just like to ask our guest today more about training. It 

appears to me that you have a responsibility here to not only understand what undocumented—where they are, where they are 

working, whether or not we have employers who are exploiting and 

are violating the law. 

But, you know, this is a very complicated subject, and I have several individual personnel who are specialized in dealing with immigration problems. 

And as I review these papers with them, I am always amazed at 

how complicated they can get. 

Tell me about the training that your officers have in doing this 

work. 

Mr. MEAD. Our officers go through a very long basic training program. 

Ms. WATERS. How long? 

Mr. MEAD. It is over 18 weeks. They spend a great deal of time 

learning the Immigration and Naturalization Act. They spend a 

significant amount of time learning interviewing skills. They also 

spend time learning, you know, big law enforcement. 

Ms. WATERS. Does the arresting officer have the responsibility of 

doing the interview, or are there special officers who do interviews 

once the undocumenteds have been detained? 

Mr. MEAD. It really depends on the circumstance. In the case of 

worksite—for example, we were talking about earlier, there are initial interviews done at the place of business. Those people who are 

25

believed to be here illegally are taken to a process site where other 

officers might, you know, complete the interview and, as appropriate, booking process. 

So it really is case-specific. But all our officers are trained to do 

these interviews. 

Ms. WATERS. All the officers are trained to do the interviews and 

understand the law and can make independent decisions about 

whether or not this individual should be deported? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, the ultimate decision can be made by an immigration judge if the individual has a right and pursues that right 

to immigration hearing. So there are additional steps beyond the 

initial determination by the ICE officer. 

And when the immigration proceeding begins, the burden shifts 

back to the government to prove the removability of that individual. 

Ms. WATERS. I see. Tell me about the sites where we hold these 

detainees. For example, they are located in every city, every state, 

every region? Where do you take—do they go to regular facilities? 

Local police stations? How does this work? 

Mr. MEAD. There is a combination of facilities, approximately 400 

in total. They are not in every city, but they are spread throughout 

the United States. 

There are some that, a small number, eight, that ICE actually 

owns and operates themselves. 

There is a small number that are privately-owned and operated 

on behalf of ICE. 

Ms. WATERS. Privately-owned? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. How do you own a private detention center? 

Mr. MEAD. There are many private detention—not only detention, but correctional facilities—in the United States. There are 

many private jails, a number of private prisons, that state and 

local governments contract with as well as the Federal Government. 

Ms. WATERS. Now, I suppose you are right. There has been the 

privatization of our prisons. I didn’t know about the detainee centers. 

Give me an example of one of our contractors. What do you have 

in California? 

Mr. MEAD. There is a facility in San Diego that has operated, I 

believe, it is owned by the County of San Diego, but it is operated 

by the Correctional Corporation of America. That would be one example off the top of my head. 

Ms. WATERS. Correctional Corporation of America is a private entity? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. And they use a local facility? 

Mr. MEAD. I believe it is owned by the county and leased to 

them. There is some arrangement between the two. 

Ms. WATERS. So you could have a raid some miles from that facility. How do you get the detainees? Do you just transport them to 

the nearest facility? Or how does that work? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, ma’am. Wherever the site is, we try and move 

them to the closest detention facility. 

26

Ms. WATERS. And then they are held there until the official proceeding takes place? 

Mr. MEAD. If they are going—yes, if they are going to an immigration proceeding, yes. 

Ms. WATERS. And you could have someone there who is illegal, 

undocumented, maybe been in the country for 35 years, and they 

could be immediately deported? 

Mr. MEAD. It just depends on the circumstance. Everybody’s case 

is different. The average length of stay in detention for us is approximately 40 days. 

Ms. WATERS. Just for example, if someone was picked up at a 

worksite, determined by the officers probably to be illegal, taken to 

the center, detained for 20 or 30 days, is there a process by which 

their families are contacted or they have the ability to connect with 

their families and let them know what is going on? 

In all of that, do you have a host system that works that way? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. Particularly in the worksite, when they are 

taken to the initial processing prior to going to a detention facility, 

we provide them free phones. We provide them the opportunity to 

call relatives. If they have an attorney, they can call them. If they 

don’t have an attorney, we provide them the names of free legal 

services. They can call their consulate. And that is all done before 

they ever go to detention. 

Once they get to detention, they have the same access to free 

telephones there. And, again, we provide them access to the numbers of law firms that provide free legal services, to consular officials. We provide them the phone number of the Inspector General 

if they feel——

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. I think my time is up. Could you tell 

me about how many people we have in this country who are being 

detained at this period, right now? 

Mr. MEAD. We have approximately 30,000 people in custody 

today. 

Ms. WATERS. 30,000? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. In various facilities? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Some up to 40 days? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. We feed and clothe and give medical care to them? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady from Texas, Miss Jackson Lee, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. 

And let me also thank the witness and, frankly, thank your service for its service. 

And certainly, I believe you understand the oversight responsibilities of Congress. And to do that, we must be pointed and provocative and probative on how our government is working. 

Now, part of the fault lies in the lack of a comprehensive immigration system. And the genesis, I believe, of a lot of the work that 

you are now doing has come in a misguided way, not by way of, 

necessarily, your actions of following orders, but the whole surge or 

onslaught of the necessity of being oppressive and being aggressive 

27

as it relates to enforcement when we have no balanced comprehensive system that will go along with it. 

Because we have always acknowledged that we are a Nation of 

law, but we are also a Nation of immigrants. And so when the debate began, I remember very distinctly, it was a cry-out for internal 

enforcement, which, when it trickled down to officers on the 

ground, I know there is an extensive burden of the numbers, of the 

cases, of the number of arrests. That generated into these raids 

that occurred in places such as the Carolinas, North and South 

Carolina, that occurred with the Swift Meat Packing entity. 

Though they may have been law enforcement necessities or orders, I, frankly, put it squarely at the feet of the previous Congress 

and the dilatory actions of this Administration in failing to put forward a comprehensive immigration reform package. 

For that reason, you now have a series of incidents that show 

that the enforcement has now come down heavy on citizens, legitimate, hard-working citizens. And so I raise these questions, and we 

will be hearing from a number of individuals. And I would like to 

understand. 

Do you recall the Swift, if you will, raid, and can you tell me why 

in the Swift Meat Packing raid, you put—or someone has given me 

the information that you asked or your officers asked all the brown 

people to stand on one side and all the other people to stand on 

another side? Is that accurate? Or do you have a report on that? 

Mr. MEAD. I am not aware of a report on that. I am sorry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can you investigate that one particular question that I have just asked you? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like to know how your ICE officers 

went in. Did they ask for all the brown people on one side and all 

the other people on the other side? 

The other question I want to know is do you have training to explain to officers that immigrants come in all racial backgrounds or 

country backgrounds? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. We do provide training on cultural differences, 

cultural awareness, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do they understand that there are European 

undocumented individuals that may not be brown in the United 

States? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are they trained enough to be able to determine that person’s status, or are they looking only for color? 

Mr. MEAD. We deport people based on their legal status and 

their right to be here, not their color. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you wouldn’t go into a meat packing or a 

Home Depot store—forgive me, Home Depot. I am just using various examples. But in any event, to go into a store and round up 

all the brown people? 

Mr. MEAD. No, ma’am. We do not——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about all the people with turbans? 

Mr. MEAD. We——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Headgear on their head? 

Mr. MEAD. We do not racially profile. 

28

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. I would like to get a direct response 

back in writing on the training that you do as it relates to people 

of different ethnic backgrounds. 

Let me, quickly, just say you have given increased funding. I 

would like to know why you are turning your attention to U.S. citizens, and how do you explain detaining U.S. citizens? 

And lastly, what remedy do you use to provide a remedy to 

wrongly detained U.S. citizens? 

And I want to bring to your attention—we will hear from them 

shortly—Justine Mancha, Michael Graves, and Pedro Guzman, who 

have their own stories to tell about being detained unfairly. 

Mr. MEAD. The short answer is we do not knowingly or willfully 

detain or remove U.S. citizens. And since the inception of ICE, we 

can only find one case where a U.S. citizen was removed from the 

country, and that is Mr. Guzman. 

And of the more than 1 million people that passed through our 

custody in the past 4 years, he is the only we can find that was 

a U.S. citizen that was removed. And we believe that the circumstances there explain that it was definitely not willful or intentional on our part. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, quickly, you went into Miss Mancha’s 

house, and this young lady is a U.S. citizen. Her mother was not 

home. You didn’t have a warrant, and you started questioning that 

individual who is a U.S. citizen. 

Was there any reason for busting into a U.S. citizen’s house and 

questioning a minor? 

Mr. MEAD. I wish I could talk to you about that case, but it is 

under litigation, and I can’t talk to you about it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Well, I think these examples are disturbing, and I just want to make sure that if I didn’t hear it correctly—please give me, in writing, the remedy that you are providing those wrongly-detained U.S. citizens. And I would appreciate 

that. 

And I believe my time is expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

We have been called for a series of votes. What I would like to 

do, Mr. Mead, is to thank you for your testimony. 

Note that without objection, Members of the Subcommittee will 

have 5 legislative days to submit questions to you which we will 

forward. And we ask that you answer these questions as promptly 

as you can, and we will actually suggest a deadline for the answers 

as we forward them to you. 

We will now excuse you, and I would like to introduce the panel 

that will be next. And then we will go, if the Ranking Member 

agrees, and vote and come back. 

I will call over to the staff so that they can give an announcement and an estimate of time so people are not prisoners here in 

this hearing room. 

There is a cafeteria downstairs. You can get a cup of coffee because I think it is several votes. 

If you could vacate your spot, Mr. Mead, we will ask the other 

panel to come forward to be introduced. 

First, I am pleased to welcome James J. Brosnahan, one of the 

Nation’s most respected and recognized trial lawyers with expertise 

29

in both civil and criminal trial work. He was inducted into the 

State Bar of California’s ‘‘Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame’’ in April 

1996 and was awarded the ‘‘Samuel E. Gates Award’’ by the American College of Trial Lawyers in October 2000. 

Mr. Brosnahan has served as special counsel to the California 

Legislature’s Joint Subcommittee on Crude Oil Pricing, the lawyers’ representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and 

Chairman of the Delegation, and president of the Bar Association 

of San Francisco. 

Next, I would like to introduce Marie Justine Mancha. Justine is 

a junior and an honor roll student at Tattnall County High School 

in Reidsville, Georgia. Justine was born in Texas and is the firstnamed plaintiff in the lawsuit Mancha v. ICE. 

In her spare time, she enjoys participating in the Future Farmers of America. And her mom, Tina, is here with her today. We 

welcome her mom. 

Our next witness is Michael Graves, born and raised in Waterloo, 

Iowa. Michael Graves works for Swift Company Plant in 

Marshalltown, Iowa for 22 years in production on the kill floor. He 

is a member of Local 1149 of the United Food and Commercial 

Workers International Union and is currently a business agent for 

the Union. 

He is the proud father of three children; two sons and a daughter. On December 12, 2006, he, along with thousand of other Swift 

workers, was detained during the ICE raid on six Swift plants. 

Next on our witness panel, we have Kara Hartzler. Kara 

Hartzler is an attorney at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee 

Rights Project in Florence, Arizona. She first became involved in 

immigration issues at an Asylum Clinic on the U.S.-Mexican border 

in 1994 and has, since then, worked with migrant farm workers, 

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, indigenous 

communities in Chiapas, Mexico, and the Human Rights Delegation to Iraq and El Salvador. 

Miss Hartzler currently works as a criminal immigration consultant, advising state and Federal defense attorneys on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. 

Our next witness is Rachel E. Rosenbloom. Rachel Rosenbloom 

is a human rights fellow at the Center for Human Rights and 

International Justice at Boston College and supervising attorney at 

the Center’s Post-deportation Human Rights Project. 

She is a graduate of New York University School of Law where 

she was a Root-Tilden-Kern Public Interest Scholar. She holds a 

bachelors degree in history from Columbia University and a masters in history from the University of California Berkeley where 

she was a Regent Scholar and Human Rights Fellow. 

And our final witness is Dan Stein. Dan Stein is the executive 

director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, otherwise known as FAIR, a Washington-based nonprofit organization 

founded in 1979. 

He has over 15 years experience in the field of immigration law 

and law reform including a prior position as executive director of 

the Immigration Reform Law Institute. Mr. Stein is an attorney licensed in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. 

30

He has a degree in economics from Indiana University and a law 

degree from the Columbus School of Law. He is a native of Washington, DC and has previously appeared before Congress on behalf 

of FAIR. 

Now, at this point, we are going to recess our hearing so that we 

can go cast our votes on the floor of the House. And we will call 

over to the staff and will give you a little announcement and an 

estimate of when we will be able to reconvene as soon as we find 

that out. 

So this hearing is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee is back in session. As I mentioned to the witnesses when I walked in, welcome to Congress’ 

world. These disruptions do occur when we have votes on the floor. 

But we are eager to hear your testimony. 

This hearing is being webcast, so it is not just the people in this 

room who will be seeing the testimony. 

Your full statements will be made part of the official record of 

this hearing, and we do ask that your testimony be summarized in 

about 5 minutes to that we can have time for questions. 

We are starting with Mr. Brosnahan and working that way—is 

that correct, staff? All right. 

Mr. Brosnahan, if you would begin. Your microphone needs to be 

on. Thank you very much. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, SENIOR PARTNER, 

MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman 

Lofgren and Ranking Member King. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to tell you what happened to Peter Guzman today, who I represent with the Southern 

California ACLU. 

Very simply, on May 11, 2007, he, being a U.S. citizen born in 

the United States, living in Lancaster with his fairly-large family, 

having gone to lower California schools, having worked as a cement 

finisher, and having developed, over the years, only to the level of 

about a second grade reading ability. 

He is a person of limited mental capacity. He was arrested in 

connection with a sort of odd trespass, and he was given 120 days 

under the sheriff’s aegis and a very low-level clerk as part of a program which is instituted by ICE. 

They interviewed him and asked him if he was a citizen, and he 

said he was. And she said, But your parents were born in Mexico, 

you can’t be a citizen, and sent him back to a holding cell and then 

brought him back again. 

Now, that happened, and it happened as part of a program that 

I understand is in 400 local police jurisdictions. 

On May 11, 2007, he was sent to ICE, who had in their records, 

knowledge that he was a U.S. citizen. The sheriff’s office knew he 

was a U.S. citizen. This they took his driver’s license when he was 

arrested. 

They had it in their record. They had it in their computers, but 

they didn’t look, evidently, so they say, I guess. 

31

And they put him on a bus with $3. They took him to Tijuana. 

They opened the door, and they put him out. No family, no job, no 

place to go, nobody to support him, nothing, zero. And he was a 

U.S. citizen. 

Now, I heard Mr. Mead, if I may, come here today, and I heard 

that he has a degree in management. And I asked myself as a person, Madam Chairwoman, that doesn’t come back here very often, 

where is it in America that he could manage anything and he 

would be allowed to do it. 

Where is it that the boss would be the Chairperson and the 

Ranking Member would tolerate answers about notorious newspaper events that he knows nothing about? It is not in corporate 

America, which I do represent; not in educational institutions. It is 

not anywhere. 

So, yes, Peter was put out there. And what happened to him? For 

3 months, he tried to get back into his country where he was born 

and where he was allowed and entitled to come. 

He had to eat out of garbage cans. He had to wash himself in 

the Tijuana River. And his mother, who we also represent, went to 

the morgues of Tijuana. 

Sometimes, I think it must be hard, and I mean this sincerely, 

to sit here and talk about policy and not visualize a woman, a 

mother, in the morgues of Tijuana, looking for her son because the 

government has put him off a bus. 

Did they call their house in Lancaster? They did not. 

Did they check their records? They did not. 

Did they ask themselves any questions? They did not because 

they have the power. 

And those who have given them the power have oversight, and 

that is this Committee. What should you do based on my view? 

I am a layperson here. My grandfather was in the Immigration 

Service. And I have had cases involving them, and I know what 

they do well, and I know what they do wrong. 

They separate families. That is wrong. 

I don’t know what district any congressperson can go and say, 

We have got a policy; we are going to go and separate families. I 

don’t know where you can go and do that. 

But here is what I think is the issue. 

First of all, if there is any question about it, there should be a 

right to a lawyer. I heard Mr. Mead say that they supply that and 

they suggest it and all that. 

That is news to an awful lot of Americans. That is big news. 

Yes. They should have a lawyer, certainly. The 400 local jurisdictions—I didn’t hear a word today—I didn’t even hear a question 

about are they trained. Are they trained in the sheriff’s office in 

Los Angeles to do this work? 

It is not fun work. The head sheriff is not going to do it. It is 

low-level stuff. And mistakes are being made; you are going to hear 

about them today. And it was made in this case. 

So the oversight has to demand answers to these questions. And 

I would suggest that the idea of using the local law enforcement 

is not a good idea. If you are going to have quality education, it 

would have to be with the ICE to do that. 

32

So I applaud the increased oversight by this Committee. It is 

much-needed, and I think decent people in the United States want 

you to do it and hope that you do do it. 

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brosnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES J. BROSNAHAN AND MARK D. ROSENBAUM

The government—whether it be federal or local—lacks any discretion to deport 

citizens of the Unites States. Citizenship is the constitutional birthright of every individual born within our national borders, and surely the first obligation of government is to preserve at any cost the liberty and security of its citizens to remain 

within their homeland. 

On May 11, 2007, immigration officials and agents of the Los Angeles District of 

the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘‘ICE’’) Division, under 

the Department of Homeland Security, in concert with officials of the Los Angeles 

County Sheriff’s Department, unlawfully deported Peter Guzman, a 30-year-old 

United States Citizen born and raised in Los Angeles County, to Tijuana, Mexico, 

a city with which he was utterly unfamiliar, having been there only once, at the 

age of 14, on a brief trip with his mother. Peter Guzman knew no one in Mexico 

and had not been there for over a decade. At the time of his deportation, Mr. 

Guzman had no resources by which he could purchase food or shelter, and only the 

clothes he was wearing when ICE officials placed him on the bus to Tijuana. His 

family in nearby Lancaster, California was not notified of his deportation, although 

officers of the Sheriff’s Department had within just weeks prior to the deportation 

contacted his brothers on a number of occasions to discuss arrangements for his imminent release from the County Jail system. Mr. Guzman did not have a cell phone 

or other means to contact his family to bring him back from Mexico. 

As result of his illegal deportation, Mr. Guzman spent nearly three months wandering on foot in Mexico between Tijuana and Calexico. He frequently ate out of garbage cans and for the most part slept outside without adequate shelter or warmth, 

bathing in rivers. Mr. Guzman lived in constant fear. That he survived is a matter 

only of his will to live and fortuity. His suffering from this nightmarish ordeal continues to this day. 

Mr. Guzman is cognitively impaired and is unable to read at more than a second 

grade level. At the time of the deportation, he was under the care and supervision 

of his mother. He is unable to remember his home telephone number or that of anyone else in his life. 

The illegal deportation of Peter Guzman was not an innocent mistake by ICE officials or agents, but rather the predictable consequence of policies, practices and procedures which rely upon racial and ethnic stereotypes to presuppose undocumented 

status and lack even rudimentary safeguards against erroneous determinations. Mr. 

Guzman told personnel processing him for deportation that he was a United States 

citizen, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department records, compiled at the time 

of his arrest and booking, and from an earlier incarceration, and readily available 

to ICE, confirmed his assertion. ICE processed Mr. Guzman for voluntary departure, 

although official law enforcement records also available to ICE made clear that he 

would not have been eligible whether or not he had been illegally present within 

the United States. In addition, medical records of treatment of Mr. Guzman while 

incarcerated at the Men’s Central Jail ought to have immediately alerted ICE personnel that Mr. Guzman should not have been subjected to administrative processing without at minimum the presence of family members or counsel. These 

records unquestionably demonstrated that Mr. Guzman was not capable of exercising a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights at the time of his 

deportation, or, indeed, at any time thereafter. 

The circumstances that resulted in Mr. Guzman’s illegal deportation originated in 

a January 25, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (‘‘MOU’’) between the Department of Homeland Security and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors creating a pilot project by which Sheriff’s Department personnel interview and process 

presumed or suspected foreign-born inmates confined within the Los Angeles County jail system to determine the inmates’ immigration status and whether, in their 

judgment, the inmates are deportable. The personnel within the Sheriff’s Department assigned this responsibility are not deputies, but are described as custody assistants (‘‘CA’s’’). These CA’s have received only brief training by ICE, are not 

versed in immigration law and yet pursuant to the MOU, have been granted federal 

authority to obtain consents to voluntary departures and to make referrals to ICE 

for deportations. For all intents and purposes, ICE exercises no meaningful superVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\021308\40742.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
33

vision or monitoring of immigration processing by local CA’s within Los Angeles 

County. 

BACKGROUND

Peter Guzman was born on September 25, 1977 in Los Angeles, California. He is 

the second of seven children. Mr. Guzman grew up in Lancaster, California. He attended elementary, middle and high schools in Lancaster. 

On March 31, 2007, Mr. Guzman was arrested for the misdemeanor offense of 

Trespassing upon Land Under Cultivation in violation of California Penal Code 

§ 602. He pled guilty to misdemeanor vandalism and was sentenced on April 19, 

2007. The judge suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Mr. Guzman on 

three years probation with a condition that he serve 120 days in County Jail, of 

which he received credit for 30 days of combined good time and time served. 

Some time after his sentencing, Mr. Guzman was transferred to the Men’s Central 

Jail in downtown Los Angeles and was processed thereto at the Inmate Reception 

Center. In response to a question relating to his citizenship, he stated that he was 

born in California. Department personnel recorded his response in official records 

relating to his arrest and detention. 

During the course of the next weeks, Sheriff’s Department personnel contacted 

Mr. Guzman’s family on at least two occasions, at one point seeking to verify information for purposes of arranging an early release to his residence. At no point did 

these personnel or ICE agents question whether Mr. Guzman was a United States 

citizen or attempt to verify citizenship. 

Other law enforcement records available also recorded that Mr. Guzman was a 

United States citizen. By reason of an earlier conviction and incarceration, there 

ought to have existed serious question as to whether Mr. Guzman would have been 

eligible for voluntary departure even if he had been illegally within the United 

States. 

County medical records relating to Mr. Guzman disclose that on April 7, 2007, 

just one week after his arrest, he was prescribed 5mg of Zyprexa to be taken daily. 

Their documents state:

He has been in jail for more than one week. He was at LCMC for AMS and 

he is sent back with Zyprexa 5mg daily for voices. He told the ER doctor at 

LCMC that he hears voices of and on, telling him ‘bad things’ but there is no 

other specifics of ‘voices’ documented or asked. Further voices increased when 

he came to jail. 

DEPORTATION AND DISAPPEARANCE

On or about May 10, 2007, a Custody Assistant processed Mr. Guzman and obtained a signature waiving his legal rights and agreeing to be voluntarily deported 

to Mexico. ICE personnel did not undertake any reasonable inquiry into the circumstances of the processing or as to why Mr. Guzman was then questioned about 

citizenship. Nor did ICE inquire as to Mr. Guzman’s eligibility for voluntary departure or as to why law enforcement records consistently stated that he had been born 

in California. 

As result, Mr. Guzman was placed on a bus to Tijuana and illegally deported to 

Mexico. 

On May 11, 2007, Mr. Guzman, utilizing a borrowed cell phone and a slip of paper 

with his brother’s telephone number, called the residence of his brother and spoke 

to his sister-in-law, Victoria Chabes. The call lasted no more than a minute and the 

slip of paper was lost shortly thereafter. Mr. Guzman stated that he had been 

placed on a bus at the jail and that he did not have money or clothes with him. 

Ms. Chabes called at once Mr. Guzman’s mother, Maria Carbajal, and relayed the 

conversation. Fearing for her son’s safety and well being, Ms. Carbajal returned to 

her home, obtained Mr. Guzman’s birth certificate and drove with one of her sons 

to Tijuana to begin to search for him. 

Over the next three months, Ms. Carbajal, Mr. Guzman’s brothers, his sister-inlaw, and other family members searched in Tijuana and adjoining cities for Mr. 

Guzman. Ms. Carbajal often walked through the city. She and family members regularly searched morgues, hospitals, jails, shelters and along rivers and alleys. Ms. 

Carbajal arranged to temporarily leave her job as a cook at Jack in the Box to devote virtually all of her time to the efforts to find her son. Because the family had 

very limited resources, Ms. Carbajal stayed at times in a room no larger than a closet in a banana warehouse where she slept on the floor. She cooked in exchange for 

the room. 

34

A usual day would begin at 6:00 a.m. and not finish until late at night. Ms. 

Carbajal and family members circulated hundreds of flyers with a picture of Mr. 

Guzman and information about him. 

Mr. Guzman wandered on foot over hundreds of miles for eighty-nine days between Tijuana and Calexico. He physically survived by begging and picking food 

from garbage. He bathed in the Tijuana River and typically slept outside. 

Until a habeas action was filed in federal court, and worldwide attention was 

brought to the case, the United States government offered no assistance to Ms. 

Carbajal and her family despite repeated pleas for help. When prior to the filing 

of the habeas, counsel for the family informed a Los Angeles ICE official of the circumstances of the deportation, and faxed a copy of the birth certificate, the official 

stated that upon proof of the validity of the certificate, ICE would amend its records 

to correctly reflect Mr. Guzman’s United States citizenship, but would take no additional steps to find and return him to the United States. 

Upon his return to the United States, Mr. Guzman was unable to speak and physically incapable of stopping from shivering. He is currently receiving psychological 

treatment as result of the illegal deportation. Ms. Carbajal stated shortly after his 

return that ‘‘he left complete but they took half my son.’’

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Brosnahan. 

Now, we have our honor student, Marie Justine Mancha. 

Justine, if you would give your testimony now, we are eager to 

hear it. 

TESTIMONY OF MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA, STUDENT,

TATTNAL COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 

Ms. MANCHA. Hi. My name is Marie Justine Mancha. I go by 

Justine. I am 17 years old, and I am a junior at Tattnall County 

High School in Reidsville, Georgia. 

I am originally from Texas where I was born, but moved to 

Reidsville with my family when I was about 7. So I consider 

Reidsville my hometown. 

I have grown up in Reidsville, gone to school, and hanging out 

with my friends. Everyone in my family was born in the United 

States. We are all known as Mexican-Americans. 

Never did I expect my family or me to go through this terrible 

experience we all went through in September of 2006. 

It all started because I was running late and Mom went uptown 

to run an errand while I got dressed for school. 

I was home alone. I was in my bedroom when I first heard the 

noises outside. It sounded like car doors slamming. So I looked outside my window but didn’t see anyone. 

So then I went to the living room, made sure the door was unlocked for Mom but also made sure it was closed because, if not, 

Mom would pitch a fit. 

So I walked back in my room and started watching TV while I 

waited. Not too long after that, I heard male voices coming from 

inside of my house. I was so scared. I had no idea what was going 

on. 

I got up and started walking down the hallway toward the living 

room and I started to hear the words ‘‘police’’ ‘‘illegal.’’ It seems as 

if those words still ring in my head today giving me that fear of 

them busting in my home. 

I walked around the corner from the hallway and saw a tall man 

reach toward his gun and look straight at me. I saw a group of 

agents standing in the living room blocking the front door. My 

heart just dropped. 

35

I didn’t know what was about to happen. It just about brings 

tears to my eyes to think what if my little sister was there. What 

if she had seen this or felt what I felt? I didn’t know what to do. 

When the tall man reached for his gun, I just stood there feeling 

so scared. I could have busted out into tears, but I had to be strong 

and hold it in. I looked around, and there were about four or five 

men in my house and more coming up the stairs. 

They began asking questions. I started to feel closed in like I 

couldn’t say no or not answer them because they were blocking the 

front door. They were asking me if there was anyone else in the 

house, and if my mom had worked at Cotter, and why she had quit. 

Also, they asked if my mom was a Mexican and if she had her 

papers or a green card. I felt so awful and low that they were asking me all these question because I am Mexican. 

At the time, I didn’t want to be Mexican because of what we go 

through and how people look at us different and treat us and assume we are all illegal. 

But just going through all this made me see how strong Mexicans can be, and I wouldn’t change that for anything. I am proud 

to be Mexican. 

I answered all their questions, telling them my mom didn’t need 

a green card because she was born in Florida. Finally, I got the 

courage to ask them why they were in my home. 

One of the agents just said they were looking for illegals. They 

began to walk outside and I heard them telling each other they 

should all go to the gas station because they would find a lot of 

Mexicans there. 

I asked if they were leaving, and they said they would be in the 

area looking for the rest of them. I walked outside and they were 

everywhere. Luckily, they all got in their cars and started to drive 

off. 

About that time, Momma pulled in, and I ran to her and started 

crying telling her what had just happened. I was so scared. I still 

am. I carry that fear with me every day wondering when they will 

come back. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mancha follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA

Hi, my name is Marie Justeen Mancha, but I go by Justeen. I’m 17 years old and 

am a Junior at Tattnall County High school in Reidsville, Georgia. I’m originally 

from Texas where I was born, but moved to Reidsville with my family when I was 

about seven years old. So, I consider Reidsville my hometown. I’ve grown up in 

Reidsville going to school and hanging out with my friends. Everyone in my family 

was born in the United States. We’re known as ‘‘Mexican-Americans.’’ Never did I 

expect my family or me to go through the terrible experience we all went through 

in September of 2006. 

It all started because I was running late, and Momma went up town to run an 

errand while I got dressed for school. I was home alone. I was in my bedroom when 

I first heard the noises outside. It sounded like car door slamming, so I looked outside my window but didn’t see anyone. So then I went to the living room and made 

sure the door was unlocked for momma, but also made sure it was closed because 

if not Momma would pitch a fit. So I walked back in my room and started to watch 

T.V. while I waited. Not too long after that I heard male voices coming from inside 

my house. I was so scared. I had no idea what was going on. 

I got up and started walking down the hallway towards the living room and I 

started to hear the words, ‘‘Police! Illegals!’’ It seems as if those words still ring in 

my head today giving me that fear of them busting into my home. I walked around 

36

the corner from the hallway and saw a tall man reach toward his gun and look 

straight at me. I saw a group of law enforcement agents standing in the living room 

blocking the front door. My heart just dropped. I didn’t know what was about to 

happen. It just about brings tears to my eyes to think, ‘‘what if my little sister was 

there?’’ ‘‘What if she had seen this, or felt what I felt?’’ I didn’t know what to do. 

When the tall man reached for his gun I just stood there feeling so scared. I could’ve 

busted out in tears, but I had to be strong and hold it in. I looked around and there 

were about four or five men in my house and more coming up the stairs. 

They began to ask me questions. I started to feel closed in, like I couldn’t say no 

or not answer them because they were blocking the front door. They were asking 

me if there was anyone else in the house and if my momma had worked at Crider 

Poultry and why she had quit. Also, they asked me if my mom was a Mexican and 

if she had her papers or a green card. I felt so awful and low that they were asking 

me all these questions because I’m Mexican. At times, I didn’t want to be Mexican 

because of what we go through and how people look at us different and treat us 

and assume we’re all illegal. But, just going through all this made me see how 

strong Mexicans can be and I wouldn’t change that for anything. I’m proud to be 

Mexican. 

I answered all their questions—telling them my momma didn’t need a green 

card—that she was born in Florida. Finally, I got the courage to ask them why they 

were in my home. One of the agents just said that they were looking for illegals. 

They began to walk outside and I heard them telling each other that they should 

all go to the gas station because they’d find a lot of Mexicans there. I asked if they 

were leaving and they said they’d be in the area looking for the rest of ‘‘them.’’ I 

walked outside and they were everywhere. Luckily, they all got in their cars and 

started to drive off. 

About that time momma pulled in and I ran to her and started crying—telling 

her what just happened. I was so scared. I still am. I carry that fear with me everyday—wondering when they’ll come back. 

I have also attached a copy of the complaint in the lawsuit in which I am a plaintiff, which I would like to be considered as part of the record before this Subcommittee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. You did a wonderful job of 

testifying. 

Mr. Graves? 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GRAVES, MEMBER UNITED FOOD 

AND COMMERICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1149

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Members of the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing. 

I am here today representing 1.3 million members of the UFCW 

Local 1149 and thousands of other Americans who have been treated and abused by our government, outraged by the institutional 

immigration sweep at worksites across the country. 

I will never forget on December 12th when heavily-armed ICE 

agents surrounded the Swift Meat Packing Plant at the Swift Company in Marshalltown. The plant where I worked——

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you move the microphone a little bit closer 

to you so we can hear all of your—thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES. On that day, my civil rights was violated and my 

faith in this country was taken. 

At 6 o’clock that morning, our supervisor came to our floor. I was 

on the kill floor. He came around and told everybody that they 

have to report to the cafeteria. 

They didn’t give us a reason why we had to report to the cafeteria, just that we had to report to the cafeteria. 

So we proceeded to go out to the cafeteria to the main floor. Me 

and two other Hispanics, co-workers, started going to the cafeteria 

at our normal route. 

37

We met up with ICE agents. He came to us and asked us where 

we was going. We said we was reporting to the cafeteria as we 

were supposed to. He came to us and said, Well, you are not going 

the right direction. I said, ‘‘This is our normal route.’’

So anyway, he came to us and asked did we have any weapons 

on us—we wear white t-shirts, white pants, no long sleeves or 

nothing; no weapons on us. He still searched us and told us to get 

up against the wall. 

He asked us if we kept them in our locker. He put us against 

the wall and handcuffed us. He took us to our locker in the men’s 

locker room and—the two down. My locker was down there on the 

other side of the aisle. 

So one of the ICE agents took me to my locker, still in handcuffs, 

and asked me about where I was living. And I told him I lived in 

Waterloo, Iowa. He asked me again where I lived. We are here in 

Waterloo, Iowa because it is a good place to work, and I have been 

here for 21 years—so many years. So I didn’t want to change my 

job. 

So he asked me for my combination. He asked me to open my 

locker. He opened up my locker and asked me if I had any weapons 

inside. I said, no we don’t carry weapons to work. So he searched 

my locker anyway. 

He asked for my ID. He got my identification, looked at it, and 

asked me questions about my identification and asked me about 

my parents. And I said they lived in Mississippi. 

He asked me do I know my route to Mississippi. And I said, well 

yeah, but I don’t know the exact route in detail. 

So he kind of looked at me and told me to sit down. So he took 

my identification to another agent that was down from the aisle 

where I was sitting and told me to sit down. And he looked at my 

identification and the other agent did, too. They looked at it, said 

something to each other, and started laughing. 

So they took my identification with them, and I was still sitting 

there waiting for them to come back. When they did come back, he 

told me to go to the cafeteria where everybody was still sitting 

there waiting. 

The cafeteria holds about 50 people, but they crammed about 150 

people in the cafeteria. So they blocked off all the food supply, all 

the water in the cafeteria. They unhandcuffed me at the entrance 

of the cafeteria and told me to go in there and wait——

We was in there for about, at least, 3 or 4 hours in the cafeteria 

with no food, no water, no means of telephone to call our lawyers 

or—they did not give us a chance to get our union rep there to talk 

to us about the situation either. 

So we was there with no food, no water, nothing. 

When they came, they got us by tens of people and then they 

took us to go to another area to process. After that, we were processed. We went to another area outside the plant and walked about 

400 yards to another building where 400 people were in there 

where they still cut off all our food supplies, no water, no phones, 

no nothing. 

We were there for about 8 hours with no means of getting outside contact, no food or water till the whole process was over and 

done with. 

38

Myself, you know, it is just horrible how they treated us. They 

herded us like animals going to the other building—agents denied 

them to call their loved ones and let them know what was going 

on. 

I am not just the only one. I am here with a friend of mine, another friend from Brent Island. He is one of the persons that was 

violated at his plant, also. So I mean, it is not me at my plant; it 

is another plant that they had victimized, also. 

At that time, I felt that the raid was unjust. It didn’t do the 

proper procedure when they did. I mean, they checked who I was. 

They found out who was illegal and who wasn’t illegal, but they 

still detained us there for 8 hours with no food and water. 

And after that, after 8 hours, they sent us home. After that, everything was over and done with. 

Again, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GRAVES

Thank you Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and Members of the 

Subcommittee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify. I am here 

today representing the 1.3 million members of the United Food and Commercial 

Workers International Union (UFCW), my Local 1149 in Marshalltown, Iowa, as 

well as the tens of thousands of American citizens who have been abused by our 

government’s outrageous and unconstitutional immigration sweeps at worksites and 

homes across this country. It is indeed a privilege to be here in Washington to testify today and to tell my story. 

My name is Mike Graves, and I am from Waterloo, Iowa. For the last 21 years, 

I have worked at the Swift and Company plant located in Marshalltown, Iowa. During those years, I have worked on the kill floor of the plant. I am also active in 

the union. 

In all 21 years on the job, there is one day I will never forget. On December 12, 

2006, hundreds of heavily armed ICE agents stormed six meat packing plants across 

America’s heartland. The Marshalltown plant where I work was one of those targeted and attacked. 

And it did feel like an attack. I will never forget that day. Because it was on that 

cold December day, that I had my civil rights violated and my faith in my country 

shaken. 

I was working on the kill floor doing my usual job when the line was stopped and 

my supervisor told me and my coworkers to go immediately to the cafeteria. As we 

walked to the cafeteria, using the regular route, a man in full SWAT uniform with 

a gun stopped us. His uniform had no nametag to identify him as a government 

agent. He asked me why I was running away. I politely told him I was not running 

away from anything or anybody, but that I, along with my colleagues, had been instructed to go to the cafeteria. He asked for identification, which I told him was in 

my locker. You see, when you work on the kill floor, you do not carry identification 

to the floor because you can be splattered with blood. He told me we had to go to 

the locker room. 

Once there, the agent told me to get against the wall and he handcuffed me. He 

then began to interrogate me about where I was born, where I now lived, where 

my parents live, and whether I was a U.S. citizen. I told him I was born in Waterloo, Iowa, and that was where I still live. I answered each question honestly and 

politely although I was uncomfortable in the handcuffs and not sure why I was 

being interrogated in this way. 

He asked me why I live in Waterloo and drive all the way to Marshalltown for 

work. It’s more than an hour drive each way, but my Swift job is a good job and 

it helps me provide for my family. The agent then asked where my parents were 

from. I told him Mississippi. He asked me how to drive from Waterloo to Mississippi. To be honest, I didn’t know the exact route, why should I? Do you each 

know the precise route to your parents’ house? When I didn’t answer the questions 

to his satisfaction, he continued to aggressively interrogate me. Was I scared? Yes, 

wouldn’t you be? 

He asked me for my locker combination and if I had any weapons. By now, I was 

getting angry. I am a U.S. citizen. I am the son of U.S. citizens. I am a father of 

39

U.S. citizens. I live in the same state in which I was born. I have worked in the 

Swift plant for more than two decades. It is not easy work, so with all due respect 

to the Subcommittee, I found his questioning insulting and offensive. And, quite 

frankly, regardless of my status, his interrogation, the handcuffs, the guns, and the 

agents in SWAT uniforms were all incredibly unnecessary and intimidating—and, 

I had done nothing wrong. 

Why would he ask and suggest that I have a weapon? Why would I bring one to 

work? Because I’m black? Because I work in a packing plant? It just wasn’t right. 

I have worked at this plant for more than 20 years and I was not only being asked 

if I had a weapon but for my locker number. I couldn’t even open my own locker 

because of the handcuffs. 

The ICE agent opened my locker and checked my ID. He showed it to another 

agent. They started laughing. I was then escorted outside, still in the binding handcuffs, to the cafeteria. It is about a 400 yard walk. It was December in Iowa. It was 

cold and snowing and I had no coat or gloves. There were armed agents everywhere 

guarding the perimeter of the Swift building. 

By the time I got into the cafeteria, I had been in the handcuffs for an hour. The 

agents finally removed the cuffs and I was forced to sit in the cafeteria for the next 

seven hours with hundreds of my coworkers. We had no food and no water. We 

weren’t allowed to use the restrooms by ourselves. We couldn’t use the phone to contact our families, union representatives or lawyers. ICE held me there for eight long 

hours. There was no legitimate reason. There was no probable cause. Our plant—

our workplace—had been transformed into a prison or detention center. We were 

turned into prisoners because we went to work that day. 

Again, for the record, I am a U.S. citizen. I was born and raised in this country—

in the same state I work and have never been overseas in my life. But on that December day, I and all my coworkers, were treated by our government like criminals. 

All we did was wake up and go to work. It was a day that was nothing out of the 

ordinary. We just went to work to help provide the food for this country and the 

support for our families. But it wasn’t a normal day after all. What happened to 

us that day was simply wrong. No one in this country, regardless of their status, 

should be treated the way we were treated at the Marshalltown Swift plant or any 

of the Swift plants. Working is not a crime, and workers do not leave their constitutional rights at the plant gate. 

Imagine the outrage if this happened at one of these fancy downtown Washington 

office buildings. Imagine if thousands of innocent people were detained for more 

than eight hours just because the government suspected a handful of undocumented 

workers in the building? It would not matter who was in the building at the time, 

everyone would be detained. This would cause a huge uproar and outcry. You think 

it wouldn’t happen in Washington but we thought it wouldn’t happen in Iowa either. 

We thought it couldn’t happen in America’s heartland, but it did. Innocent workers 

were handcuffed and detained by our government. It would be wrong in Washington, DC and it was wrong in Marshalltown, Iowa. 

What happened to me—and to thousands of others of U.S. citizens and legal residents on that December day—was a complete violation of our rights. And, it did not 

end there. It can happen at any workplace—at any time—in this country if we do 

not do something now to change the way these immigration raids are conducted. 

My story is not unique. I wish you could hear all of the stories from that day. 

Perhaps then you would understand the fear that people were subjected too. You 

would hear first hand how we were mistreated and how we were treated like a herd 

of animals. You would hear from people whose children were left stranded at schools 

and daycares, who had no idea where their parents were. You would hear from 

women who were frisked by male agents because no female agents were available. 

You would hear from handcuffed women, who were escorted into bathroom stalls by 

agents when they needed to use the facilities. You would hear from the woman who 

was at a local hospital having a miscarriage, but ICE would not allow her to contact 

her husband in the Swift plant because he was detained. 

You would also hear from Darryl Harrington, a Korean War veteran, who was detained and compared the experience to his time at war. You would hear from Walter 

Molina, another U.S. citizen, who was taken from his plant to a detention area more 

than 6 hours from his home and was later released only to have to find his own 

way home. 

You would hear the story of Delphina Arias, a U.S. citizen. She has a son in Iraq 

and a daughter in ROTC. Delphina was also detained by ICE agents. What is happening in this country that we are detaining a mother, a mother who is a U.S. citizen, while her son is putting his life on the line right now in Iraq? On that day, 

Delphina thought the ICE agents dressed in black who invaded her plant were terVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\021308\40742.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
40

rorists intent on killing us. She actually thought about pretending she was dead if 

they opened fire on her and her co-workers. 

You would also hear the story of Pasqual Talamantes, who is here with me today. 

Pasqual is a U.S. citizen. But the ICE agents didn’t believe his story because he 

does not speak English very well. Pasqual was educated in Mexico. He was at the 

Swift plant in Grand Island the day of the Swift raids. He showed his driver’s license to the agents but although it is current, it is old and he is thinner than his 

picture. The agents did not believe it was his license and yelled racial slurs at him. 

Pasqual insisted that he was a U.S. citizen and that he had a U.S. passport at 

home. He pleaded to be released so he, a single parent, could go home to his children. ICE detained him for six horrific hours. Could there be a more concrete example of racial profiling and to what end? Was any of this necessary? 

These are just a few of the stories you would hear from Swift workers who were 

abused, traumatized, and mistreated in the guise of immigration reform by the U.S. 

government. Members of this Subcommittee, something has to be done so that this 

never happens to anyone in this country again. It was horrible to watch how we 

were treated that day. It was hurtful to see the fear in my co-workers eyes and to 

understand the trauma we all experienced. Again, all we did was go to work that 

day. The raids hurt our community. It hurt our company. And it is hurting our 

country still. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and tell you my story and 

my co-workers’ stories. I urge you to use the power of your offices to correct this 

injustice and to fight to end these discriminatory, un-American practices by ICE. 

Again, thank you for your time and I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

you may have.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Graves. 

Miss Hartzler? 

TESTIMONY OF KARA HARTZLER, ATTORNEY, FLORRENCE 

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT 

Ms. HARTZLER. Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member King 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here 

today. 

My name is Kara Hartzler, and I am an attorney at the Florence 

Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in Arizona. 

The Florence Project is a nonprofit organization providing free 

legal services to persons in Arizona who are detained by ICE. 

We do this by conducting legal orientation presentations to detainees before their first deportation hearing and by providing individual follow-up services to those who do not have lawyers but 

maybe eligible to remain in the United States. 

In the course of my work with the Florence Project, I have talked 

to thousands of people who are in the process of being deported. 

And I would like to tell you a few of those stories today. 

About a month ago, I spoke with a man named Thomas Wozniak 

in Florence, Arizona on the morning of his deportation hearing. 

When I asked Mr. Wozniak where he was born, he replied, ‘‘Minnesota.’’

He told me he was raised in the south and that he had never 

left the United States in his life. When I asked if he knew why the 

U.S. was trying to deport him, he said that someone had told him 

he had a foreign-sounding name. 

Because he was detained, he did not have access to his birth certificate nor did he have any family or friends who could obtain a 

copy. 

He had heard it cost $30 to order a copy of his birth certificate, 

so he was working in the prison kitchen for a dollar a day until 

he had the money to order one. So far, he had $8 and he hoped 

41

to earn the remaining $22 before his next court date in several 

weeks. 

In my experience, stories like that of Mr. Wozniak are not rare. 

Under immigration law, a person is a citizen of the United States 

by birth, naturalization, or because the person automatically acquired or derived citizenship through a parent. 

On average, our organization is currently seeing 40 to 50 cases 

per month in which individuals with potentially valid claims to 

U.S. citizenship are being detained and deported. 

Why aren’t we hearing about these cases? Because as is often the 

situation, it is happening to the most vulnerable in our society; to 

racial and ethnic minorities, the mentally ill, people who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, people who are homeless and have no access 

to documents, people with no family to help them. 

In immigration court, unlike criminal proceedings, the government does not provide a lawyer to those who can’t afford one. 

One of our clients named Anna, who suffers from psychosis and 

schizophrenia, represented herself before the immigration judge. 

Anna consistently maintained three things: That she was born in 

France; that former President John F. Kennedy was her father; 

and that the Pope was also her father. 

Despite the obvious unreliability of the latter two statements, 

ICE used the former statement to argue that she could be deported 

to France. ICE presented no evidence, apart from her statement, 

that she was born outside the United States, and the French consulate denied that she is a citizen of that country. 

Anna has been detained for 5 months in Eloy, Arizona. 

Sometimes, persons who are born at home for religious or other 

reasons were never issued a birth certificate and are subsequently 

detained and deported. 

Javier was born at home in El Paso, Texas and never obtained 

a birth certificate. After completing probation for a misdemeanor, 

his probation officer informed him that she would have to report 

him to ICE. 

When Javier told her that he was born in Texas, she replied, ‘‘I 

know, I am sorry. But I have to cover my ass.’’

In some cases, the detention and deportation of U.S. citizens is 

the result of inexcusable error. About a year ago, I met a man 

named Joseph who was detained in Eloy, Arizona. 

Joseph was born in the Sudan and had automatically derived 

U.S. citizenship from his parents because he had turned 18 after 

they naturalized. To prove this, Joseph submitted a copy of his 

original birth certificate in Arabic and a translation of it to the 

judge that showed that he was born on October 2, 1985. 

However, ICE submitted a competing translation that incorrectly 

interpreted the date on the certificate as February 10, 1985, based 

on the assumption that the first number in the date represented 

the month rather than the day, which is not the practice in the 

Sudan where the birth certificate was issued. 

The judge, nevertheless, accepted ICE’s translation, rejected Joseph’s, and ordered him deported. 

When I talked to Joseph, he was disgusted and wanted to give 

up. I convinced him to let me try and reopen his case. And with 

42

a new translation from an Arabic expert, the judge finally acknowledged that Joseph was, indeed, a citizen. 

Even after the judge’s ruling, Joseph was not released for another 40 days, a full year and a half after he was first detained. 

Following my conversation with Mr. Wozniak, the man born in 

Minnesota, I contacted a reporter who was able to find a record of 

his birth within several hours. After being incarcerated for over a 

month, Mr. Wozniak was finally released. 

Ironically, he is one of the lucky ones. 

Another man I am assisting with a valid claim to citizenship has 

been detained for over 4 years. It is my observation that these 

cases are surprisingly, painfully common; that U.S. citizens are 

being detained and deported from the United States not monthly 

or weekly, but on a daily basis. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hartzler follows:]

43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KARA HARTZLER


KH-1.eps
44


KH-2.eps
45


KH-3.eps
46


KH-4.eps
47


KH-5.eps
48


KH-6.eps
49


KH-7.eps
50


KH-8.eps
51


KH-9.eps
52


KH-10.eps
53


KH-11.eps
54


KH-12.eps
55


KH-13.eps
56


KH-14.eps
57


KH-15.eps
58


KH-16.eps
59


KH-17.eps
60


KH-18.eps
61


KH-19.eps
62


KH-20.eps
63


KH-21.eps
64


KH-22.eps
65


KH-23.eps
66


KH-24.eps
67

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Miss Rosenbloom? 

TESTIMONY OF RACHEL E. ROSENBLOOM, HUMAN RIGHTS 

FELLOW, CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AT BOSTON COLLEGE 

Ms. ROSENBLOOM. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member King, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing 

and for inviting me to appear here today. 

My name is Rachel Rosenbloom. I am here on behalf of the Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Boston College. 

The main point that I wish to emphasize today is that these 

cases that you have heard, the deportation of U.S. citizens, are not 

isolated incidents. 

The Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Boston College has documented at least eight cases in recent years in 

which U.S. citizens have been removed. 

We believe, based on anecdotal evidence, that there are additional cases that have not been publicly reported, and we are currently researching those. 

Rather than describe these cases, I want to focus on the systemic 

problems that allow such egregious errors to occur. Over the past 

decade, our deportation system has increasingly come to rely on 

fast-track removal processes that bypass our immigration ports entirely. 

A case such as Mr. Guzman’s makes visible to the public something that is obvious every day of the year to people facing removal; that entrusting high-stakes decisions to low-level officers 

with little or no review creates conditions that are ripe for error 

and even sometimes coercion. 

One such process is expedited removal introduced in 1996 which 

allows immigration officers to summarily exclude foreign nationals 

who lack proper documentation. 

Those subject to expedited removal have no right to counsel and 

no right to a hearing before an immigration judge. 

Initially, it was used only at ports of entry, but it is now increasingly being use in the interior. And although a person is supposed 

to be referred to an immigration judge if they make a citizenship 

claim, the Center is aware of at least two cases in which U.S. citizens have been removed through this process without ever being 

referred to immigration court and others who have been threatened 

with jail time and detained for weeks on end through this process. 

Another fast-track removal process is administrative removal, introduced in 1994, which applies to noncitizens who are not permanent residents and have been convicted of certain types of crimes. 

Again, this is done by an immigration officer, not an immigration 

judge. There is no right to a hearing, and if you make a citizenship 

claim, you are supposed to be referred to a judge. 

But, again, we are aware of cases in which this hasn’t happened; 

where people have been removed through this process, citizens like 

Linda Smith Wilmore, a 71-year-old, partially blind, lifelong resident of New York State who was born in Albany, New York in 1931 

and had a birth certificate on file there. 

68

The third fast-track removal process involves immigration officers and, increasingly, law enforcement officers who obtain the consent of U.S. citizens for their removal. This may occur through a 

stipulated order of removal or by the person accepting pre-hearing 

voluntary departure. 

The people sign away all of their rights inherent in their citizenship without ever consulting with an attorney and without an immigration judge ever determining that such an admission is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent or that deportation is warranted. 

So when considering how these processes affect U.S. citizens, 

consider the following statistics. Seven percent of U.S. citizens do 

not have ready access to proof of their citizenship such as a U.S. 

Passport, naturalization papers, or a birth certificate. 

Among U.S. citizens who earn less than $25,000 person year, 12 

percent lack ready access to such proof of citizenship. 

So for a person who is on the margins of our society due to a disability, a drug addiction, or even just due to poverty, getting picked 

up at an ICE raid or getting turned over to ICE after a minor 

brush with the law can mean entry into a system that can truly 

be called——

I just want to—in closing, I want to highlight three factors that 

really magnifies these problems associated with this system. The 

first is lack of access to counsel. 

Ninety percent of detainees lack legal representation, and it can 

be crucial in citizenship cases. Sometimes, particularly, if you derive citizenship from a parent, it can take sophisticated legal analysis necessary to prove that. 

The second factor is mandatory detention which brings people all 

over the country far from their friends and family who might be 

able to help them with their case, far from free or low-cost legal 

services. 

And the third factor is the lack of accommodation for individuals 

with disabilities as I think has become evident from many of the 

stories that have been told today. 

And finally, although my principle focus is on the deportation of 

U.S. citizens, I want to say that these systemic problems lay out 

in a much wider arena. The Center is aware of a large number of 

cases in which long-time legal residents, green card holders, have 

been removed on the basis of criminal conviction that do not actually trigger removal or convictions that don’t bar discretionary relief. 

Faced with the prospect of lengthy detention and lacking the financial ability to hire an attorney, many simply concede removability. 

The costs of this system are borne not only by those supported 

by their loved ones who are left behind, including many U.S. citizens’ children who have been senselessly deprived of the presence 

and support of a parent. And there is also a great cost to all of us 

and to the system itself, to our legal system, when the rule of law 

just fails within these situations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenbloom follows:]

69

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RACHAEL E. ROSENBLOOM


RER-1.eps
70


RER-2.eps
71


RER-3.eps
72


RER-4.eps
73


RER-5.eps
74


RER-6.eps
75


RER-7.eps
76


RER-8.eps
77


RER-9.eps
78


RER-10.eps
79

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stein? 

TESTIMONY OF DAN STEIN, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION FOR 

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM 

Mr. STEIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

My name is Dan Stein. I am president of the Federation for 

American Immigration Reform. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk 

about the subject of the hearing. 

I, first, would like to say that I think everyone can agree, and 

I am sure that we all agree that the inadvertent deportation of 

U.S. citizens ought to be an extremely rare occurrence, nothing 

that we would ever want to tolerate. 

And, certainly, FAIR has been, I believe, as supportive as anyone 

else in the efforts to try to improve detention and removal proceedings over the years to try to ensure that these sorts of things 

don’t happen. 

Certainly, all of us feel compassion and concern for someone who, 

in the case of Mr. Guzman, lacking, I guess, the mental capacity, 

to assert his citizenship, wasn’t able to assert his rights effectively. 

And changes should be made to try to improve those procedures. 

At the same time, in my testimony, I talk a good deal about the 

recent increases in detention, deportation; how these increases, 

while these amount to several billion dollars a year more, nevertheless, are necessitated by a rapid increase in illegal immigration. 

And there still have been, nevertheless, declines in enforcement 

personnel in—states which declined by 3 to 6 percent between 2002 

and 2004. 

The public is demanding dramatic increases in interior enforcement in response to unprecedented levels of illegal immigration. 

FAIR supports that very strongly. We have been one of the major 

forces pushing for an increase in interior enforcement. 

A couple of things I want to point out during my brief statement 

is—and I have been working on this now for 26 years. Been here 

a long time at this. 

I can remember how many Committee meetings focused on the 

problem of false claims to citizenship. False claims to citizenship 

are a very difficult problem in ICE enforcement procedures. 

Let us be honest about it, we are asking the government to do 

an impossible job. 

The main reason is, of course, that there is no easy way to verify 

citizenship. It is not simply that many Americans do not have 

ready access to proving their citizenship. In fact, I think the numbers are dramatically higher than what we heard earlier. 

But that there have been persistent efforts over the years by 

many of the organizations which are concerned about, apparently, 

the deportation of U.S. citizens; many of those same organizations 

that stand in the way of much-needed improvements in developing 

things like machine-readable driver’s licenses to verify birth 

records and/or naturalization records to enable U.S. citizens to 

quickly and easily prove citizenship. 

I have no privacy interest in the fact that I am a U.S. citizen. 

And yet sitting here today, I can’t verify it easily. I would have an 

80

easier time verifying my shopping record or my Internet browsing 

history than I would the fact that I am a U.S. citizen. 

So in the end, we, as a Nation, have created an impossible situation. Surely, no one can say that we are devoting too many resources to interior enforcement given the fact that ICE deported 

approximately 135,000 people in formal removal proceedings last 

year, but there are an estimated 12, 13 million illegal aliens in the 

United States. Arguably, if anything, our enforcement procedures 

remain far too laxed. 

And I believe that in the average point of view of today’s American voter could concur that, in fact, we are not enforcing the law 

anywhere near the shape or form of what we ought to be in this 

country. 

We believe that Congress ought to concern itself with asking the 

question: Why is it that we are not able to enforce the law more 

effectively in the interior? Why have we allowed this Byzantine 

document structure and the failure, including state and local enforcement force multipliers, to be established to enable worksite enforcement to happen more routinely and smoothly rather than this 

once every 20-year event that we see going on? 

So I would suggest that we very strongly believe that we should 

look at these problems more as an opportunity to look at what kind 

of resources are needed over time. We have allowed our interior enforcement apparatus to atrophy for many, many years. 

It has happened as a result of aggressive lobbying by private special interests in the United States who seek to use immigration to 

control labor costs. We should enforce these laws in the interior because they benefit U.S. citizens by improving bargaining leverage 

which leads to an increase in wages and working conditions. 

We believe it is time to change direction. Vigorously enforcing 

our immigration laws fairly, certainly humanely, but at the same 

time effectively, is clearly going to have a negative impact on people who have broken our law. 

At the same time, however, we believe the basic principles of 

fairness and justice require that we not provide special benefits to 

those who have chosen to jump the line and break the law in front 

of millions of people who wait patiently and respect our system. 

Thank you very much. And I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN STEIN

Madame Chair, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR). I have included information on FAIR at the end of my statement. 

FAIR strongly supports the principle that U.S. immigration law is just as important as any other law in the United States Code, and that the enforcement of these 

laws is vital to maintenance of a sense of fairness and justice to all Americans who 

work hard to respect all the laws of this nation. Basic principles of fundamental 

fairness and respect for law are the cornerstones of citizenship in this highly diverse 

society. There many who argue that violating an immigration law lacks any negative moral connotation. We disagree. One reason why many immigrants want to 

come to the United States is because here ‘‘the system works.’’

Congress has passed laws and the Executive Branch maintains a series of procedures governing the arrest, detention and removal of aliens illegally inside the 

United States. They are under constant review. We support the effective and huVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\021308\40742.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
81

mane administration of these laws and procedures, consistent with the process that 

is due at all points of apprehension, detention and removal. 

In the administration of these complex laws and procedures, mistakes will occasionally be made. This is especially true given the scope and complexity of these procedures, the demands of limited resources and the fact that human beings are fallible. The effective and judicious administration of all phases of these procedures 

will require a continued and growing infusion of resources: the management of immigration process is an extremely expensive proposition if it is to be done right. 

But when mistakes are made by ICE in the administration of these laws, it is 

a serious matter. Our nation’s commitment to fairness and the rule of law dictate 

that all instances of misconduct be investigated thoroughly and, where criminal conduct is proved, a full prosecution should invariably follow. Where rules and procedures are not followed, such as in the inappropriate administration of sedation 

drugs, the willful failure to identify sole caregivers in the course of an interior enforcement operation and similar events, an investigation should follow from the Inspector General to ascertain why procedures were not followed. 

Madame Chair, we understand at FAIR that immigration policy involves sensitive 

and emotional issues—the very real impacts on real people are factors that must 

be considered in the establishment of any enforcement policy. We must be true to 

our principles as a people and work to ensure that immigration enforcement—vigorous and effective—nevertheless respects basic human rights and the dignity of all 

involved. 

At present, the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Program (ICE) program for detaining and removing illegal aliens is undergoing rapid expansion. The Bush Administration’s most recent budget request 

seeks an additional $3 billion for internal enforcement, including work-site raids 

conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. The President will 

ask for $1.8 billion more to expand ICE’s capacity to detain illegal immigrants by 

providing 1,000 more detention beds. 

This rapid funding increase is necessitated by a rapid increase in illegal immigration, by declines in enforcement personnel and funded bed space (which declined by 

3 percent and 6 percent, respectively between 2002 and 2004), and by public demands that interior immigration enforcement be dramatically expanded. Despite an 

increase in overall resources, bed space and personnel levels have failed to keep 

pace with the growing number of alien apprehensions. 

According to a 2006 audit report issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, ‘‘of the 774,112 illegal aliens apprehended during 

the past three years, 280,987 (36 percent) were released and largely due to a lack 

of personnel, bed space, and funding needed to detain illegal aliens while their immigration status is being adjudicated.’’ Further, an astounding 62 percent of the 

aliens released ‘‘will eventually be issued final orders of removal by the...Executive 

Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and later fail to surrender or abscond.’’ We 

now have over 600,000 alien fugitives in the United States. 

According to DHS, three major problems facing the Detention and Removal Office 

(DRO) are ‘‘(1) the propensity of illegal aliens to disobey orders to appear immigration court; (2) the penchant of released illegal aliens with final orders to abscond; 

(3) the practice of some countries to block or inhibit the repatriation of its citizens; 

and (4) two recent U.S. Supreme court decisions which mandate the release of criminal and other high-risk aliens 180 days after the issuance of the final removal order 

except in ‘Special Circumstances.’ ’’ DRO says major problems carrying out largescale removal include lack of ‘‘sufficient resources,’’ a lack of ‘‘political will, and the 

[lack of] operation of foreign governments.’’ Department of Homeland Security Office 

of Inspector General, Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens, OIG–06–33 (April 

2006). 

FAIR calls on Congress and the national political leadership of this nation to demonstrate the political will to dramatically increase the enforcement of US immigration laws in a manner consistent with credible deterrence. We would also like some 

broader recognition of the tremendous hidden processing and enforcement costs associated with the administration of laws associated with the use of so-called ‘‘inexpensive’’ foreign labor. 

At present, specific problems with individual enforcement operations are properly 

subject to internal investigations by DHS. Every one of these allegations is worthy 

of serious consideration, all the while keeping in mind that many of the underlying 

facts are omitted from news reports. Further, we would suggest that overall policy 

changes not be made on the basis of one or two isolated instances of agent misconduct. Rather, we should be looking at the entire set of objectives in the aggregate 

and work to fashion an enforcement strategy that will operate to serve the nation 

as a whole. 

82

Furthermore, we are concerned that these isolated incidents are being used to try 

to build political support by those who oppose immigration enforcement generally. 

The reaction to the recent increases in interior enforcement—welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the American people—has been negative among those organizations traditionally opposed to robust enforcement strategies. 

With an estimated population of illegal aliens ranging from 12 to 13 million, one 

can hardly argue that this nation is too aggressive in its enforcement of immigration 

law. In 2005, DHS’s Immigration Enforcement Actions report 135,610 formal removals—perhaps 1% of the illegal immigrant population in the United States. Clearly, 

the government has only begun to initiate which promises to be a multiyear effort. 

Commonly we hear the red herring, ‘‘What you want, mass deportations?’’ To 

which I respond that 135,000+ formal removals is already a form of mass deportation. Moreover, the sort of large-scale interior enforcement operations contemplated 

by the term ‘‘mass deportations’’ are unnecessary. This problem was not created 

overnight. It will not be solved overnight. Stepped up interior enforcement, when 

combined with the aggressive enforcement of employer sanctions, dramatically increased detention space, and streamlined removal proceedings will achieve the deterrence that will encourage most illegal aliens to return home. 

Madame Chair, we believe it is possible to enforce our immigration laws in a manner that is both effective and consistent with our values. We see the effects of statebased policy changes now: deterrence sets in quickly once it becomes clear that remaining unlawfully in the United States is not a viable option. 

Our immigration law enforcement is notoriously lax. While we understand that 

there are organizations and interests that seek to abolish nearly all forms of immigration enforcement, we believe that is a minority view. Even under today’s relaxed 

standards, the United States deports well over 100,000 aliens from the interior of 

the country each year. While it will be costly to dramatically increase detention and 

bed space to bring about true deterrence, such costs can be reduced through expedited removal and similar streamlining techniques. The United States utilized expedited removal to repatriate over 70,000 aliens in 2005, and last year the Administration started using expedited removal for non-Mexicans apprehended near the border. 

The administration has more authority to use expedited removal than it has exercised to date. Current law allows the administration to utilize expedited removal for 

any alien who entered illegally and has been in the United States for less than two 

years. FAIR has previously supported provisions of the House-passed version of the 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which require the use 

of expedited removal for all aliens who enter the US illegally and have been here 

for less than five years. This is the sort of creative and innovative thinking we 

would like to see expanded. 

Madame Chair, this nation has allowed its interior enforcement apparatus to atrophy for years. It has happened as a result of the aggressive lobbying of private, special interests in United States who seek to use immigration to control labor costs. 

We believe it is time to change direction. The simple truth is that vigorously enforcing our immigration laws will have a negative impact on illegal aliens. However, 

we believe that the basic principles of fairness and justice require that we not provide specific benefits to those who have chosen to jump the line and break the law. 

About FAIR

FAIR is the nation’s oldest and largest national public interest organization working to reform U.S. immigration laws. Bound by a common purpose and broad sense 

of mission, we seek to advance forward-thinking immigration policies that serve the 

wide array of U.S. domestic priorities that, in our view, are fundamentally inconsistent with today’s mass and poorly-regulated immigration system. 

FAIR seeks to end illegal immigration through improved enforcement strategies, 

and we seek to reduce overall immigration levels to those more consistent with 400 

years of history—to reduce levels from well over one million a year today to around 

300,000 a year over a sustained period of time. 

FAIR has a wide base of support that includes nearly 50 private foundations and 

nearly 200,000 individuals. Unaligned with any major party or financial interest, 

FAIR is noteworthy on two counts:

1) We are bipartisan. Our Board of Directors, Advisors and members include 

Democrats, Republicans and Independents. We also have a broad constituency that includes members of all ethnic and racial communities in the 

United States. We have members, activists and affiliated organizations that 

83

include strong representation from the African American and Latino communities.

2) We have always sought to ensure that immigration policies never discriminate for or against persons on the basis of race, religion, gender or other invidious basis.

Over the years, FAIR has played a major role in virtually all major immigration 

policy changes. As champion of an enlarged and long-range national interest, FAIR 

seeks to advance America’s understanding of the role of immigration to the U.S. in 

the 21st Century. We fought for policy improvements in the landmark 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, in asylum laws in the Refugee Act of 1980 as well 

as in legal reforms in 1990 and 1996. From 1993 onward, FAIR was intimately involved in examining, exposing and closing loopholes that might be exploited by 

international terrorists. After the 9/11 terror attacks, FAIR was instrumental in 

fashioning important legislative and policy changes that have helped advance U.S. 

national security in major ways. 

Perhaps most importantly, FAIR has always sought to fashion a workable immigration system that considers the downstream impacts of today’s policies on tomorrow’s generations. Looking ahead fifty years, FAIR has been one of the few voices 

in the nation to ask: What will it mean to move from a crowded society of 300 million today to nearly one billion by the end of this century? FAIR—unattached by 

party loyalties and special interest affiliations—simply seeks to help Americans consider the full dimensions of how immigration policies affect, and will affect, the nation’s welfare over time. 

Long considered the most credible voice on U.S. immigration policy in America 

today, FAIR has been asked by Congress to testify on a wide range of issues—well 

over 100 times—and is a routine voice on national television. FAIR and its law firm 

affiliate the Immigration Reform Law Institute routinely submit both popular and 

scholarly articles for publication and our research division puts out some of the best 

fact-based immigration analysis in the country. 

Madame Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to offer the views of 

FAIR.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Stein. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses. Now is the time when we have 

an opportunity to ask questions, and I would like to invite the 

Ranking Member to ask his questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate all the witnesses’ testimony, and I have a series of 

places to start here. 

But maybe I would go to the statement made by Mr. Brosnahan. 

The mother who went for days in Mexico searching from morgue 

to morgue. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And I am going to make a statement here. I am not 

sure I will have a question, Mr. Brosnahan, on that. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Surely. 

Mr. KING. I would point out that there are mothers, fathers, 

brothers, and sisters that go to morgues every day in America because of failure to enforce immigration law; and that 27 percent of 

the inmates in our Federal penitentiaries are criminal aliens. 

There are numbers that support that being a representative, 

also, in state in local prisons. 

If even a fourth of the murders in the United States are committed by those individuals that fit that category, that is over 4,000 

a year. That means there hasn’t been a single day go by in this 

country that there hasn’t been a mother, father, brother, or sister 

going to a morgue in the states, too. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. But are you saying——

Mr. KING. My point——

Mr. BROSNAHAN [continuing]. It is, therefore, justified? 

84

Mr. KING. My point is, Mr. Brosnahan——

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Is that if we—we have one single case 

here that we know about. There are others that have been gathered in the testimony of Miss Hartzler which I intend to ask her 

a question in regard to that. 

But if there is a factor involved in this kind of hearing that says 

we should never have a single exception out of maybe even one out 

of a million is one of the numbers that was produced by Mr. Mead, 

it may end up being more American lives in the process. 

So I would just ask you if you could quickly answer, do you expect it to be without exception? Can we be a hundred percent 

right? And I think there were points that were made here about 

some lack of respect and strong-arm tactics. I think they are valid. 

So I hope you don’t address that. 

But are you asking that this be without exception even in spite 

of the risks that I have pointed out? 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Here is what I know that might be helpful, and 

it is a point of view. 

As a Federal prosecutor for 5 years and a defense lawyer for too 

many years, any police agency—and this agency that you supervise 

is a police agency in large part. They do other things, too; administrative things. But they are a police agency. It requires total discipline. That is true of the FBI, all those agencies. 

And if they don’t——

Mr. KING. [OFF MIKE] 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. But please; you asked me. Did you want an answer? 

Mr. KING. And I said——

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Do you want an answer? 

Mr. KING. Do you expect this to be without exception? 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. KING. That was my question. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Yes. Put me in charge of the ICE. 

Mr. KING. Okay. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. There would be new administration, and there 

will not be U.S. citizens—you won’t have this problem. And you can 

get much better people than that if you want to exercise the oversight with which you——

Mr. KING. Thank you. I do have your answer, and my time is 

limited. So I appreciate——

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Okay. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Your testimony. 

I would turn to Mr. Graves at this point, and I want to make 

sure I welcome him as a fellow Iowan and I appreciate your testimony in coming here today as well as all of you. 

And that is not a case that I am unfamiliar with. My question 

first is what is the temperature on the kill floor? 

Mr. GRAVES. Excuse me? 

Mr. KING. What is the temperature on the kill floor? 

Mr. GRAVES. On the kill floor, it is about a hundred degrees, 

maybe 95 degrees on the kill floor. 

Mr. KING. Even in December when this case took place? 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. 

85

Mr. KING. So that is why you are in there in t-shirts. I just had 

to clarify that. I haven’t been on the kill floor in a while. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yeah. 

Mr. KING. And when you walk out of there into 20-degree temperature, it is a long walk. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. 

Mr. KING. The individuals that were with you when you walked 

over to the cafeteria, they had two individuals with you? Your testimony said other Hispanics, but I presume—how were they processed? 

Did they come back to work with you? 

Mr. GRAVES. I never seen just that day it happened. But——

Mr. KING. Were they deported then, Mr. Graves? 

Mr. GRAVES. I don’t know. I don’t know if they quit or whatever, 

but after that day, they never came back. When they took me to 

my locker; that was the last I saw of them. 

Mr. KING. They were either deported or intimidated out of a job, 

most likely? 

Mr. GRAVES. Exactly. 

Mr. KING. Are you aware of a couple that, an African-American 

couple, that drove up from Dallas when they heard this in the 

news, American citizens, to apply for jobs and went to work there 

as a man and a woman that had been looking for jobs in Dallas 

that were attracted to come to Marshalltown? 

Mr. GRAVES. No. Never heard about that one. 

Mr. KING. I picked that up from a local legislator that was working a soup line at the church, and I thought that was the happy 

story about this; that any time Americans can go to work, people 

that are lawfully present in the United States, legal to work in the 

United States, to fill those slots, I thought that was a good story. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And I wanted to pass that along. So, again, I appreciate your testimony, but I wanted to turn to Miss Hartzler in the 

limited time that I have. 

And you talked about—let us see—the language that you used 

was U.S. citizens are being deported or detained on a regular basis, 

not monthly or weekly, but daily. 

And that deported or detained is two different categories. And it 

would be detentions of American citizens for a lot of different reasons, and ICE can probably, despite Mr.—position on this, can 

probably avoid detaining American citizens in the process of doing 

their job. 

So can you break that down for me and give me the number that 

you think are those that were being deported on a regular basis? 

And I would ask you if you can produce the names of those people 

so that we could do a more comprehensive analysis of that because 

I am working with one name right now. 

Ms. HARTZLER. I think there are a lot of categories of people 

within the montrose of a U.S. citizen who are being detained or deported. 

First of all, they are native-born citizens, and we have heard the 

story of Pedro Guzman. However, there is along a very, very large 

group of people who were not necessarily born in the United States, 

86

but have acquired or derived citizenship even those that were born 

outside the United States. 

Those are the cases that I most often see being deported. And a 

lot of times, they are being deported because the process of them 

being able to prove their citizenship before an immigration judge 

is so difficult, particularly without family support, that it can often 

take weeks, months, years. 

So when I see people who are citizens who are deported, it is 

often because they are so frustrated over the length of time they 

have to spend incarcerated that they essentially give up and they 

allow themselves to be deported even though they have a valid 

claim to U.S. citizenship. 

And the ones who don’t give up, who stay, will often be detained 

for years at a time. 

Mr. KING. Do you actually have a case for them, and when a 

judge has heard your assertions, now, these cases, have they been 

before the judge? 

Ms. HARTZLER. Yes. And I would also—I would clarify that because of large numbers, our organization generally doesn’t represent people in court. We are helping assist people to represent 

themselves before an immigration judge. 

Mr. KING. Okay. So you wouldn’t be talking about cases that 

have been adjudicated and the court has denied their claim to citizenship? 

Ms. HARTZLER. There are some of those, but there are also quite 

a few cases where the judge has actually said, Yes, this person is 

a citizen; and ICE will appeal. And that appeal will last 6 to 8 

months. 

Mr. KING. What do we do, then, when the individual alleges and 

may well have been born in the United States, not in the hospital 

without a birth certificate, maybe near the border, who may or may 

not have been raised in the United States; how do we resolve an 

issue when it is the family making an allegation and there are no 

other witnesses that can testify or verify that particular case? 

I just——

Ms. HARTZLER. Well, I think it is a very difficult situation. But 

I would point to the law that says that it is ICE’s burden to prove 

born birth. And ICE, first of all, has to say, We have some sort of 

information showing that this person was born outside of the 

United States. 

If ICE does not meet that burden, or if ICE does meet that burden, then, indeed, the burden shifts to the person who is claiming 

citizenship to prove. 

Mr. KING. Has ICE ever proved foreign birth? Other than—has 

ICE ever proved a foreign birth that wasn’t supported by a birth 

certificate document in a foreign country? How would they prove—

how would they prove that an individual was born in a foreign 

country? 

Ms. HARTZLER. They will often use the person’s statement. And, 

as my testimony highlighted, if you have a person with mental illness, they will often say that they were, sometimes, born outside 

of the United States. 

87

So those statements are, in my opinion, are inherently unreliable 

in terms of proving alienage. And yet they are used by ICE. So that 

is one of the situations. 

I think it is a very difficult situation, but in my experience, ICE 

has shown less interest in objectively determining citizenship than 

in disproving and rebutting claims to citizenship. 

Mr. KING. Just one brief question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly. 

Mr. KING. I think my clock ran out a while ago. But I just—I am 

curious about how you would view this, revealing with this huge 

haystack of humanity. And ICE has a big mission, and national security is wrapped up in it. That is why they are part of the Department of Homeland Security. 

The level that has been charged here for them, this hundred percent, never fail, never-cross-the-line level that Mr. Brosnahan has 

laid out—and I know he has conviction in that. And there is probably some validity in his viewpoint. 

Do you think that could ever be reached practically? Or are we 

going to have exceptions no matter what we do? 

Ms. HARTZLER. I am sorry. Could you—I know we are getting out 

of time, but could you restate that question? 

Mr. KING. Yes. The standard of not making mistakes and not 

being abusive, which I will certainly hold them to that standard as 

well—but do you think that that level of efficiency at ICE could 

ever be reached? 

Do you think that no matter who is running the operation and 

what kind of personnel we have that we wouldn’t be back here in 

5 or 10 years with at least one or a few cases like have been 

brought forward today? 

Ms. HARTZLER. No. I think that it is very, very difficult to ensure 

that no citizen is ever deported. But I think the point of my testimony would be that our current procedural safeguards are so lacking in the numbers that I personally am seeing border on routine 

deportation and detention of U.S. citizens. 

Mr. KING. I get your point, and I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Let me ask Justine—I want to go through and make sure I understand how events unfolded in your house. 

Now, you were in your room when you heard the voices of the 

Federal agents in your home; is that right? 

Ms. MANCHA. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Yes. Is that correct? 

Ms. MANCHA. I had heard car doors slamming. I looked out the 

window and didn’t see anything. So then I start—I was in my room 

and then I started hearing police. 

Mr. KING. Did they knock? 

Ms. MANCHA. They were already in my house when I walked to 

the living room. 

Mr. KING. And they didn’t ask if they could enter? 

Ms. MANCHA. Uh-uh. 

Mr. KING. Did they show you a warrant? 

Ms. MANCHA. No, ma’am. 

88

Mr. KING. Once they saw you, did they ask you if it was okay 

that they were in your house? 

Ms. MANCHA. They just started asking me questions. 

Mr. KING. Now, they came in and asked you specifically about 

your mother; is that right? 

Ms. MANCHA. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. KING. But your mother was born in Florida? 

Ms. MANCHA. Yes. 

Mr. KING. She wasn’t even a nationalized citizen. Did they offer 

any why they thought you or your family were undocumented? 

Ms. MANCHA. They just started asking me questions about my 

mom and if she had a green card or not. I said she doesn’t need 

a green card. She was born in Florida. 

Mr. KING. Yes. Mr. Graves, you gave compelling testimony and 

actually painted a pretty vivid picture of what that day was like. 

I wanted to ask you about Walter Molino, one of the U.S. citizens 

who was caught up in the ICE raid. 

As I understand it, even though he was a United States citizen, 

he was detained and then driven to a detention center 6 hours 

away, and then simply released when ICE realized he was a U.S. 

citizen. 

Did they take him back to where they picked him up, or did they 

offer to give him a ride back? Or did they just dump him? 

Mr. GRAVES. From what I understood, somebody had to come 

pick him up from there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Brosnahan, you have spoken with tremendous 

passion about Mr. Guzman’s situation. And as I understand your 

testimony, all the information was available had they had just 

bothered to check on——

Mr. BROSNAHAN. All of it was right there in the records in the 

sheriff’s office and in ICE. All they had to do was look at the booking sheet, which I have read. I have read all the documents. That 

is all they had to do. 

And the problem in terms of your going forward with it is the 

question that should be asked today is what is going on in the 400 

local police agencies that have been deputized by ICE people to do 

these kinds of interrogations. 

Is that being done well? Is that to your satisfaction, Members of 

the Committee? Or is it as I believe, logically, a terrible delegation 

of an enormous power to very low-level—I don’t mean to demean 

them, but very low-level——

Ms. LOFGREN. But they are not a judge. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. They are not at all trained to do it. And immigration is very difficult. If they were trained in some other area of 

sheriff’s activities, maybe that would be different. 

But immigration is—you have heard today how very complicated 

it is. And that has happened to Peter, and that is what is happening to other people. 

Ms. LOFGREN. There are a number of issues that have been presented here today. I voted against the deputization of local police 

agencies as well as the expedited removal procedures. 

I remember saying in the Homeland Security Committee, we are 

going to end up deporting Americans here because there is not anybody with the skill set to make the important judgment. 

89

So there is the training issue. There is also, you know, the delegation issue. I have a personal belief that many lawsuits are being 

filed. And L.A. County has to pay, I think it may chill their passion 

for participation in this particular program. 

The estimates are that between 25 and 40 percent of the inmates 

held in county jails have a mental health problem in this country. 

And if that is the case, there desperately needs to be special protocols for individuals who are impaired. 

And I guess the question would be either for Miss Hartzler or 

Miss Rosenbloom, who specialize in this, are those protocols in 

place. And if not, you know, I am going to be following up with ICE 

on this, but don’t you think that that would be a pretty obvious 

thing to do? 

Ms. ROSENBLOOM. It is absolutely essential. In the Guzman case 

and many of the other cases that we have documented show just 

how easy it is for someone to admit to being—to not being from 

this country and not having any legal status. It is completely untrue. 

And if either of the—or it is something that they think their 

questioner wants to hear, and for, you know, a mental disability 

patient to simply go along with that. 

And we absolutely need to—they are required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. And there is just simply no oversight. 

I think if someone like Mr. Guzman had gone before a neutral 

adjudicator like an immigration judge who had really questioned 

him, if he understood the weight of what he was admitting to right 

there, I think we would have—I don’t think that his mother would 

have been wandering through the morgues of Tijuana for 3 months 

looking for him. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I know my time is up, but I would like to—

as Ranking Member, I am going to take a little bit more time. 

But on the Guzman case, in a way, it is the poster child for this 

situation. I saw an article in the newspaper was how I first found 

out. And I was just stunned to think that this young man who has 

an impairment in terms of I.Q. would be basically just dumped in 

a foreign country. 

This is a Federal court’s order, the Border Patrol, to be on the 

lookout for him? 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Yes. And ICE, in this one case that I do know 

about, up to that point, was of no help. It is not their department 

to try to rectify it nor today. 

I mean, when you heard this gentleman come here, and I understand he has got a job to do, there is no note of apology. There is 

no note that the rest of us have to do. We didn’t do well yesterday. 

We have got to do a better job. I am awfully sorry, Oversight Committee. We are going to really do——

Here is the plan. Here is the plan. You heard no plan. 

So, yeah. They did nothing. There is a deep-seated—I have observed this before in my litigations. There is a deep-seated psychological resistance to the kind of management that you need in this 

agency. 

And I am just ecstatic, delighted, that this Committee thinks 

that you need to do this. You really need to do it. 

90

And you are going to have to send your questions, get your answers, and all of that. But they were no help at all. 

Very compelling case, a Federal judge got into it and started 

issuing orders. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, my time actually has expired. So I am going 

to turn to Mr. Ellison for questions that he may have. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. And also let me thank 

you for having a hearing. 

One of the great things about having the authority and power to 

call a hearing is that you can really bring to light issues that desperately need greater scrutiny. 

Mr. Graves, I am from Minnesota. And when the Swift raids hit, 

it sent a shock wave throughout the state. And it wasn’t just our 

Latino community members who were upset, it was really everybody. And you know that because you were there. 

Let me ask you this: I mean, were people who were Latino in 

their background or appearance, even though they were American 

citizens, impacted by the officers who conducted this raid? 

Mr. GRAVES. I mean, you know, we work by them every day. And 

we don’t know if they are legal or illegal. So we can’t tell by the 

way they dress or how they talk. So, I mean, it is all up to—they 

know we don’t know anything about them. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. And so it really was just this was a group of 

Latinos; we will sort them out later. That is the way it seemed to 

me. 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, at first, ICE did come there with a list of 

names that they knew who they were coming for. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. They could have went to HR and told them to come 

down one by one in that way. But they shut the whole plant down 

and—everybody, no matter who they were or what status they 

were. 

They shut the whole plant down. 

They did get the people that they were looking for, but they still 

had us detained until they processed everybody to see if they were 

still U.S. citizens or not. But, you know, the ones that was U.S. 

citizens, we were still stuck there until everything was all over and 

done with. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, that is an important point to make here. I 

mean, you know, I was, you know, sort of trying to get at that issue 

when I was speaking to Mr. Mead and didn’t seem to really get 

very far. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Brosnahan, is there a racially different impact with the ICE 

raids? I mean, it seems to me that——

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON [continuing]. Mr. Mead said there wasn’t one and 

it is all about the employers. 

Mr. BROSNAHAN. Well, I think—being of Irish extraction going 

back to the old days, I think when they set out after a group and 

the group thinks that there is an impact, then the government has 

to slow down. 

Listening today, that is the great tragedy of this. Our fellow citizens who are Hispanic, who contribute so much to this country, to 

91

say nothing of the undocumented Hispanics who contribute, you 

know, the 9,500 members of the Arizona Farm Workers who pick 

those lemons that go into the drinks in Washington—I don’t know 

what is going to happen there. 

There is a reality out there in the world, and we are out in it, 

and yes, there is a war going on, and it is aimed at, certainly, the 

Hispanic community in a way that they feel it. And if they feel it, 

that should be enough for the government to say we have to figure 

out different ways than just taking over a factory, or whatever it 

might be, or a processing plant. We have to do something about 

this. 

You may have noticed recently, there are an awful lot of Hispanics in this country. And they have to be respected. And you get 

the idea from ICE that there is not that level of respect in what 

they are doing for the community. 

They think it is okay to hold people for 4 hours or whatever it 

is. That is what they think. Yes. I think there is a problem there. 

Mr. ELLISON. Miss Mancha, could you describe for us just how 

you felt when you saw these strange men walking in your house? 

I mean, you are a young lady. 

I mean, what were some of the things that you were thinking as 

you saw these guys tramping in your house without a warrant? Invading your home? 

Ms. MANCHA. I was really scared. I thought that they were going 

to take me. I didn’t know what was going to happen. I was really 

scared. 

Mr. ELLISON. Does it change the way you see strangers when 

they knock on your door? I mean, is it something that sort of still 

bothers you? 

Ms. MANCHA. I am not—my mom is the same way, too, now. She 

keeps the doors locked at all times and everything. It not only hurt 

me, but it hurt my family a lot, too. 

Mr. ELLISON. And Miss Mancha, you know, I am sure you were 

brought up to respect police and respect law enforcement and be 

cooperative and work with them. But it seems like this experience 

sort of made that a little harder for you; is that true? 

Ms. MANCHA. It hurt me that they were supposed to, like, protect 

me, but they kind of hurt me. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Ms. MANCHA. Like, busting in my house like that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. That wasn’t right. That wasn’t right. And I 

want you to know that even though I didn’t have nothing to do 

with that, I am sorry they did that. 

Ms. MANCHA. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. The Ranking Member has 

a request. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a couple of documents that reference the incident in Chicago that our witness, I believe, should have been familiar with. I 

would ask unanimous consent to introduce them into the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objections, those documents will be entered into the record. 

At this point, our hearing will be coming to an end. I would just 

like to say a few things in closing. 

92

First, for Miss Rosenbloom and Miss Hartzler, you are doing ongoing work here. And I am wondering if we could ask, as you are 

continuing your studies, would you keep us posted on what you are 

finding? I think that you are in a unique position to give us very 

valuable information that is comprehensive and very helpful? 

And for the rest of the witnesses, a lot of people don’t realize that 

the witnesses before Committees are volunteers. They come here to 

help inform us so that we can make better public policy for our 

country. 

I do thank you, Mr. Graves and Miss Mancha, for your testimony, sharing what was really a very dreadful personal experience. 

And as Mr. Ellison has mentioned, we didn’t do it, but I would like 

to offer an apology on the part of our government. 

What happened to you wasn’t right, and certainly, you will have 

an opportunity in another forum, I think, to be heard. 

Mr. Brosnahan, thank you for coming all the way out from San 

Francisco. 

Mr. Stein, it is always good to see you. 

I would just note that I have about five pages of questions for 

ICE that I did not have an opportunity to ask today, but I will not 

only post them to ICE, but I will post them on the Web site so that 

others can see what we want to discover. 

Finally, I would just say that I think, clearly, no one can disagree with the need to enforce our laws, but the government must 

also comply with our laws as we enforce them. 

I have some very serious concerns in that latter regard based on 

the testimony we have had today. If the estimates of 12 million undocumented individuals in the U.S. is correct, we don’t know for 

sure, at the current rate of deportation, they would all be deported 

in 88 years. 

So I don’t think the current program is really effective nor is it 

creating the kind of climate for Americans to feel that their rights 

under the Constitution are being respected and they are being 

treated with fairness. 

So this is an important hearing for us and for the Congress. I 

appreciate your willingness to be here. We will have 5 legislative 

days for each Member of the Committee to pose additional questions. If we have them, we will forward them to you, and we ask 

that you answer as promptly as you are able to do. 

Thank you very much. 

This hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 5:59 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(93)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

Six months ago I first heard about a U.S. citizen deported from United States—

Pedro Guzman who had to get himself caught by the Border Patrol in order to get 

back into his own country. 

At that time, I had hoped this case was one isolated incident. I asked the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for answers on his case and specifically for 

procedures to help prevent another deportation of a U.S. citizen. Instead, I received 

a perfunctory response more than a month later, with no answers, and, at best, an 

apathetic attitude towards protecting U.S. citizens from deportation. Without objection, I would like to enter my letter and the ICE response into the record. 

There is never a justification for the deportation of a U.S. citizen, let alone the 

negligent attitude towards helping to locate and return a U.S. citizen when he or 

she is erroneously deported. 

Six months ago I feared this nation might be entering another era that would become one more blight in our nation’s history. Based upon the witness testimony I 

have read for today and a long list of other individual cases, I fear we have arrived 

at that era where an overzealous government is interrogating, detaining, and deporting its own citizens while treating non-citizens even worse. 

It is true that ICE’s enforcement capacity has grown exponentially in the last several years. But, based upon today’s testimony, it appears training and oversight at 

ICE has lagged far behind. I am hopeful that this hearing will not only show us 

where the problems lie, but also lead us to solutions. 

I have many questions, beginning with the long list I asked in my June 26, 2007 

letter to ICE that were essentially ignored. I would like to know specifically what 

procedures are in place to train and oversee ICE agents during detention, interrogation, and removal processes. I would like to know exactly how ICE ensures it is not 

interrogating, detaining, or deporting U.S. citizens. And I would like ICE to explain 

how it is that its policies, procedures, and management allowed for each of the situations described today by our U.S. citizen witnesses or their representatives. 

I respectfully request that our first witness, Mr. Gary Mead, the Assistant Director for Detention and Removal at ICE, remain after his testimony and questioning 

is completed on the first panel. It is imperative to hear first hand the stories of U.S. 

citizens caught up by ICE and the questions by Members of this subcommittee so 

that you may appropriately address these very serious concerns in writing after the 

hearing. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fJOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

I’m disturbed by the reports I’m hearing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is deporting Americans. ICE can’t go on deporting American citizens. 

There’s no excuse to deport Americans. It’s never right. It’s always wrong. 

Over the past couple of years, ICE has grown dramatically in size and its activities have accelerated. ICE’s Fugitive Enforcement Teams have dramatically increased from just 15 teams in 2005, to 50 teams in 2006, to 75 teams in 2007, with 

funding for 104 in 2008. 

94

Based on reports I’m hearing, it seems ICE has been unable to keep up with the 

necessary training and oversight of its agents. 

I’ve heard disturbing accounts of ICE agents acting in an inappropriate and possibly illegal manner throughout the United States during its raids and enforcement 

activities. ICE agents have entered houses without warrants or even an announcement; have interrogated children without their parents present; and have searched 

the private property of U.S. citizens without probable cause. 

ICE also appears to be detaining U.S. citizens, and in some cases, deporting them. 

If ICE is intruding into the homes of Americans without warrants, if they are interrogating U.S. citizens without cause, and if they are going so far as to deport 

American citizens, what does that mean ICE is doing to non-U.S. citizens? 

In its zeal to rid America of the cooks, house cleaners, yard workers and construction workers who make up our shadow economy, ICE has taken an ‘‘OK-at-any-costapproach’’ that is inimical to America’s values. Caught in the crossfire are the innocent, many of whom are unable to protect themselves. 

That’s inexcusable. 

I look forward to getting answers today. I am anxious to hear what ICE is and 

should be doing to adhere to the rule of law, to the very principles that make America the light of freedom and liberty to which others look as an example. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fSHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Madam Chair, thank you for your leadership in convening today’s important hearing on the problems with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interrogation, detention, and removal procedures as applied to U.S. citizens. I would also 

like to thank the ranking member, the Honorable Steve King, and welcome our distinguished group of witnesses, which include: Mr. Gary Mead, the Assistant Director 

for Detention & Removal with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Mr. 

James J. Brosnahan and Mark D. Rosenbaum of Morrison & Foerster, Counsel for 

Mr. Peter Guzman; Ms. Marie Justeen Mancha, a student at Tattnall County High 

School; Mr. Michael Graves from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1149; Mr. Kara Hartzler with the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project; Ms. Rachel E. Rosenbloom of the Center for Human Rights and 

International Justice at Boston College; and Mr. Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American. To each of you, welcome. 

Madam Chairwoman, how a government treats its citizens is a critical test that 

measures its civility and maturity. How we treat immigration detainees, especially 

the most vulnerable among them - minors, mentally-disabled, or those with medical 

conditions, is an important measure of how humane our entire immigration system 

really is. When our immigration system targets legal American citizens and interrogates, detains, and forcibly removes them from the United States, it is a clear indication that our immigration system is fundamentally flawed and has gone awry. 

Madam Chairwoman, one would think that a person born in the United States 

and a U.S. citizen, or a naturalized U.S. citizen, would have virtually no dealings 

with the U.S. immigration system. Recent events have come to show that this assumption is wrong. Indeed, recent reports demonstrate that U.S. citizens have been 

illegally detained, interrogated, and removed from the U.S. under the pretext that 

these citizens are illegal aliens. Citizens subjected to this treatment have included 

some of the most marginzalized and victimized members of our society—youths and 

the mentally ill. This is atrocious and inexcusable behavior by a civilized government. 

Madam Chairwoman, this behavior is being exhibited by the main executive agency with jurisdiction over immigration detainees, DHS’ Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement. One of the primary functions of DHS is to protect the United States 

and to ensure the safety and wellbeing of U.S. citizens. 

In today’s hearing, the witnesses will testify that ICE is not living up to its mandate. The witnesses will provide testimony demonstrating that our immigration system is flawed and needs to be reformed. 

Madam Chairwoman, as one of the principal and long-standing supporters of comprehensive immigration reform in the US Congress and an author of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, the SAVE AMERICA Act, I do hope that today’s hearing will serve as a catalyst for closer scrutiny of our immigration detention system 

and the immigration enforcement functions of DHS. 

95

There are approximately 30,000 immigrants in detention on any given day and 

nearly 300,000 each year. These individuals are scattered across the country in hundreds of county jails as well as a handful of facilities run by DHS or by private prison companies. Some of these individuals have been detained. Others have been deported. The common denominator among all of these individuals is that they are 

U.S. citizens. 

Recent articles in USA Today, Washington Post, and New York Times have unveiled shameful and inexcusable inadequacies regarding the treatment of U.S. citizens by ICE. The USA Today and Washington Post articles detail the wrongful deportation of a mentally-ill U.S. citizen, Mr. Peter Guzman, who is also represented 

today on this panel. 

The New York Times article details extreme failures in ICE enforcement where 

ICE officials raided a home with guns drawn on a mother and her children in a raid 

that was part of a series of antigang sweeps in Long Island, New York. The raids, 

which resulted in 186 immigrant arrests, were denounced by officials in Nassau 

County as ‘‘riddled with mistakes and marked by misconduct.’’

Perhaps the most inexcusable, is that the mother had been a U.S. citizen since 

1990. The article details other accounts of raids and detention of U.S. citizens. Some 

of these illegal raids resulted in lawsuits against DHS and ICE. 

Madam Chairwoman, both ICE and its Office of Inspector General are not in a 

position to fix these problems. Instead, Congress must step in to help set this agency back on track. ICE cannot fix itself without our intervention. 

The DHS Office of Inspector General recently issued a report of an audit done on 

five ICE facilities and noted that ICE frequently fails to inspect even its own facilities sufficiently. This finding was further supported by a report released by GAO 

in July of 2007. adam Chair, we cannot turn a blind eye to ICE’s enforcement measures and sit and hope that ICE corrects itself. Given the findings in DHS’s own report, it is unlikely that ICE will correct its wrong enforcement. 

Congress has a responsibility to investigate these issues and call for reforms to 

ensure that dignity and respect for all human beings in our immigration detention 

system is preserved. 

Madam Chair, I cannot stress enough that detention and deportation are major 

enforcement issues and ICE enforcement needs to be reformed. Even where ICE attempted to do the right thing - a failure resulted. Take, for example, the detention 

facility at the T. Don Hutto Correctional Center in Williamson County, Texas. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) operates the 512-bed facility under a contract 

with Williamson County. The facility was opened in May 2006 to accommodate immigrant families in ICE custody. As history has shown us, even the best of intentions can go astray, which is what happened at the Hutto Detention Center. 

Due to the increased use of detention, and particularly in light of the fact that 

children are now being housed in detention facilities, many concerns have been 

raised about the humanitarian, health, and safety conditions at these facilities. In 

a 72-page report, ‘‘Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families,’’ recently released by two refugee advocacy organizations, the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service concluded that the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center and another family detention center, the Berks Family Shelter Care Facility, were modeled 

on the criminal justice system ‘‘where residents are deprived of the right to live as 

a family unit, denied adequate medical and mental health care, and face overly 

harsh disciplinary tactics.’’

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against ICE in March 

2007 on behalf of several juvenile plaintiffs that were housed in the facility at the 

time claiming that the standards by which they were housed was not in compliance 

with the government’s detention standards for this population. The claims were, 

amongst other things, improper educational opportunities, not enough privacy, and 

substandard health care. The relief being sought was the release of the plaintiffs. 

In August 2007, the ACLU reached a landmark settlement with the ICE that 

greatly improves conditions for immigrant children and their families in the Hutto 

detention center in Taylor, Texas. 

Since the original lawsuits were filed, all 26 children represented by the ACLU 

have been released. The last six children were released days before the settlement 

was finalized and are now living with family members who are U.S. citizens or legal 

permanent residents while pursuing their asylum claims. Conditions at Hutto have 

gradually and significantly improved as a result of litigation. Children are no longer 

required to wear prison uniforms and are allowed much more time outdoors. Educational programming has expanded and guards have been instructed not to discipline children by threatening to separate them from their parents. Despite the tremendous improvements at Hutto, the facility still has a way to go. 

96

Chairwoman, I hope that it will not take very many lawsuits and settlement 

agreements like we had in Williamson County Texas for ICE to cease interrogating, 

detaining, and deporting our own U.S. citizens. I look forward to hearing the insightful testimony and each of the witnesses’ responses. Again, thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman for holding this hearing. 

P

I yield the balance of my time. 

REPARED STATEMENT OF THE H

fONORABLE HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I would like to applaud the Subcommittee, under the leadership of Chairwoman 

Lofgren, for holding today’s hearing about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

(ICE) interrogation, detention, and removal procedures. I am hopeful that this important hearing will highlight the urgency for a legislative solution to the immigration workplace raids that are separating families and instilling fear in our children. 

Immigration is one of the toughest challenges our nation faces. Recent workforce 

operation raids conducted by ICE have been conducted in such a way that resulted 

in children being left without adult care, unnecessarily risking their safety and wellbeing and risking health and welfare during detention and processing of persons involved. Estimates suggest that there are approximately five million children in the 

United States who have one or more undocumented parents. Two-thirds of these 

children—more than three million—are U.S.-born citizens. Separating families puts 

children at risk of economic hardship and psychological trauma. 

While it is important that our nation’s immigration laws be enforced, enforcement 

must be done in a way that is both humane and protects the children involved. That 

is why I joined Senator John Kerry to introduce the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act (H.R. 3980). This legislation would protect immigrant detainees and 

their families from mistreatment and unnecessary separation from their minor children. 

Among other things, H.R. 3980 would require ICE to afford access to state social 

services to screen and interview detainees and arrange for representatives who 

speak the detainees’ first language. Since many detainees are primary caregivers, 

this bill would also ensure that when possible, those who have been detained are 

within the jurisdiction of the local ICE field office. In the aftermath of a raid, families are left afraid especially when they do not have contact with their loved ones. 

This legislation would also require ICE to provide a toll free number for families 

to use after a raid and to inquire about the status of their family member. 

H.R. 3980 is supported by more than 20 organizations such as Catholic Charities 

USA, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Mexican American Legal Defense Education Fund (MALDEF), and 

Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. 

We cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices that are plaguing the immigrant community. Enforcement only solutions are striking fear in immigrant families across 

the country. I respect the difficult task which lies ahead and urge my colleagues to 

move forward with a solution that respects human dignity and protects children involved. 

f

97


A-1.eps
98


A-2.eps
99

f


A-3.eps
100

f


B.eps
101


C-1.eps
102


C-2.eps
103


C-3.eps
104

f


C-4.eps
105


D-1.eps
106


D-2.eps
107


D-3.eps
108


D-4.eps
109

f


D-5.eps
110


E-1.eps
111

f


E-2.eps
112


F-1.eps
113


F-2.eps
114


F-3.eps
115


F-4.eps
116


F-5.eps
117


F-6.eps
118


F-7.eps
119

f


F-8.eps
120


G-1.eps
121

f


G-2.eps
122


H-1.eps
123

f


H-2.eps
124


I-1.eps
125


I-2.eps
126


I-3.eps
127


I-4.eps
128


I-5.eps
129

f


I-6.eps
130


J-1.eps
131


J-2.eps
132


J-3.eps
133


J-4.eps
134


J-5.eps
135


J-6.eps
136


J-7.eps
137


J-8.eps
138


J-9.eps
139


J-10.eps
140


J-11.eps
141


J-12.eps
142


J-13.eps
143


J-14.eps
144


J-15.eps
145


J-16.eps
146


J-17.eps
147


J-18.eps
148


J-19.eps
149


J-20.eps
150


J-21.eps
151


J-22.eps
152


J-23.eps
153


J-24.eps
154


J-25.eps
155


J-26.eps
156


J-27.eps
157


J-28.eps
158


J-29.eps
159


J-30.eps
160


J-31.eps
161


J-32.eps
162


J-33.eps
163


J-34.eps
164


J-35.eps
165


J-36.eps
166


J-37.eps
167


J-38.eps
168


J-39.eps
169

Æ


J-40.eps