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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–993 PDF 2003

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF

ILLEGAL ALIEN SMUGGLING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 24, 2003

Serial No. 29

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

LORA RIES, Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Full Committee Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 24, 2003

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

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

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 3

The Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Arizona .............................................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 7

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

of Iowa ................................................................................................................... 8

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

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 9

WITNESSES 

Mr. Jose ́ Garza, Chief Patrol Agent, McAllen Sector, Border Patrol, Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

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

Mr. Tom Homan, Interim Resident Agent-In-Charge, San Antonio, TX, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland 

Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

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

Mr. Peter Nun ̃ ez, Former U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

Ms. Maria Jimenez, Chair, Mayor’s Advisory Committee for the Office of 

Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, City of Houston, TX 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Federation for American Immigration Reform Statement ................................... 55

Law Enforcement Advisory Council Letter ........................................................... 57

Prepared Statement by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 66

Prepared Statement by the Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in Congress From the State of Arizona ......................................................................... 68

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee article from Daily News re: Golden Venture ........................................................................................................................ 70

DHS sign warning against illegal alien smuggling .............................................. 74

(1)

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF

ILLEGAL ALIEN SMUGGLING 

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Hostettler (Chair 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The recent tragic discovery of 17 dead illegal aliens in an abandoned truck trailer filled with more than 70 illegal aliens in Victoria, TX, has turned the spotlight onto alien smuggling once again. 

This tragedy was compounded when two more of these immigrants succumbed to their injuries. Unfortunately, border deaths of 

aliens trying to enter the United States illegally is not a new phenomenon; rather, the manner of death seems to have changed over 

the decades. 

Years ago, border deaths primarily occurred by the aliens drowning or being hit by traffic while running across Interstate 5 near 

San Diego, for example. This latter phenomenon was the cause for 

caution highway signs, like the one we see here in the hearing 

room, to be posted along Interstate 5 to prevent more aliens fleeing 

from the Border Patrol from being hit by traffic. 

In 1994, the Border Patrol began implementing a new border 

strategy, the best known examples of which are Operation Gatekeeper in the San Diego Sector and Operation Hold the Line in El 

Paso, TX. The new strategy focused on deterrence on the border to 

prevent illegal aliens from penetrating the border. This approach 

differs from the border patrol’s previous operational strategy that 

mixed deterrence with traffic checks, farm and ranch checks and 

jail checks. 

The new strategy curtailed such Border Patrol interior enforcement activities significantly in favor of a greater emphasis on a 

show of force at the border to prevent illegal immigration. With 

these operations in place, ports of entry in nearby areas are more 

adequately monitored by agents, cameras and motion sensors. 

Citizens in the San Diego and El Paso areas are pleased with the 

operations because they have caused a decrease in crime, and 

closed down the alien smuggling corridors in their communities. 

According to several witnesses at a March 10, 1995 border security 

hearing held by this Subcommittee, Operation Hold the Line is hu-
2

mane enforcement of our immigration laws, and has lessened the 

number of accusations of civil rights violations by Federal officials, 

including the Border Patrol. 

In addition, the Border Patrol has launched public service advertising campaigns in Mexico, warning of the dangers of remote 

crossings and devoted resources to search and rescue training and 

operations. Illegal aliens still determined to enter the U.S. Unlawfully cross the southern border at more remote areas, particularly 

in Arizona desert land away from the ports of entry. 

In doing so, they disregard signs warning of the heat, lack of 

water, desolation, great distances and dangerous animals. Not unexpectedly, some die from these conditions. 

Human rights advocates point to recent alien deaths along the 

border and argue that the significant number of deaths is caused 

by border control policies along the southern border. 

I totally reject this notion. We should not blame those who enforce our laws for the deadly actions of smugglers. Those of the 

Border Patrol who, time and again, have saved illegal aliens from 

dehydration, exposure and violence are not to be blamed for the difficult job they carry out with professionalism and compassion. 

We in Congress have to ask why would people place themselves 

in such jeopardy to get into this country? It seems clear that aliens 

who subject themselves to smuggling believe the benefits of jobs 

and eventual green cards outweigh the risks of being caught and 

deported. 

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control 

Act, which created two significant provisions, employer sanctions to 

end the migration magnet of jobs and legalization, an amnesty for 

illegal aliens who had resided in the U.S. For a number of years. 

The goal of IRCA was to end illegal immigration with these two 

provisions. Clearly IRCA has not worked. The job magnet continues 

because employer sanctions are not enforced and employers fear 

civil rights actions if they request too much proof of identity and 

work authorization. 

In addition, after the one-time amnesty of IRCA, we now have 

between 8 and 11 million illegal aliens here, and people are again 

talking about another amnesty. Amnesty rumors encourage aliens 

to get into the U.S. By any means, because once here, they know 

it is unlikely that they will be deported and believe they will eventually be awarded with a green card. 

Hence, the dangerous smuggling and border deaths. It can be argued that advocating for amnesty for illegal aliens encourages 

smuggling and causes border deaths. 

I haven’t even touched upon the relationship between smuggling 

and terrorism yet. Available information indicates terrorist organizations often use smuggling rings to move around the globe. We 

are compelled to prevent alien smuggling and severely punish alien 

smugglers, not only to save immigrants lives, but to prevent terrorists from entering this country with the intent to kill large numbers of people. 

By accepting illegal immigration and by not enforcing our immigration laws, illegal aliens are encouraged to get to the U.S. By 

whatever means possible, even if it means risking their life or the 

lives of their children. 
3

It is imperative that we enforce our immigration laws so that 

aliens are not tempted to risk their lives to get here. At this time, 

I turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson 

Lee for any opening remarks she would like to make. 

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

thank you for assenting to my interests, along with your interests, 

to hold, I believe, this very, very important hearing. 

Let me, first of all, say that we appreciate the hard work of all 

of those who are involved with the safety of this Nation. We particularly respect and acknowledge that there are many participants 

in that process. 

Having had the opportunity to visit the southern border and to 

see the combination of law enforcement agencies that work so hard 

every day, to see in many instances the compassion that is shown 

for individuals who are coming to this Nation for opportunity, I 

know that this is not a left-hand, right-hand analysis. There is a 

lot in the middle. 

Let me also acknowledge, coming from Texas, the many humanitarian agencies—churches, parishes, and advocacy groups—who 

work every day to save lives as well, of those individuals who come 

simply to this Nation to seek an opportunity or a better life for 

their families. 

Also, I do want to make mention, Mr. Chairman, and we always 

work in this Committee, in this session, on issues that we can 

agree on. But, we know that philosophically there are many differences in our perspective. I am sorry that we did not follow 

through on the dialogue and conversations that President Vicente 

Fox and Mr. Bush had pre 9/11. 

Those discussions would not in any way, I believe, jeopardize the 

security of this Nation. And that is, to be able to actualize peoples’

hopes and aspirations as relates to those already in this country in 

accessing legalization. We come today to look upon the deadly consequences of illegal alien smuggling. 

Coming from the region that I come from, I can assure you that 

after the tragedy that occurred in May, the many stories of these 

families and the many stories of the loved ones, the loss of life of 

a 7-year-old boy, and his father, all of them seeking opportunities. 

I don’t believe there was a terrorist amongst the group, nor have 

we determined the bulk of these individuals come to do harm. 

With that in mind, however, I still believe we must find the right 

kind of balance. Last week, prosecutors indicted 14 people who allegedly organized or facilitated the smuggling incident that ended 

on May 14th, when a crowded trailer was found abandoned at a 

truck stop in Victoria, 100 miles southwest of my home town of 

Houston. 

The 14 were charged with various counts of conspiracy to conceal 

or transport immigrants. Twelve could face the death penalty if 

prosecutors decide to pursue it. More than 70 immigrants from 

Mexico, Central America and the Dominican Republic were 

crammed into the tractor trailer. Among the dead was a 5-year-old 

boy from Mexico. 17 immigrants died at the scene, and three others 

have died later. That is the human tragedy. And this hearing must 

put a human face to that loss. 
4

According to U.S. Attorney Michael Shelby, alien smuggling is all 

about money. These aren’t people who are trying to make a better 

life for others, that is the smugglers, and just providing them a 

pathway, this is about an American dollar and people that will do 

anything and risk anyone’s life in order to gain that dollar bill. 

I can imagine that that tractor trailer driver thought that he was 

doing nothing more than would warrant a traffic ticket. In this incident, the price per immigrant was $1,500 to $1,900. Alien smugglers have reaped millions of dollars in profit with some not only 

collecting a fee up front, but also robbing, beating and raping the 

immigrants once they get into the United States. 

Last year, the General Accounting Office investigative arm of 

Congress was critical of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, with respect to its efforts to combat alien smuggling. The 

GAO said that the INS efforts to curb the smuggling were disorganized, seldom tracked, and did not meet the required level of accountability. 

The investigators stated further that in several border States, including Arizona, multiple antismuggling units existed that had 

overlapping jurisdictions, but were unable to handle the job properly. The INS has since been disbanded and its enforcement divisions have been folded into the Department of Homeland Security 

as part of the Customs and Border Protection. 

It does not follow necessarily, however, that this organizational 

change will result in more effective field operations. We need to do 

a better job. The Arizona border with Mexico has become the hub 

of alien smuggling, about one-third of the 1.2 million arrests of undocumented immigrants that the Border Patrol expects to make 

this year will occur along that border. 

Last year Border Patrol agents in Tucson Sector apprehended 

449,679 undocumented aliens, more than 1,200 a day. We must get 

to the bottom line of this particular issue. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have been working on this issue for a very 

long time, as I have watched it. Now, more closely, in light of the 

fact that we had this enormous number of deaths. Our highest priority should be to solve to problem and to reduce deaths. I will be 

introducing a bill that I would look forward to receiving bipartisan 

support working with our advocacy groups, our law enforcement 

groups, that will have a three-point program. The first point of this 

program would provide incentives to encourage informants to step 

forward and assist the Federal authorities in order to smash these 

rings. 

My bill would also involve the ability to access legalization for 

those who would come into the country who would help us smash 

those rings. My bill would establish a new third category for aliens 

who assist the United States Government with the investigation, 

prosecution and conviction of commercial smuggling operations. 

This would be a nonimmigrant visa classification. The real incentive, however, would not be a nonimmigrant, visa, it would be a 

lawful permanent resident status. 

In addition, the bill would offer a monetary incentive to become 

an informant. It would establish a reward program to assist in the 

elimination or disruption of commercial alien smuggling operations 

in which aliens are transporting groups of 10 or more, and where 
5

either the aliens are transported in a manner that endangers their 

lives or the smuggled aliens present a life-threatening health risk 

to the people in the United States. 

The rewards program will be similar to the one the State Department presently uses to obtain informant’s information. We have 

been able to talk to a number of law enforcement agencies, and 

Federal agencies, who find these aspects of this legislation to be 

not only humanitarian, but more importantly, they believe that 

this will go a long way to help smash the commercial smuggling 

rings that do so much to undermine the lives and cause the deaths 

of innocent persons. 

Today this hearing, I believe, will go a long way in giving us insight, and I am delighted as well that the Chair will be introducing 

Maria Jimenez, who has always been an advocate for the rights of 

immigrants in a positive way. She has founded the AFSCILEMP, 

Immigration Law Enforcement. She has been monitoring these efforts since 1987. She has also played an important role in the creation of various other programs in the community, the Houston Immigration and Refugee Coalition, and she has worked very hard to 

bring a balance to the lives of those who seek simply an opportunity. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I would ask to submit the entirety of my statement into the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Arizona, for 5 minutes, Mr. Flake, for an opening statement. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. I thank the Chair for holding this 

important hearing. I have actually been requesting a hearing like 

this on the border in Arizona for a couple of years now. I think we 

would all benefit from actually going to the border and see what 

we face right up close and personal. 

But, this is a good start. I am glad we are here today. If you read 

the papers in Arizona, you see that just about every day in the 

summer, on the average, more than one immigrant dies every day 

in the summer time in Arizona, crossing during the desert heat. It 

is a very troubling situation. There are countless stories of lost 

lives, destroyed property, and mistreated people. 

We have got to do something to change it. In addition, health 

care costs in Arizona have skyrocketed. Hospitals have had to cut 

back crucial services to the population in Arizona, because of the 

cost of treating those who cross the border illegally. 

Shootings on the border are happening more frequently all the 

time. Frustrated property owners have seen their property destroyed and fearing that immigrant traffic across their property 

will destroy more, have taken matters into their own hands. It is 

a very unhealthy situation. Family members of illegal aliens who 

have perished in the desert are now seeking redress by suing the 

U.S. Government. 

We are having situations like that as well. We may not agree 

with the choices taken by these immigrants to break the law, but 

you can’t help but be moved by the fate that awaits them, and the 

abuse at the hands, in particular, of smugglers. 

As legislators, we are charged with addressing these problems. 

And I think that we in Congress have to stand up and see what 
6

we really can do, and not just say this is what we have done in 

the past, we are going to do more of this. But let’s do what is going 

to work. And I feel that we have to have a relief valve of some type 

in the border region to allow those who are similarly coming to 

work, for no other reason than to provide a better life for their family, to provide a temporary worker program, to direct the flow of 

workers through legal channels. 

If we do that, we can free up a lot more resources to actually 

focus on those who would do us harm. And we always have to be 

reminded that the border region is dangerous. We cannot take it 

for granted that everyone who is coming here is coming just for 

work. But we know that overwhelming majority of those who come 

across are coming just for that reason. 

There is a demand in the U.S. for the labor that Mexican laborers, in particular, are willing to provide. And we can’t turn a blind 

eye to that. The market forces are just too strong to resist. I believe 

that many of the aliens that are coming across know the risks 

quite well, and they are still willing to take them, that is how 

strong the pull is. And that is why we have to address it. 

If we have a legal channel, as I mentioned, then we can address 

that much more easily. It used to be, prior to 1986, before the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the flow of immigrants from 

Mexico to Arizona was largely circular. The average stay of an immigrant was about 2.6 years. What we managed to do with increased border enforcement is ensure that those who make it here 

actually stay longer. 

The average stay now is 6.6 years. So we haven’t actually 

stopped anybody, I would maintain, that really wants to get here. 

We have made it more difficult. What we have done is make sure 

that those who manage to get here stay longer. It is more difficult 

to go home and visit their families. So they are more likely to bring 

their families with them. So they won’t have to cross the border 

again and again. We have to address this. We have to have a legal 

framework to do so. 

From 1986 to 1998, the number of tax dollars that Congress appropriated the INS increased eightfold, sixfold for the Border Patrol alone. The number of Border Patrol agents assigned to the 

southwest border doubled to 8,500. But the end result, we still 

have 7 million illegal immigrants here in the U.S. How can we honestly tell the taxpayers that our strategy has been a success? We 

have got to take a new approach. 

According to Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration 

Studies, a real effort to control the border with Mexico would require perhaps 20,000 agents, and development of a system of formidable fences and other barriers along those parts of the border used 

for illegal crossing. 

I would say that the wisdom of embarking on such a strategy is 

suspect at best. We have to recognize that if you sealed the border 

tight as a drum, theoretically, and I don’t believe you could, but 

theoretically if you did, 40 percent of those who are here illegally 

entered the country legally. And you not going to solve the problem 

that way. We have got to look at other things as well. 

Myself and a couple of colleagues, Congressman Kolbe, Congressman Reyes, are working on legislation to address these concerns. 
7

We know that along the border region, immigrant smugglers can 

earn up to $1.5 million dollars a day. Not each but as a whole. 

With that kind of money, with those kind of market forces, it is 

simply irresistible. We need to take a serious look at what our current border policy has wrought, and acknowledge that there may 

be a better away to address this situation. We need to put the 

smugglers out of business by formulating a more realistic approach. 

I thank the Chair again for this important hearing and look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, 

for an opening statement. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you Chairman Hostettler, and Ranking 

Member Jackson Lee for holding this important hearing. And 

thank you to the witnesses for being here today to discuss the problem of immigrant smuggling. Last month we were shocked to hear 

about the deaths of 19 immigrants who had been smuggled into 

Texas in a tractor trailer. 19 people suffocated while trapped in the 

back of a truck. I say we are shocked, but sadly I don’t think we 

are very surprised. 

The truth is, that deaths along the border occur far too frequently. For the past 18 years, there have been border deaths of 

200 to 400 people almost every year. Not all of those are coming 

across the Mexican border either. Deaths happen among the boatloads of people coming from Asia and the Caribbean as well. 

So who is at fault here? It is hard to really say. The smugglers, 

I think we can all agree, are at fault for transporting people in 

deadly conditions. But, is it fair to say that this country bears part 

of the blame? Maybe. 

Perhaps our immigration policies have created an environment 

where desperate people will take desperate measures just for the 

small chance of improving their lives. 

Conditions in the majority of countries around the world are 

frightening. Nearly 50 percent of people living in subSaharan Africa in 1998 were surviving on less than $1 a day. 

In 1995, when per capita income in North America was roughly 

$22,000, the majority of the people of the world were surviving on 

less than half of that, $10,000 per capita in Eastern Europe and 

Central Asia, a mere couple of hundred dollars in Asia and the Pacific. So it should not be surprising that some people, unable to 

enter this country legally, are willing to take great risks and find 

another way to enter. 

There may be other parties to blame as well. There are American 

companies actively seeking out and enticing workers from across 

the border to come here undocumented, for work, because these 

companies know that they can pay them low wages and no benefits. 

The bottom line to me is that people are dying and we need to 

address the problem. We need to work together to figure out what 

make the various—what are the various causes and how we can remove them. Cracking down on smugglers is certainly one step, but 

it doesn’t solve the ultimate problem. 

Until we take sensible positions on immigration and address the 

core reasons why people emigrate, we cannot expect this problem 
8

to go away. Clamping down on the borders is likely to lead to even 

more desperation. Maybe it is time for this nation to revisit guest 

worker programs that allow workers to ultimately adjust their status and become fully participating members of society. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important 

and timely topic. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady from California. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding this important hearing. I want to thank the witnesses in 

advance for what you are about to present to us. My home community where I graduated from high school is Denison, Iowa, where 

we lost 11 illegal immigrants in the train car last fall. That loss, 

it was ghastly and it was shocking, and it shocked and grieved my 

community and the communities of those families who lost those 

victims to that crime, and it was more than one kind of crime. 

As I look across this list that I see, actually from Mr. Homan’s 

testimony, 11 in Iowa, 17 in Texas, 3 in Washington, 6 in California, I think Mr. Flake has the strongest argument in Arizona, 

133 incidents, 10 in New York, 41 Florida. I know this isn’t all of 

the statistics, but I know it is a representative sample of what we 

are seeing here and what we are up against. 

There are going to be two different viewpoints on this. One of the 

viewpoints says, whatever fashion, in whatever nuance, open the 

borders and we won’t have this problem. The other one says, if we 

do that, what kind of problems will we create? And I think that 

Ms. Sa ́nchez brought up something that is very interesting to me, 

and an interesting perspective that we all need to evaluate. That 

is, the question that I asked at a hearing last week is, what does 

this country look like? What does the world look like if we simply 

erase our borders and go with an open borders policy without restriction? 

None of those testifiers at that hearing seemed to have an answer to that question. I was kind of surprised at that. I think that 

this is the question that we need to be asking, in all of the policy 

that we implement from here on out, and the policy that we have 

implemented in the past should have taken into account. We 

should have that equation in mind. 

So I propose this one: If you want to have some kind of a prediction of what people will do, start with the premise that people 

follow money. And that is the reference that Ms. Sa ́nchez brought 

forth. I would do this, take the population of the United States, and 

divide it by our gross domestic product. Then take the population 

of our contiguous neighbors, individually, and divide that by their 

gross domestic product. 

Compare those two figures and therein you will see the incentive 

for illegal transfer across the border. It is an economic equation. 

There is also a social equation here. We have a culture that is attractive, that we should preserve and protect it. We have a good 

educational system. We have a high quality of life. All of those 

things are part of it. But we can quantify and understood the economic equation. 
9

Then, if you can look at the comparison between our southern 

border, which we are talking about here today, and the differences 

between the individual income, the average per capita income of 

the two nations, if you can measure that and see that quantifiable 

difference, then think about the implications of the open borders 

beyond that—open borders that go into the western hemisphere 

and around the world—and in fact, we already have an open borders policy in this country. Anyone who wants to come into the 

United States and can make a credible allegation of citizenship can 

enter into the United States of America through any country, and 

from the western hemisphere except for Cuba. And I am not convinced that all of those countries have a real tight border policy. 

So we can go into the discussion about how important it is to preserve our borders, and how we are going to be able—if we don’t do 

that—how the sovereignty of any nation can be sustained without 

preserving its borders. 

But I am going to be interested in looking at this from the perspective of how we improve border security and how we improve 

internal enforcement. Attorney General Ashcroft sat there a couple 

of weeks ago. And of those who were adjudicated deported, 85 percent blended back into society. 

So I am going call this the 85 percent rule. If 85 percent whom 

we spend the money, and I can’t verify this number, but I am hear- ing $35,000 as kind of an average cost for adjudication for deportation. If we spent that kind of money and that kind of effort to deport people, and 85 percent of them simply disappear back into society, and then the 85 percent rule also applies, and that is 85 percent of the methamphetamine that comes into Iowa comes across 

our southern border. 

Those two factors mean something to me. I think we have a responsibility to the citizens of this country to provide them the best 

opportunity for a high standard of living. We have got an obligation 

to provide those opportunities in other countries in the world and 

export our economy and the way of life. 

This is my perspective and I am interested in your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

I would like to now introduce the panel—— Oh, excuse me. I apologize. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you are eager to 

get going. And I won’t take up my entire 5 minutes. Unfortunately, 

I have a conflict at 11 o’clock, so I appreciate the opportunity to 

make some opening comments since I may not be able to stay for 

the question period. 

And let me just say that during the question period, I hope that 

our witnesses will have an opportunity to respond to a crying need 

to try to prevent these terrible tragedies from occurring in the future. 

But, I think that if we are going to be successful in this prevention effort, it is going to require the cooperative effort of both countries, when we are talking about our southern border, both the 

United States and Mexico. And I hope one or more of our witnesses 

will respond and let us know for instance what the country of Mex-
10

ico is doing to try to prevent or to try to discourage individuals 

from heading north, into dangerous circumstances, dangerous environment and unfortunately many times leading to their deaths. 

But, what is the country of Mexico doing to discourage this type 

of illegal immigration that unfortunately results in these kinds of 

tragedies that the hearing is on today? 

The other thing, Mr. Chairman I want to mention, is that it has 

been a surprise to me to hear some people say that as a result of 

these deaths, as a result of the harm that is occurring to individuals who are trying to come into the country illegally, that somehow that is an argument for legitimizing illegal immigration or regularizing illegal immigration or making it easier for people to come 

into the United States. I just don’t see it that way. 

Just to propose an analogy here. If, for example, you have a lot 

of people trying to break into your house, may instead of the country, but using the metaphor here, if you had a lot of people trying 

to break into your house, the answer isn’t to open your doors and 

say, well, whoever wants to come in, come in or make it easier for 

people to do so. That is going to even lead to more dire consequences, for, in this case, the homeowner, or for the United 

States. 

So I think we need to be careful as to how we use these tragedies, and not use them in a way that I don’t think is logical. 

The other things that I have also heard some people say, that 

somehow this is the United States’s fault because we are a prosperous country and have jobs for people. And that somehow that 

attraction is responsible for peoples’ deaths. 

Well, again the analogy to me is like a homeowner who might 

have some nice possessions in his house, he might have a big 

screen TV, he might have some jewelry. And, if is someone is trying to break into that house, I don’t consider that to be the fault 

of the homeowner with the nice things in his house. I think you 

still need to prevent people from taking illegal actions and protect 

the people who have a right to live under the laws of their country. 

And so I don’t think we ought to use these tragedies to try to 

promote certain immigration policies that are inimical to the best 

interests of the United States. What we ought to try to do, as I 

started off by saying, is to coordinate and cooperate with the country of Mexico to try to prevent these deaths from occurring in the 

first place, not take actions that either condone those actions or 

lead to more dire consequences for the people who live in the 

United States. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

The Chair will now recognize the panel of witnesses for introductions. Jose Garza has been the Border Patrol’s chief patrol agent 

in the McAllen Sector since 1995. He previously served as chief patrol agent in the Laredo Sector for 9 years. 

Agent Garza began his career with the Border Patrol in 1969 as 

an agent in Laredo, TX. He also has been an immigration inspector 

and supervisory inspector, officer in charge of two international 

land border ports of entry, assistant chief patrol agent and deputy 
11

chief patrol agent. Prior to joining the border patrol, Agent Garza 

served in the U.S. Navy. 

Tom Homan is the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Interim Associate, Interim Special Agent in Charge in San 

Antonio, TX. He entered on duty with the border patrol in 1984 

and was in the San Diego sector until 1998. 

He served as a special agent, supervisory special agent, deputy 

assistant, district director for investigations in Phoenix, AZ, and 

assistant district director of investigations in both San Antonio and 

Dallas, TX. 

Agent Homan has worked anti smuggling investigations resulting in the dismantling of 13 alien smuggling organizations. He was 

one of the lead investigators in the recent Victoria, TX, smuggling 

investigation. 

Peter Nun ̃ ez began his career in law enforcement in 1972 as a 

Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego, CA. 

He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney in San Diego by President 

Reagan in 1982, where he served through August 1988. 

In 1990 he was appointed by President George Bush to be the 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement. Mr. Nun ̃ ez is 

a member and past president of the San Diego Crime Commission, 

the past vice president of the San Diego Prevention Coalition, a 

member of the board of directors of the Center for Immigration 

Studies, and a member of the board of visitors at the University 

of San Diego School of Law. 

He has been a lecturer in the political science department at the 

University of San Diego since 1997, specializing in criminal justice, 

international law enforcement, and immigration policy. 

Mr. Nun ̃ ez graduated from Duke University, served in the U.S. 

Navy, and graduated from the University of San Diego’s School of 

Law. 

Maria Jimenez is the chair of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee 

for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs of the City of Houston. She has always been an advocate for immigrant rights. She 

founded the immigration law enforcement monitoring project in 

1987 and created various other community groups such as the 

Houston Immigration and Refugee Coalition. 

Ms. Jimenez worked as a union organizer in Texas, and 10 years 

as a community organizer and adult educator in Mexico. She sits 

on several boards, including the AFL-CIO Union Community Fund 

and has received several community service awards. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Homan’s full testimony will be over 5 minutes because he brought with him some 

very enlightening video of a smuggling operation. So I will be a little lenient with the 5-minute oral testimony rule today. 

Mr. Garza, the floor is yours, and without objection, your full testimony will be in the record. And you are free to testify at this 

time. 
12

STATEMENT OF JOSE GARZA, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, 

McALLEN SECTOR, BORDER PATROL, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. GARZA. Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, 

distinguished Subcommittee Members, I am honored to have the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the efforts of the 

U.S. Border Patrol to prevent and deter the entry and smuggling 

of undocumented aliens into the United States. 

My name is Jose E. Garza, and I am the chief patrol agent of 

the McAllen, Texas Border Patrol sector, Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection. I would like to begin by giving you a brief overview of the McAllen Border Patrol Sector. The McAllen Sector is 

one of 21 border patrol sectors nationwide. We are responsible for 

patrolling 284 miles of international border between the United 

States and Mexico, and 232 miles of coastline along the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

We are responsible for 19 South Texas counties which cover 

17,000 square miles. We have 1,484 uniformed agents assigned and 

200 support personnel. The workforce is deployed at nine stations, 

which include two checkpoint stations and one coastal station located at Corpus Christi, TX. 

In 1997, illegal immigration was at all time high in the McAllen 

Sector. Border violence, drug and alien smuggling were rampant. 

Farmers and ranchers and the local community were complaining 

about the increasing numbers of illegal aliens transiting their properties. Local police were responding to numerous complaints relating to illegal entrants committing crimes and other offenses in the 

Brownsville, TX area on a daily basis. 

Fiscal year 1997 was a big year for sector apprehensions as we 

arrested nearly 245,000 illegal entrants. In August 1997, McAllen 

Sector initiated Operation Rio Grande as part of the Border Patrol’s national strategy to control the border. 

The concept of the operation was to forward deploy agent and 

technical infrastructure to the immediate border to prevent and 

deter illegal entry into the country. 

Our operational manpower doubled from 701 agents to the 

present level of 1,484. Technical infrastructure such as lighting, 

sky watch observation platforms, infrared cameras, boats, 

fingerprinting technology, night vision equipment, aircraft and 

other equipment were purchased and provided the McAllen Sector. 

Our efforts have been very successful with decreases in illegal 

entries since Operation Rio Grande began. I am proud to say that 

in fiscal year 2002 we apprehended 89,928 illegal entrants which 

is a 63 percent decrease from the 1997 levels when we apprehended nearly 245,000. 

Fewer illegal entries have resulted in positive relationships with 

farmers, ranchers in our area and also with the communities. 

Crime rates in places like Brownsville, TX have decreased, increasing officer safety, safety of aliens and safety of the Brownsville residents. 

Due to our efforts in reducing the number of illegal entrants in 

McAllen Sector, we never experienced problems with vigilante 

groups, citizens or ranchers taking the laws into their own hands. 
13

Building on the public safety and humanitarian initiatives embraced by the U.S. Border Patrol, the McAllen Sector has been a 

leader in initiating various border safety initiatives to help reduce 

accidents, incidents and loss of life along the border. 

Among these initiatives are Operation Life Saver, which is the 

establishment and promotion of a sector 1-800 toll free number 

where citizens can call for assistance or to report suspected illegal 

activity. We have trained 44 emergency medical technicians and 

four paramedics, equipped border patrol vehicles with water rescue 

and first responder equipment to render aide to victims of border 

violence and crime. 

Providing swift water rescue training to Border Patrol agents 

and Mexican officers, initiation of a Border Patrol boat patrol to patrol the Rio Grande River 24 hours a day, filming public service announcements that have been aired in Mexico, Central America and 

the United States. 

Producing a videotape that is shown to all aliens coming in contact with McAllen Sector Border Patrol agents, warning them of 

the dangers involved in crossing the border illegally. 

The sector in addition to all of these initiatives maintains three 

24 hour per day, 365 day per year traffic checkpoints at strategic 

locations leading from the border to the interior of the United 

States. 

These inspection stations are an integral part of our layered border control strategy and the last line of defense at the border. The 

traffic flows through these stations are voluminous, and we are not 

capable under our present infrastructure and governing Supreme 

Court decision to inspect and search every vehicle. They, however, 

are a deterrence and disrupt a tremendous amount of elicit activities and smuggling to the interior of the United States. 

Since March of 2003, the Border Patrol has been part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. We are still adjusting to 

the transition. 

We believe that with the increased communication, coordination 

and one mission, which is protection of the border, that our reorganized border patrol will be able to do a better job. With the recent 

tragedies on the border and attention on our national security, the 

importance of having a strong border patrol cannot be overemphasized. I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to 

present this testimony today, and I would be pleased to respond to 

any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Agent Garza. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garza follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSE E. GARZA

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Subcommittee Members, it is my honor to have the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss efforts to prevent and deter the illegal entry and smuggling of undocumented aliens into the United States, through operations and law enforcement 

initiatives of the United States Border Patrol, now a component of the newly created 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. 

My name is Jose E. Garza, and I am the Chief Patrol Agent of the McAllen, Texas 

Border Patrol Sector, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. I would like to 

begin by giving you a brief overview of the McAllen Border Patrol Sector. 

The McAllen Sector is one of twenty-one Border Patrol sectors nationwide and 

serves an integral part in securing our nation’s borders. We are responsible for pa-
14

trolling 284 linear miles of international border between the United States and Mexico, and 232 miles of coastline along the Gulf of Mexico, encompassing 19 South 

Texas counties which cover 17,000 square miles. We have 1,482 uniformed officers 

assigned to McAllen Sector, who perform various types of enforcement duties. The 

agents are deployed at nine stations, two of which are specifically assigned traffic 

checkpoints in Falfurrias and Kingsville, Texas, and one that is coastal station in 

Corpus Christi, Texas. 

In late summer, 1997, illegal migration in McAllen Sector was at an all-time high. 

2The indicators that the situation was critical were evident to all who lived and 

worked in the border community. The associated criminal activity that accompanies 

an uncontrolled border was of great concern: Border violence, and drug and alien 

smuggling were taking their toll on urban and rural border residents. Farmers, 

ranchers and the local community were complaining of increased numbers of illegal 

aliens transiting their lands. Border communities, such as Brownsville, Texas, were 

increasingly alarmed, and faced with an atmosphere of swelling violence, which was 

degrading their quality of life. Local police were receiving numerous calls relating 

to illegal entrants committing petty and serious offenses in Brownsville on a daily 

basis. Fiscal year 1997 was a peak year for McAllen Sector in apprehensions, as we 

arrested nearly 245,000 illegal aliens. 

In August of 1997, McAllen Sector initiated Operation Rio Grande as a part of 

the Border Patrol’s national strategy to control our nation’s borders. McAllen Sector 

was prioritized in Phase II of the national strategy, after Phase I operations involving El Paso’s Operation Hold the Line, San Diego’s Operation Gatekeeper, were 

shown to have a significant effect on illegal migration along the El Paso and San 

Diego corridors. In keeping with our national strategy, the concept of the operation 

was to forward deploy our agent staffing and tactical infrastructure resources along 

the immediate border area, the Rio Grande River, to prevent and deter the illegal 

entry and smuggling of aliens into the United States at the border itself. 

Our operational manpower was increased from 701 agents to the present levels, 

as the national strategy has progressed. Tactical infrastructure such as portable and 

permanent lighting structures, sky-watch observation platforms, infrared cameras, 

boats, fingerprinting technology to measure recidivism and detect wanted criminals, 

night vision equipment, newer aircraft and other equipment was purchased and assigned to the sector. In essence, the new mindset and way of doing business was 

fostered in line with the national strategy and McAllen went from an apprehensionbased strategy to a strategy that promoted control through prevention and deterrence. Our efforts have been very successful, with decreases in apprehensions and illegal 

entries since Operation Rio Grande began. I am proud to say that in Fiscal year 

2002 we apprehended 89,928 illegal entrants in the McAllen Sector. Although this 

is still a tremendous workload, there are now significantly fewer arrests, due to the 

focused strategy of Operation Rio Grande and the efforts put forth by our dedicated 

men and women. Through it all, McAllen Sector has maintained and encouraged a 

positive relationship with area ranchers, farmers and the local community. The 

crime rate along the southern corridor of the McAllen Sector paralleled the decline 

in apprehensions. The crime rate in places like Brownsville, Texas has decreased, 

and the safety for our officers and the local population has dramatically improved. 

The overall quality of life was better due to enhanced enforcement by our agents. 

Remotely monitored sensing devices have been placed along smuggling routes 

leading away from the Rio Grande to monitor the movement of persons trying to 

illegally enter the United States. Mobile observation platforms called ‘‘Sky-Watch’’

towers, platforms that extend twenty feet into the air and are used to watch large 

portions of the river, have been placed at strategic locations along the river. Remote 

Video Surveillance Systems have also been placed at twenty-nine strategic locations 

along the river. These systems have both day and night cameras and are monitored 

twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for any illegal activity. A Boat Patrol 

was established in February of 1998 to detect and deter illegal activity, as well as 

to gather intelligence along the river. Twenty-six specially trained K-9 teams have 

been permanently stationed at our two permanent traffic checkpoints. 

Building on longstanding public safety and humanitarian measures practiced by 

the U.S. Border Patrol, we have implemented initiatives to increase border safety 

within the McAllen Sector and have taken steps to enhance our levels of preparedness. Over the past several years, unscrupulous alien smugglers have moved migrants into more remote areas with hazardous terrain and extreme conditions. As 

smuggling tactics and patterns have shifted, our strategy has been flexible enough 

to meet the challenges head on. The Sector’s Special Response Team (SRT) and Border Patrol’s Search, Trauma and Rescue Teams (BORSTAR) have received training 

in search and rescue, and Border Patrol Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT’s) 
15

have been placed in each Station. At the present time there are 44 trained EMT’s 

in the Sector. 

The Boat Patrol was established by the McAllen Sector as a border safety tool and 

as a deterrent to prevent illegal aliens from entering into the United States. The 

Boat Patrol has deterred the entry of thousands of illegal aliens within our sector. 

Furthermore, the patrols have served as a Border Safety tool by rescuing hundreds 

of potential drowning victims, many of which were abandoned by smugglers. The 

Boat Patrol has become an integral part of our every day operations. We have enhanced our Air Operations to increase aerial vigilance in remote areas in our efforts 

to prevent alien deaths directly attributable to the high heat and limited water 

sources in remote South Texas. 

The McAllen Sector Public Awareness Program is a proactive network of contacts 

that aggressively facilitates the dissemination of information. Working with local 

Television, Radio and Newspaper agencies, we have developed and delivered public 

service announcements and advertisement campaigns to increase public safety 

awareness and to educate the public regarding our mission, which has benefited our 

law enforcement efforts throughout the region. 

The McAllen Sector maintains three 24-hour checkpoint operations in the sector, 

which are strategically located to prevent and disrupt alien and narcotic smuggling. 

Border Patrol Checkpoints are an integral part of Border Protection measures. Their 

strategic placement and operation provides increased control and deterrence at the 

border. The presence of a Checkpoint forces smugglers and illegal entrants to 

change their entry and travel patterns to border cities and away from the border. 

Sustained border enforcement presence, supported by Checkpoints that screen traffic traveling away from the border, adds an additional level of security nationally. 

It is of utmost importance to note that operations conducted at these checkpoints 

are not based upon authority similar to border inspections at ports of entry, with 

regard to searches and seizures, but are exercised based upon authority granted 

from Supreme Court decisions. Current case law also supports operating checkpoints in the same location to assure maximum law enforcement benefit while protecting 4th amendment guarantees. 

Even though Border Patrol Agents have the authority under Section 287 (a) (3) 

of the INA to ‘‘board and search’’ any vessel, railway car, aircraft, conveyance or vehicle within a reasonable distance from any external boundary or border for aliens, 

agents must still have probable cause in order to conduct a search for contraband as outlined in Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., 413 U.S. 266 (1973). 

In U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the court held that ‘‘officers on 

a roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulate facts, 

together with rational inferences from those facts, that warrant reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains aliens who may be illegally in the country.’’

In both Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S. and U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, the court held that 

‘‘no act of Congress can authorize a violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.’’ Border Patrol agents are required to skillfully and prudently exercise the authority granted to them, balancing 

the standards between reasonable proof and probable cause during detainment and 

questioning of undocumented aliens, vehicle stops, and searches and seizures. 

The challenges we face with existing infrastructure at our checkpoints will continue to be addressed in an effort to update, expand and modernize, and we will 

continue to work diligently under the limitations that now exist. With an ever-increasing volume of traffic, agents in the McAllen Sector have mere seconds to conduct immigration checks, and to decide if probable cause exits to warrant additional 

inspection. 

The McAllen Border Patrol Sector continues to help lead the way in an effort to 

increase border security, and curb illegal alien and drug smuggling along the southwest border. In fiscal year 2002, McAllen Sector apprehended 89,927 undocumented 

aliens. Of those apprehensions, 11,339 were of persons whose nationality was other 

than Mexican (OTM). The sector also made arrests in 1,382 alien smuggling cases, 

involving 1,610 alien smugglers and 7,558 smuggled aliens. During fiscal year 2003 

(through May), the Sector has apprehended a total of 50,744 undocumented aliens, 

of which 8,910 were OTMs. During this time, the sector has also made arrests in 

1,233 alien smuggling cases, involving 1,462 alien smugglers and 5,468 smuggled 

aliens. 

McAllen Sector is also among the leaders on the Southwest border in narcotics 

cases. In Fiscal Year 2002, the sector made 1,692 narcotic seizures, including 1,492 

seizures of marijuana totaling 334,630 pounds, 10 seizures of heroin totaling 125 

pounds, and 171 seizures of cocaine totaling 6,902 pounds. During Fiscal Year 2003 

(through May), the sector has recorded a total of 1,151 cases, including 1,008 sei-
16

zures of marijuana totaling 210,644 pounds, 8 seizures of heroin totaling 86 pounds, 

and 89 seizures of cocaine totaling 4,200 pounds. 

Not only does the Border Patrol provide a significant law enforcement presence 

in the region, we are also recognized as a major source of information and intelligence. Our Sector Intelligence Unit is recognized as a major source of information 

regarding Special Interest Aliens in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Recognizing that border security cannot be a singular effort, but a collaborative, multiagency effort; we coordinate our efforts, disseminate information, and share intelligence with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, strengthening 

the cord of better enforcement, better intelligence and better security. 

Nationally, the Border Patrol is tasked with a very complex, sensitive, and difficult job, which historically has presented immense challenges, and for which we 

have been given 100% responsibility. Since March 1, 2003, the U.S. Border Patrol 

has been a part of the newly established Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

within the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Patrol is proud to be the 

‘‘front line’’ of defense for this very important mission. The challenge is huge, but 

one which we face every day with resolve and dedication. Together with our new 

partners, we are standing ‘‘shoulder to shoulder,’’ to present ‘‘one face’’ at the border. 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present this testimony 

today, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the Committee may 

have at this time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Agent Homan. 

STATEMENT OF TOM HOMAN, INTERIM RESIDENT AGENT IN 

CHARGE, SAN ANTONIO, TX, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HOMAN. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity today to address you regarding the 

efforts of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

known as BICE to combat the smuggling of illegal aliens into the 

United States. 

I am the associate special agent in charge in San Antonio, TX 

and recently assisted in the investigation into the deaths of 19 

smuggled aliens in Victoria, TX. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my experience and knowledge with you regarding 

this important issue. 

Specifically, I am here to testify regarding alien smuggling and 

human trafficking, which includes smuggling related deaths, juvenile smuggling and trafficking, roles and the effects of organized 

crime, and the nexus with terrorism. 

The creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, and 

specifically BICE, combined legal authorities, investigative tools to 

effectively combat organized human smuggling and trafficking by 

investigating and prosecuting criminal organizations involved in 

smuggling and harboring of aliens, money laundering, racketeering 

violations, human trafficking and child forced labor provisions. 

In addition, the new BICE structure provides a more effective 

means of dismantling, disrupting the criminal activities of those organizations. With tools such as financial data, analysis, telecommunication intercepts, and air and marine interdiction capabilities. 

I would like to begin by providing an important clarification, a 

necessary distinction between the terms of alien smuggling and 

human trafficking. Alien smuggling and human trafficking, while 

sharing certain elements are different offenses. In some respects, 
17

human trafficking may be regarded simply as an aggravated form 

of alien smuggling. 

Human trafficking involves force, fraud or coercion, and it occurs 

for the purpose of force labor or commercial sexual exploitation. 

Alien smuggling is an enterprise that produces short-term profits 

based on migrants smuggled. 

Trafficking enterprises rely on forced labor or commercial sexual 

exploitation of the victim to produce profits over the long term and 

the short term. 

Smugglees are willing to risk potential death seeking their 

dream and are normally free to seek it once they reach their final 

destination. On the other hand, we know that trafficking victims 

find themselves in a servitude arrangement that does not end once 

they have reached their final destination. 

Human smuggling has become an international lucrative criminal market in the United States. This trade generates an enormous 

amount of money, globally an estimated $9.5 billion per year. The 

commodities involved in this trade are men, women, and children, 

coming from as far away as China, Ukraine and Thailand. 

The trafficker’s goal, like the smuggler is to maximize profits. 

The U.S. Department of State has estimated that at any given 

time, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the smuggling 

pipeline being warehoused by smugglers, and their primary target 

is the United States. 

In recent years, there has been a surge in smugglers trying to 

smuggle juveniles into the United States. Smuggled children are 

often lured by promises of education, a new skill or a good job, 

other children are kidnapped outright, taken from their home villages or towns and brought and sold as commodities. 

Attracted by enormous profits and minimal risk, criminal organizations at all levels of sophistication are involved in the trafficking 

of children as human cargo across international borders for sexual 

exploitation and forced labor. 

BICE is developing a foreign and domestic strategy which includes the implementation of critical incident response teams. The 

purpose of these investigative teams is simple and effective. Beginning the investigation of a critical incident as quickly as possible, 

and assembling the broad spectrum of technical and subject matter 

expertise that is needed to solve the complex investigations. 

These teams will consistent of special agents drawn from BICE 

assets who possess specialized skills in the full constellation of investigative techniques, language and cultural skills, crime scene 

management, technical operations and forensics. 

The national and international enforcement environment 

changed dramatically after September 11 attacks. BICE targets 

alien smuggling organizations that present threats to the national 

security. This emphasize recognizes that terrorists and their associates are likely to align themselves with specific alien smuggling 

networks to obtain undetected entry into the United States. 

As in our war on terrorism, the most effective means of addressing these issues is by attacking the problems at the source and 

transit countries, thereby preventing entry into the United States. 

The overarching BICE strategy requires intelligence-driven investigations against major violators, specifically targeting organiza-
18

tions with ties to countries that support terrorist organizations 

such as al-Qaeda. 

I brought along some images and video to illustrate the means 

and methods used by smuggling organizations, and how BICE is 

investigating these organizations. 

San Antonio and Houston started an investigation 2 years ago 

called Operation Night Riders where we actually opened up our 

own load house. It was an undercover operation proprietorship 

case. 

What you see there on the right hand side of the screen, that is 

a smuggling house that we set up. On the left hand side of the 

screen with the arrow pointing to it, that was our listening post. 

The smuggling house was wired for video and sound through every 

room, inside and outside. 

This is another example to shoot it, the video cameras that we 

hid outside of the house and inside the house so we can see all of 

the aliens arriving at the house, and as they leave, and all of the 

communications inside the house were also monitored. 

Again, this is video cameras hidden inside the house. We have 

undercover agents acting as load house operators, and we actually 

contracted with 11 different alien smuggling organizations to bring 

their aliens to our load house. We will house those aliens. We will 

make arrangements to get them to our final destination. By doing 

this, we identified the guides, the drivers, the main smugglers, we 

identified where the alien was going, who is paying the fees, we 

identified the full alien smuggling organization. 

This is a picture of the listening post which was next door. We 

put it next door in case anything was to happen where we had 

quick response to the house. This clearly shows we had video cameras placed both outside and inside the house. 

We have total 24/7 surveillance inside and outside of that house. 

This is a short film that is going to show the arrival of aliens that 

just crossed the border near Laredo, TX. They were in the back of 

this pickup truck for 6 to 7 hours. This shows how the smugglers 

have no concern for the health and safety of the aliens. These 

aliens, as you will see, will unload the front of that pickup truck. 

That is not a super cab. And you will see how many aliens come 

out of the front behind the front seat, and also how many come 

rolling out of the bed of that truck like sardines. 

Again, they have been in this position for several hours. You are 

going to notice some of the aliens as they get out of this vehicle 

have trouble walking because they were in this position for so long. 

The person unloading the truck is one of the defendants that was 

prosecuted and arrested. 

And as you can see this is during broad daylight. As the aliens 

get out of truck, they are going to enter the side fence. They enter 

the house through the back. 

As the aliens enter the house, the load house operator who was 

an undercover officer, records their name, and records what smuggling organization brought them to the house. Again, we had 11 

different organizations bringing aliens to this house. 

At a later time we would bring the aliens one at a time to the 

table. They would call their relatives, let them know they are safely in the United States, they need to wire the agreed amount per 
19

Western Union to our account, and then we would send them to 

their final destination. 

This is the typical way that alien smuggling organizations operate. They are subcontractors, subcontractor guides, subcontractor 

load house operators, subcontractor transporters. 

Now, you will see the target of the investigation open the back 

of the truck and they will start rolling out of the back of the truck, 

again having trouble walking, because they have been stuck in that 

position for 6 to 7 hours. 

The good thing about this investigation is we controlled the 

house. We made sure they ate well. We made sure their medical 

needs were taken care of. The aliens were moved down to their 

final destinations. And since we were the ones that talked to the 

relatives, recorded those conversations, we were later able to go to 

those destinations, pick those aliens up, take them into custody. 

And many have served as material witnesses in the prosecution of 

the 11 organizations. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. That is six out of the cab were from behind and 

six out of the bed in a pickup truck. 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. Next screen, please. This is a load arriving at 

night. You see there are a lot of women and children in this load. 

There are babies in arms in this load. Again, callous disregard for 

their safety. They were bought in brought in the same arrangement. They are in the back of the pickup truck, in the bed of the 

pickup truck, stacked like cord wood. You can see this—they arrived 24/7. You can see a baby in arms. Many female aliens. They 

come in groups of 30 and 40 out of two pickups. 

Next screen, please. And this is a group of smuggled Peruvians 

that came in that same night. This is just a quick shot of the inside 

of the house. At one point, we had over a 100 smuggled aliens inside this house. 

Next screen. While we are waiting for the screen to load up, I 

can say that the undercover agents of this house were seasoned 

veterans of the legacy INS. Every room was, again, monitored, 

video, audio, we even had sensors put in the hallway. So we know 

when aliens were moving from one room to another. This is what 

I was explaining earlier. This alien is now meeting with our undercover agent. A contact will be made with his relatives saying he 

has arrived, he is in Houston at an undisclosed location. And their 

relatives or employer needs to wire money to our account, then we 

will send him to his final destination. 

Next screen, please. The result of this investigation, we totally 

dismantled 11 alien smuggling organizations. Twenty people were 

found guilty. Only one went to trial. With a case such as this, rather than attacking organizations one at a time, we become part of 

the organization, we open up our own load house, we can totally 

dismantle many organizations rather than just doing one. The 

downfall? It is expensive, it takes a lot of resources. 

If I can continue my testimony. Last month 19 undocumented 

aliens were found dead inside a tractor trailer in Victoria, TX. Four 

hours into their 300-mile trip to Houston oxygen ran out in their 

sealed trailer. Within 72 hours of the discovery, the collective efforts of special agents from BICE, our counterparts from Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection, the Texas Department of Public 
20

Safety, the Victoria County District Attorney’s Office, the United 

States Secret Service, and the Victoria County Sheriff’s Office led 

to the identification and arrest of 40 defendants in Ohio and Texas. 

As of today, a total of 14 defendants have been charged with various crimes involving alien smuggling. The successes that we 

achieved in this operation are a direct result of fully integrating 

BICE special agents, other personnel and equipment in a unified 

law enforcement effort. Still, the smugglers remain undaunted by 

this tragedy. They continue to use railroad cars and tractor trailers 

to move illegal aliens to the south Texas smuggling corridor. BICE 

looks forward to working with the Committee in our efforts to save 

lives and secure our national interests. I hope my remarks today 

have been informative and helpful to each of you in understanding 

the complexity surrounding these issues. 

I thank you for inviting me to testify. I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Agent Homan. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Homan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS HOMAN

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, thank you for the opportunity today to address you regarding the efforts of the Bureau of Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (BICE) to combat the smuggling of illegal aliens into the 

United States. I am the Interim Associate Special Agent in Charge in San Antonio, 

Texas and recently assisted in the investigation into the deaths of 19 smuggled 

aliens in Victoria, Texas. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my experience and knowledge with you regarding this important issue. Specifically, I am here 

to testify regarding alien smuggling and human trafficking, which includes smuggling-related deaths, juvenile smuggling and trafficking, roles and effects of organized crime and the nexus with terrorism. 

The creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, and specifically BICE, 

combined legal authorities and investigative tools to effectively combat organized 

human smuggling and trafficking by investigating and prosecuting criminal organizations involved in smuggling, transporting, and harboring of aliens; money laundering; racketeering violations; human trafficking and child forced labor provisions. 

In addition, the new BICE structure provides a more effective means of dismantling 

and disrupting the criminal activities of these organizations, with tools such as financial and data analysis, telecommunication intercepts, and air and marine interdiction capabilities. 

I would like to begin by providing an important clarification and necessary distinction between the terms alien smuggling and human trafficking. Alien smuggling 

and human trafficking, while sharing certain elements and attributes and overlapping in some cases, are distinctively different offenses. In some respects, human 

trafficking may be regarded simply as an aggravated form of alien smuggling. 

Human trafficking, specifically what U.S. law defines as ‘‘severe forms of trafficking 

in persons,’’ involves (unless the victims are minors trafficked into sexual exploitation) force, fraud or coercion, and occurs for the purpose of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation. Alien smuggling is an enterprise that produces short-term 

profits based on migrants smuggled. Trafficking enterprises rely on forced labor or 

commercial sexual exploitation of the victim to produce profits over the long-term 

and the short-term. 

Smugglees are willing to risk potential death seeking their dream and are normally free to seek it once they reach their final destination. On the other hand, we 

know that trafficking victims find themselves in a servitude arrangement that does 

not end once they have reached their final destination. 

Human smuggling has become an international lucrative criminal market and 

continues to do so in the United States. This trade generates an enormous amount 

of money—globally, an estimated $9.5 billion per year. The commodities involved in 

this illicit trade are men, women, and children. Traffickers or smugglers transport 

undocumented migrants into the U.S. for work in licit, semi-illicit and illicit industries. The traffickers’ foremost goal, like the smuggler, is to maximize profits. The 

sale and distribution of smuggled humans in the U.S. is a global, regional, and national phenomenon. Women and children are trafficked short distances within the 
21

U.S. (small towns to bigger cities), as well as coming from as far away as China, 

Ukraine and Thailand. 

The U.S. Department of State has estimated that at any given time, there are 

hundreds of thousands of people in the smuggling pipeline, being warehoused by 

smugglers, waiting for new routes to open up or documents to become available—

and their primary target is the United States. 

While human trafficking cases have attracted media attention, the loss of life in 

an alien smuggling case is no less tragic. To illustrate the callous disregard smugglers have for human life I would like to provide you with the details of some tragic 

incidents involving deaths (noting that some of these smuggling cases may be trafficking cases as well): 

Iowa—In October 2002, 11 undocumented aliens were found dead in a covered 

grain car near Dennison, IA. It was determined that they had been smuggled and 

their bodies trapped in the grain car for four months. This is an ongoing investigation. 

Texas—Last month, 17 undocumented aliens were found dead inside a tractortrailer in Victoria, Texas. Four hours into their 300-mile trip to Houston, oxygen ran 

out in their dark, sealed, hot, airless trailer. These aliens had beat their way 

through the trailer taillights in a desperate attempt to signal for help. Within 72 

hours of the discovery, the collective efforts of Special Agents from BICE, our counterparts in the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Texas Department of 

Public Safety, the Victoria County District Attorney’s Office, the United States Secret Service, and the Victoria County Sheriff’s Office, led to the identification and 

arrest of four defendants in Ohio and Texas. As of May 27, 2003, a total of twelve 

defendants have been charged with various crimes involving alien smuggling. The 

successes that we achieved in this operation are a direct result of fully integrating 

BICE special agents and other personnel, equipment and methodologies into a unified law enforcement effort. Still, the smugglers remain undaunted by the tragedy. 

They continue to use sealed railroad cars and tractor-trailers to move illegal aliens 

through the South Texas smuggling corridor. 

Washington—In January 2000, three undocumented aliens were found dead in 

the cargo container of a vessel in Seattle, WA. The three were part of a group of 

eighteen Chinese smuggled aliens that had been sealed in the container for a period 

of two weeks. The survivors, who were in dire medical condition, remained in the 

container with the deceased until their discovery. 

California—In March 2000, six undocumented aliens were found in the 

San Diego east county mountains, four of whom died due to hypothermia. The 

smugglers abandoned the group in the snowy mountains as the aliens pleaded not 

to be stranded. 

Florida—In December 2001, a capsized vessel was found in the Florida Straits, 

known to have been carrying 41 Cuban nationals, including women and children. 

All are believed to have perished at sea. 

New York—In June 1993, the Golden Venture, a vessel that had traveled 17,000 

miles in 112 days from China, ran aground off the coast of Queens in New York 

City. The human cargo suffered subhuman living conditions during the voyage with 

inadequate food and ventilation. Most of the 286 people jumped into the frigid Atlantic Ocean, 10 of whom drowned. 

Arizona—In 2002, 133 deaths were recorded relating to alien smuggling loads in 

the Arizona deserts. The ICE Phoenix Special-Agent-in-Charge is currently involved 

in an investigation in which as many as 13 homicides have been attributed to alien 

smuggling. Several of the deceased were undocumented aliens who were unable to 

pay their smuggling fees. Local law enforcement agencies attribute most of the increase of violent crime, hostage taking, and home invasions in Arizona as being related to alien smuggling. 

As you can see, alien smuggling is not confined to any geographic region; it is a 

problem of national scope, which requires a coordinated national response. BICE is 

developing a foreign and domestic strategy, which includes the implementation of 

critical incident response teams. The purpose of these investigative teams is simple 

and effective: begin the investigation of a critical incident as quickly as possible, assembling the broad spectrum of technical and subject matter expertise that is needed to solve complex investigations. 

The teams will consist of Special Agents drawn from BICE assets who possess 

specialized skills in the full constellation of investigative techniques; language and 

cultural skills, land, air and maritime smuggling, crime scene management, technical operations and forensics. This investigative response will be coordinated at a 

proposed BICE Smuggling Coordination Center utilizing resources and equipment 

deployed in key geographic areas nationwide. 
22

In recent years there has been a surge in smugglers trying to smuggle juveniles 

into the United States. This increase is driven by the demand created by U.S. citizens wanting to illegally adopt children from abroad, immigrants attempting to reunite their families, and child exploitation. Mexican consulates in Southern Arizona 

alone handled more than 1,500 repatriations of unaccompanied Mexican juveniles 

during the first half of 2002. 

In contrast to the smuggling of family members, trafficked children are often 

lured by promises of education, a new skill or a good job; other children are kidnapped outright, taken from their home villages or towns and then bought and sold 

as commodities. Attracted by enormous profits and minimal risks, criminal organizations at all levels of sophistication are involved in the trafficking of children as 

human cargo across international borders for sexual exploitation and forced labor. 

The fall of communism, coupled with the deteriorating third world economies, has 

fueled the dramatic rise of this heinous form of commerce. 

International organized crime groups such as the Chinese Triads; Japanese 

Yakuza; Russian, Albanian, Georgian, Ukrainian, Polish, Nigerian, and Thai criminal networks have also capitalized on weak economies; corruption, and improved 

international transportation infrastructure in order to facilitate the smuggling and 

trafficking of some 700,000 to 2,000,000 people globally each year. These organizations have abandoned their historic ethnic alliances to join together in criminal enterprises and to hinder U.S. Government law enforcement efforts. 

The national and international enforcement environment changed significantly 

after the September 11 attacks. BICE places a significant emphasis on targeting 

alien smuggling organizations that present threats to national security. This emphasis recognizes that terrorists and their associates are likely to align themselves with 

specific alien smuggling networks to obtain undetected entry into the United States. 

In addition to the emerging terrorist threat, three factors have created an environment in which terrorists and smuggling enterprises may combine their criminal efforts to pose a significant national and international threat. These factors are:

1) The involved criminal organizations growing volume and sophistication,

2) Their ability to exploit public corruption; and,

3) Lax immigration controls in source and transit countries.

As in our war on terrorism, the most effective means of addressing these issues 

is by attacking the problem in source and transit countries thereby preventing entry 

into the United States. Consequently, BICE is developing a strategy that will address alien smuggling and human trafficking at the national and international levels. The overarching Anti-Smuggling/Human Trafficking Strategy requires intelligence-driven investigations against major violators, specifically targeting organizations with ties to countries that support terrorist organizations such as Al Queda. 

We look forward to working with this Committee in our efforts to save lives and 

secure our national interests. I hope my remarks today have been informative and 

helpful to each of you in understanding the complexity surrounding these issues. I 

thank you for inviting me to testify and I will be glad to answer any questions you 

may have at this time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Nun ̃ ez for your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PETER K. NUNEZ, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, 

SAN DIEGO, CA 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jackson Lee and 

other Members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to appear today. I am going to supplement the written statement that 

you already have in front of you with some remarks some of which 

I think are responsive to issues that have already been raised. 

I guess the place I would like to start is to recognize reality. The 

world is currently about 6.2 billion people, two-thirds or threequarters of whom live in the developing world, many of whom 

would love to come to the United States. It is not just Mexico we 

are talking about, although Mexico, obviously, is the gateway and 

the single-biggest contributor of immigrants to the United States. 

So when we start thinking about solutions, we have to look at this 
23

big picture that we are faced with, an ongoing, demographic onslaught from everywhere in the world, and we are one of the target 

countries, one of the preferred places for people to come to improve 

themselves. So whatever solutions we think of have to have that 

reality in mind. 

Secondly, we already have, if not the—certainly one of the most 

generous legal immigration policies in the world. We admit, and 

have admitted for every year for the last decade, a million people 

legally. That should be more than adequate to supply whatever 

needs our employers have. If not, there are provisions in the current immigration law for people to import labor if they can demonstrate the need. But instead, what many people do, the unscrupulous employers, is take advantage of illegal immigrants who are 

here by the millions, 8 million at the last count, probably more 

than that, from all over the world. And the reason why people prefer illegal immigrant workers is that they can exploit them. So we 

have to also keep in mind that we don’t need illegal immigrants. 

That to me is absurd that someone would suggest we need illegal 

immigrants. If we need immigrants, if we need labor, then that is 

the purpose for which Congress has put in place an immigration 

policy, to handle legitimate needs for employers. But we should not 

mix the two up, legal and illegal immigration. 

Two things, basically two different parts of this formula. One is 

border control and certainly we must do better at that. We have 

made some improvements since the early 90’s, and that certainly 

is a step in the right direction. It is a shame that we stopped increasing the Border Patrol in the late 90’s. I don’t know how many 

people it would take. I know Mr. King, I think, mentioned the 

number 20,000 Border Patrol agents, I don’t know how many it 

would take. I don’t think anybody knows at this point, but we know 

it takes more than that. So my suggestion is let’s continue to build 

up the Border Patrol to the point where they can close the gaps, 

especially the places where people are in the most jeopardy. Let’s 

extend Gatekeeper, let’s extend Hold the Line, let’s extend the Rio 

Grande project with more Border Patrolmen. Now, that is going to 

take time. 

So the question in the short run is, is there some other remedy 

that we should undertake or look at in the short run? Use of the 

military, is that something that should be considered in the short 

run if we want to stop death? If that is the highest priority, it 

seems to me that is something that should be considered. 

You know, we now have more FBI agents than we have Border 

Patrol agents. So I don’t know, again, Mr. King, what number, 

what the magic number is either, but it seems to me whatever the 

number is required to do the job, that is the number we should aim 

at. 

And as a former prosecutor, I have dealt with all kinds of cases 

similar to the ones that have been described here today. The issue 

of what reward or what incentive should be given to people who assist is always a touchy one. I guess I should say that we should 

not expect that offering some sort of immunity or amnesty to people who inform on smugglers is going to end alien smuggling. I 

mean, we still have drug smugglers, we still have bank robberies, 

we still have people committing all kinds of other crimes, and we 
24

have a number of incentives available in those other areas of the 

law to promote or to incentivize people to come forward to help. 

This is a big money deal. It is big for everyone on all sides of the 

issue. So while we certainly should look at ways to improve the 

prosecution and investigation of these offenses, I don’t think we 

should be so optimistic that we think that is going to stop or smash 

these alien smuggling rings. We haven’t stopped drug traffickers by 

using some of these same devices. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you Mr. Nun ̃ ez. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nun ̃ ez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER K. NUN ̃ EZ

Thank you for inviting me to testify concerning ‘‘The Deadly Consequences of Illegal Alien Smuggling.’’ The tragic deaths involving the truck in Victoria, Texas, last 

month once again demonstrate the deadly consequences arising from the complete 

failure of our current immigration policy to deal with the chaos along our borders 

resulting from illegal immigration. 

My perspective on this issue is based on my experience over the past thirty years, 

first as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorneys Office in San Diego, California, 

from 1972 to 1988, then as the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement at the Treasury 

Department from 1990 to 1993, and as a person who has lived on the border for 

most of the past 40 years. I currently serve as a lecturer in the Political Science 

Department at the University of San Diego, where I teach courses in Transnational 

Crime and Terrorism, American Criminal Justice, and the Politics of Immigration 

Policy. Finally, I have been affiliated with a number of immigration reform organizations, and currently serve as the chairman of the board of directors for the Center 

for Immigration Studies here in Washington, D.C. 

Unfortunately, deaths along the border related to illegal alien smuggling are not 

a new phenomenon. It was not at all unusual for people to die trying to enter this 

country along our southern border during the sixteen years I served as a federal 

prosecutor in San Diego. Deaths due to exposure to the elements, to traffic accidents, and to the inhumane treatment received from smugglers were all too common 

even during the ’70’s and ’80’s. It has always been a matter of the highest priority 

for both the Border Patrol and the U.S. Attorneys offices along the border to investigate and prosecute cases where a death was involved. And I am aware of the extraordinary efforts that have been made over the past ten years—since the inception 

of Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego and Hold the Line in El Paso—by agencies 

of both the United States and Mexican governments, to warn would-be illegal aliens 

of the potential dangers they faced in trying to cross the border illegally through 

the deserts and mountains. 

Notwithstanding these efforts, deaths have continued to occur, and will continue 

as long as we fail to control our borders and as long as we cling to an outdated, 

failed, and disastrous immigration policy. Because if we try to find the cause of 

these deaths, and if we are trying to prevent them, then we need look no further 

then to the unwillingness of the United States to reform its immigration laws in 

light of the realities of the 21st Century. 

Clearly criminal responsibility for these deaths can be laid at the feet of the 

smugglers who left these poor people to die in the back of a truck. It can also be 

argued that the illegal aliens themselves are partly responsible for their own deaths, 

given their willingness to risk harm by entering this country illegally, in violation 

of our criminal laws. But the illegal aliens who attempt to enter this country by putting their lives at risk, and the smugglers who feed off the desperation of these people, are all reacting to a set of circumstances that act as both ‘‘push’’ and ‘‘pull’’ factors in stimulating the flow of immigrants from Mexico and the Third World to the 

United States. The plain fact is that the huge disparity in economic conditions between Mexico and the United States, as well as the abundant social services available to immigrants once they arrive here, will compel people to attempt the journey 

even in the face of danger and hardship. 

So until Mexico is willing and able to deal with the ‘‘push’’ factors that force millions of its citizens to seek a better life in the United Sates, and until the United 

States is willing to deal with the ‘‘pull’’ factors that lure millions of poor people here 

from around the world, we should expect that deaths among immigrants will continue to occur. These deaths are not ‘‘caused’’ by law enforcement or by efforts such 
25

as Gatekeeper and Hold the Line; the Border Patrol and the INS have been the 

scapegoats, told to enforce the law, but not given the resources needed to do the 

job correctly. What we need to do, at least along the border, is to expand Gatekeeper 

and Hold the Line to those trouble spots that now represent the biggest threats of 

illegal entry. Just as the Border Patrol was doubled in size during the early and 

mid-’90’s to provide the resources needed in San Diego and El Paso, now we must 

add however many more Border Patrol agents are needed to close the remaining 

gaps. 

But ‘‘border control’’ alone will never be enough. What is needed is a comprehensive reform of our immigration policy designed to eliminate all of the perverse incentives that continue to draw illegal aliens to this country. If it is true that most immigrants—both legal and illegal—come to this country to work, then it is essential 

to finally enact an employer sanctions provision that works. Equally important, 

however, is the need to reestablish an effective interior enforcement mechanism designed to locate, arrest, and deport the 8 million-plus illegal aliens now living in 

the United States. For nothing works as a better incentive for illegal aliens than 

the fact that they know that no one will bother them if they are able to reach the 

interior of the United States. 

Beginning in the late 1980’s, INS began retreating from their historical and statutory mandate to locate, arrest, and deport those illegal aliens who managed to evade 

the Border Patrol or INS inspectors at our ports of entry, and those non-immigrants 

who originally entered legally but who overstayed their visas. This abdication of the 

interior enforcement function escalated during the ’90’s, and has all but disappeared 

in the current environment. Only the horrors of 9/11 have resulted in any effective 

interior enforcement, and that is aimed solely at potential terrorists. 

In fact, while the latest INS figures show a 75% increase in the deportation of 

Arabs and Muslims (FY 2002 compared to FY 2001), the same figures show an 

OVERALL DECREASE of 16% in the total number of deportations. In FY 2002, 

28,833 fewer deportations took place than the preceding year; the biggest decline 

was among Mexicans, the single largest national group, which saw a decline of 

32,692 illegal alien Mexicans. 

So if you were a poor Mexican living in Mexico, you would know that your chances 

of being caught crossing the border would be slight, and even if you were caught, 

nothing bad would happen to you. There would be no prosecution, and no other 

meaningful sanction to dissuade you from attempting to enter illegally. And you 

would also know that once you made it past the Border Patrol, you would essentially be home free, that no one would be looking for you after you arrived at your 

destination in the interior of the United States. And you would know that there 

would be jobs available for you, even if you might be cheated by your employer, that 

there would be some level of free medical care for you and your family, free public 

education for your children, and perhaps even some additional benefits for you and 

yours, all at the expense of the American taxpayer. 

Some states are also offering additional benefits for illegal aliens. To make it easier for you to survive once you are here, some states will allow you to get a genuine 

government ID card in the form of a drivers license, which you can then use to obtain other indicia of legality that will allow you to burrow deeper into the fabric of 

America. 

And to make sure that you aren’t bothered, various state and local governments 

have adopted policies that prevent state and local police from participating in the 

effort to locate, arrest, and deport these criminals, or of even cooperating with INS 

and the Border Patrol. 

And in order to help American banks to make a profit, the Treasury Department 

has authorized financial institutions to accept as valid proof of identity documents 

such as the matricula consular, which will enable illegal aliens to open bank accounts so they can more conveniently send home to Mexico their share of the roughly $10 Billion in remittances that flows south every year, which, indeed, explains 

the zeal with which the Mexican government endorses and encourages its citizens 

to break our laws by sneaking across the border illegally. 

And what to make of the various other agencies of the federal government that 

act in ways to make enforcement of our immigration laws more difficult, that act 

in ways designed to subvert the responsibilities of those assigned the task of enforcing our immigration laws. We already know about the disconnects that exist(ed?) 

between the State Department, the FBI, the CIA, and INS prior to 9/11 that prevented INS from even attempting to do its job properly. But what about the more 

mundane business of the federal government, where the Social Security Administration does nothing about the bogus-on-its-face information it receives from employers 

demonstrating phony social security account numbers, the failure of IRS and the 

Labor Department to lift a finger to share information with INS that could be used 
26

to identify illegal aliens and lead to their arrest and removal. How many federal 

governments do we have? Why are not all agencies of the government cooperating 

to assist INS in performing its duty, all of which makes it infinitely easier for illegal 

aliens to avoid detection and remain here for decades? 

And we need to stop the talk of a coming amnesty, or of a guest worker program, 

both of which, by themselves, serve to encourage additional illegal immigration. 

What kind of message are we sending when we dangle that possibility before people 

desperate enough to put their lives at risk? Doesn’t this kind of talk also indicate 

that we really don’t care much about law breaking, that we don’t really care that 

much about the rule of law that these immigration laws exist only as a token objection to the violation of our sovereignty? 

And finally, if you are able to avoid detection long enough, your children will be 

allowed to enter a state college or university and pay in-state tuition, unlike other 

law-abiding American citizens from out of state who must pay a significantly higher 

amount. 

Soon after 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft quite appropriately suggested that he 

wanted the state and local law enforcement communities to assist the federal government in locating suspected terrorists, all of whom, almost by definition, are here 

as immigrants or non-immigrant guests. Somehow, then, we expect state and local 

law enforcement to be able to distinguish between illegal aliens who might be terrorists and illegal aliens who are only criminals because they broke some other 

American law. At about the same time, the federal law enforcement agencies began 

to round up illegal aliens who were from the Middle East or who were Arabs, but 

not those from anywhere else in the world. Law enforcement also began to locate, 

arrest, and deport illegal aliens if they worked at airports or other high security locations, but not of they worked in some other sector of the economy. We also became 

concerned about those illegal aliens that worked at our military bases, such as the 

U.S. Navy Submarine Base in San Diego, but not those working outside the base. 

We even arrested and deported those illegal aliens who had the misfortune of working as limo drivers for the NFL Super Bowl held in San Diego this past January. 

But all other illegal aliens—most of the 8 million-plus who are here—have nothing 

to fear, because no one cares that they are here, and no one is doing anything about 

it. If that is not an incentive for illegal immigration, nothing is. 

One last point about deaths relating to illegal immigration. We should be as concerned about the deaths (and other violent crimes) caused BY illegal aliens as we 

are about the deaths of illegal aliens that occur during the course of their own volitional acts of illegally entering this country. 

On June 13 of this year, Oceanside Police Department officer Tony Zeppetella, age 

27, was gunned down and executed by one Adrian Camacho, described as ‘‘an Oceanside gang member with a history of violence and drugs.’’ (San Diego UnionTribune, June 20,2003) What the news article does not report is that the defendant 

has been convicted on numerous felonies, and has previously been deported as an 

illegal alien! Too bad the Oceanside Police Department and the San Diego County 

Sheriff’s Office were not interested in illegal aliens. Too bad that the INS in San 

Diego does not have an effective program designed to locate, arrest, and deport illegal aliens. Maybe if they did, Officer Zeppetella’s widow and six-month-old child 

would not be suffering today over their loss. 

Or take the recent case from Northern California involving the kidnapping (and 

who knows what else) of a 9-year-old girl, who, thankfully, survived her ordeal. Her 

kidnapper? Another illegal alien, who was able to hide in plain sight, due in part 

to the policy of the San Jose Police Department to look the other way with regard 

to immigration violators. And of course the INS has no program to fulfill its statutory duty to locate, arrest, and deport illegal aliens. 

So as we mourn the deaths of those who voluntarily decided to break our criminal 

law by entering this country illegally, let’s also save a little compassion for those 

who become the victims of illegal aliens, with the full complicity of the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies that have decided to look the 

other way. 

The bottom line is that this Congress has to end the chaos of our past and present 

immigration policy, and put in place serious reform efforts that will enhance the 

ability of the new INS to do its job. We must, as a country, stop sending a mixed 

message to the downtrodden of the world that we will leave you alone if you have 

the courage and the ingenuity to make it past our borders. The federal government 

must use all of its resources to attack this problem comprehensively. The state and 

local governments must be brought into the effort, and any and all incentives dangled by state and local governments must be ended. Only by turning off the magnets 

that provoke this lawlessness can we ever stop the chaos at the borders that results, 

unfortunately, in the loss of life.
27

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Ms. Jimenez. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA JIMENEZ, CHAIR, MAYOR’S ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE FOR THE OFFICE OF IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS, CITY OF HOUSTON, TX 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I would thank the Committee for the opportunity 

to address you, and particularly Congresswoman Sheila Jackson 

Lee, who made an effort that we be here to articulate the perspectives of immigrant communities in the United States and the problem of commercial enterprises that are contracted in order to enter 

this country without Government authorization. 

As I have stated in the written testimony, immigrant communities throughout this country are very well aware of the risks of 

crossing the border. Death has been part of the experience throughout decades in the journey to the United States. It was part of 

what the Irish experienced, it was part of what is experienced in 

the Caribbean, and it is part of what people experience crossing the 

U.S.-Mexico border. They have become more numerous as it has become more difficult to enter legally, and as well as fortification has 

made necessary the use of smugglers, where 10 years ago—and 

those are studies by Douglas Massey at the University of Pennsylvania—10 years ago, persons walked in alone. Now, given the fortification of the border, this has consolidated multinational, multibillion business operations to have people come into the country. 

The house that we saw, it is very common in immigrant communities. We know of them. We know of the people who, when persons 

reach their destination, are quickly let call the relatives, and then 

people are freed within a matter of hours as they pay the sums required by the smugglers. Occasionally, there are those who kidnap 

and engage in other activities. But it is usually, again, known 

throughout the community and those type of enterprises are no 

longer accessed. 

The different risks involved in these operations are well known 

in immigrant communities. Immigrant communities also know 

where to access people who can cross a person safely into the 

United States. The fact that we have millions of people who have 

done so are testimony to that. The recent study by the University 

of Houston in which Salvadoran immigrants were questioned, for 

instance, showed that in order to cross women, who are not authorized by the government to cross, Salvadoran families access known 

people who engaged in these enterprises who guarantee safety for 

women as they cross the border. 

So one of the things that I think you have to understand is that, 

from the immigrant perspective, these type of enterprises are a 

necessary evil given the limited options of crossing legally into the 

United States. I often refer to my own personal experience, my 

grandfather when he crossed in 1912, went to the bridge and in the 

State of Coahuila, simply paid a nickel in crossing over. He crossed 

legally. My father sits watching television and he says, ‘‘I don’t understand it.’’ he said, ‘‘Why don’t people—the United States Government just require that people pay $1,000. It would go to the 

U.S. Treasury instead of going to the smugglers.’’ that is, there is 

a real essence here in understanding that people know of these 

commercial operations, access them, and understand the risks that 
28

are undertaken. But the risks that people know of are minimum 

to the need to migrate and to search for the well-being of themselves and their family. 

Now, we believe that the human costs of migration can be reduced by expanding and making more flexible avenues for legal migration. In no means are we calling for open borders. We understand, as international law so describes, that nations have the sovereign right to determine who enters and stays and under what 

conditions people are made members of a society. But we believe 

that, especially in the relationship to Mexico, there is a very true 

need to look at ways that people can migrate legally, and that is 

a matter that will definitely put a tremendous dent on these operations and the need for people to access them. 

We also believe, in our experience, that the human cost of migration can be reduced by developing provisions to encourage persons 

to come forward. I gave a specific example, 2 years ago. I had a 

family, three members from a small town in Mexico had died in a 

railroad car near Victoria, TX. And I went to the apartment house 

where the family member lived, where many of the townspeople 

lived, and no one wanted to come forward, simply because the person who brought them over belonged to the town, and people were 

unwilling to risk their safety in order to turn this person in. So 

how can we provide mechanisms that will provide an incentive and 

at the same time be able to ask people to come forward, and hold 

accountable those commercial enterprises that do not deliver the 

services as contracted, as understood by the community. 

The human cost also of these illicit commercial enterprises can 

be reduced by increasing public education as to the penalties, especially the fact that people can receive the death penalty when these 

operations go wrong. I think that many—in the case of immigrant 

communities, many people have been doing this for decades. And 

many, as I have stated in the example before, are from small 

towns. So there isn’t an understanding that there are serious liabilities. And this may also dissuade people from engaging in them in 

terms of entering into the probability of these commercial enterprises. 

In sum, this is our testimony, and, again, we thank the Committee. And we hope that this will be the beginning of a dialogue 

to look at ways that we can bring sense to our immigration policy 

in making it more congruent with the reality of integrated international economy. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Jimenez. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jimenez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIA D. JIMENEZ

My name is Maria D. Jimenez. I am currently Chair of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs of the City 

of Houston. Houston is the fourth largest city in the nation; twenty-eight percent 

of its population is foreign-born. I myself am an immigrant from Mexico and a naturalized citizen of this nation for the last thirty-four years. I now live and work in 

one of the oldest Mexican immigrant neighborhoods in the city. 

In my professional life, I have worked with many community-based organizations 

in documenting human and civil rights violations in the enforcement of immigration 

law in border areas and other immigrant communities in the last sixteen years. In 

my current capacity as a human rights consultant, I am working with several non-
29

profit organizations on establishing human rights training programs for targeted 

immigrant population groups in Houston, Texas. 

Both professionally and personally, I have interacted with immigrant and refugees who have survived and been victimized commercial enterprises that move them 

across the border without government authorization. 

From these experiences, the following conclusions may be drawn:

The risks of crossing the border without documentation are well 

known in immigrant communities. 

Jesus Galvan first entered the United States from Mexico as a bracero or guest 

worker in the early 1950’s. At the end of this program, he continued crossing, but 

without documentation to work in agriculture in Arizona and later, in light manufacturing in Los Angeles and Houston. He became a permanent resident during the 

legalization program authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986. He became a US citizen in 1997. 

In the course of his travels to and from his native Colima, he narrates stories of 

death and injuring in a perilous journey to evade immigration authorities. He talks 

about the death of a cousin who traveled with him in the late fifties and of the dangers of sleeping night at night in rattlesnake infested fields. He has known of many 

incidents of bodies spotted on route to destinations of work or settlement. It was 

no surprise to Mr. Galvan when the University of Houston’s Center for Immigration 

Studies on ‘‘Death at the US/Mexico Border’’ in March of 1997 released its studies 

of deaths of migrants crossing the US-Mexico border. He, like many others from 

sending communities in countries in Central America and Mexico, can attest to 

friends, family members and other migrants dying as they move clandestinely to 

worksites and hopes of providing a better life for themselves and their families. 

He, like many others, can attest to groups being left by ‘‘guides’’ to wander on 

their own. He, like many others, can attest to family members, friends or neighbors 

held captive until they paid smugglers for their release. He, like many others, can 

attest to family members, friends or neighbors who have never again been heard 

from once they started on route to join family or to seek employment. He, like many 

others, relate the to numerous incidents of deaths, kidnappings, rapes and other violations of human rights and dignity now frequently reported on the myriad of Spanish-speaking media, and now more frequently, by English-speaking media. It is a 

phenomenon integral to the clandestine movement of persons across international 

borders. It is a fact of life for many immigrant communities throughout the United 

States. 

The networks of persons who can cross persons without government 

inspections are known and accessed by immigrant communities. 

Persons who transport those unable to enter with government authority are 

known in immigrant communities in the United States, on the border and in hometowns. Some are relatives or other townspeople. Others are individuals who will provide this service on recommendations of previous customers. Some are offering their 

services in particular places in border towns. Some are linked to legitimate businesses like immigrant transport companies. Some are tied in to other illicit businesses like the drug trade or organized crime. All have grown, flourished and consolidated as avenues for legal migration reduced due to changes in law and border 

enforcement resources and strategies increased and received impetus by the policy 

decisions to stop undocumented migration in the last decade. 

Andrea Delgado, a legal immigrant in Houston, heard from others in the neighborhood of a group of coyotes or smugglers in Brownsville that could cross her 42-

year-old brother from Hidalgo, Mexico; he was finding it increasingly difficult to 

support his wife and five children. She contracted their services and told her brother 

to wait for the contact at the bus station in Matamoros. Her brother called her in 

Houston as soon as he arrived; he told her he carried the four hundred dollars she 

had sent him to pay the smugglers. 

This was November 1988; to date the Delgado family has made extraordinary efforts to find an answer to their brother’s whereabouts both in the United States and 

in Mexico. They have spent an astonishing amount of time and money to attempt 

to locate him in the Rio Grande Valley. Throughout the years, they have paid lawyers and investigators who called them to say that reports of their brother/son have 

been spotted. They have met with numerous laws enforcement officials on both sides 

of the border and none has taken them seriously, even when they filed complaints 

containing the addresses of the remaining members of the smuggling ring. In 1993, 

a few of the leaders of the smuggling operation were jailed for drug trafficking. On 

many occasions, the family and/or Andrea have been threatened by the smugglers 

for continuing their search. 
30

Yet many immigrants contract persons who can safely transport family members. 

Amelia Perez needed her son to be with her after she found stability in selling cosmetic products in Houston. She traveled to the border and made sure the smuggler 

would be one to transport her son in a vehicle and not walk him through the dry 

desert lands. She found one that immigrant networks in Houston said was tied into 

‘‘immigration authorities who looked the other way.’’ Her son arrived safely and now 

works in a trucking company on the docks of the ship channel. 

For many in immigrant communities, the necessity of finding a decent life for 

themselves and their families, joining family members already in the country and/

or escaping political repression makes crossing the border an enterprise that is fundamental to their survival as human beings. Risks and hardships are possible, but 

in general, most understand that smugglers are businessmen and few expect to 

come across those that may fail to meet the terms of service as contracted. They 

have the experience of family, friends and communities that reinforce that most 

clandestine crossings are safe; the risks are less than the want and suffering at 

home. 

The factors driving people to migrate in these conditions outweigh known 

risks and costs in immigrant communities.

Agapito Jaime is a permanent resident who works on remodeling homes. Many 

in his hometown now live and work in Houston. In 2000, three young men on their 

way to join other townspeople died in a locked railroad car near Victoria, Texas, the 

city of the recent, tragic incident in which 19 immigrants lost their lives. Families 

of the town were unwilling to cooperate with the police; they knew the smuggler 

who had locked them in and was responsible for their death and dehydration. They 

feared coming forward; they feared for their safety and those of the families back 

home. Others acted to protect the smuggler from prosecution. 

No one was ever brought to justice. It simply became another story of the town 

immigrants. All knew that they must continue to migrate and simply accepted the 

incident as another story of the townspeople. It is simply explained as a trip that 

went bad. 

From these experiences, the following recommendations are placed for your 

consideration:

The human costs of migration can be reduced by expanding and making more flexible avenues for legal migration. 

The orderly migration of persons and financial disincentives for clandestine operations can be achieved by expanding and making more flexible laws that ensure 

legal migration. People would not migrate illegally if the could do so legally. The 

adoption of measures that coincides with the reality of the movement of people in 

an ever, interlocking global economy has to be made congruent. An overhaul of our 

immigration laws to give that congruency is urgently needed. A few important aspects are: (1)a legalization program that can grant permanent residency of those already here without government permission; (2) changing those aspects of current 

law that impede the adjustment of status creating obstacles to legalization; (3) permitting individual waivers for transgressions; (4) a temporary program for workers 

that guarantee a workers choice of employer, fair employment protections, labor 

rights and options of permanent residency; and (5)finally increases in allocation of 

resources for expediting legal migration and family reunification petitions. 

The human costs of migration can be reduced by developing provisions to encourage persons to come forward and assist in the investigation and prosecution of human commercial smuggling enterprises. 

A safe space for persons who are victims of commercial smuggling operations that 

endanger lives has to be created by legal measures to protect persons and their families, who come forward with information and/or as witnesses. Working permits 

leading to permanent residency will increase the stakes for immigrants who otherwise feel that they gain little by not informing authorities of these situations, especially if they know these are tied to larger, criminal activities. Visas to allow families to also join their loved ones and be protected from harm are also important. 

Working will give the incentive to await the long period required by the investigation and prosecution of those involved in these criminal enterprises. 
31

The human costs of these illicit commercial enterprises can be reduced by increasing public education of the penalties for death and 

injury of persons transported by under these circumstances. 

The multi-billion dollar enterprises that profit from the clandestine movement of 

human beings across international borders must be held accountable for placing persons who have contracted their services in danger. Anyone who engages in these activities must have clear knowledge that actions leading to death or serious injury 

is unacceptable and that these unlawful actions carry with them serious penal consequences. Many town ‘‘guides’’ to ‘‘coyotes’’ have operated relatively unencumbered 

by law enforcement consequences for decades. Heavier penalties for the serious injury or death of those in transport need to be publicize to dissuade persons from 

engaging in crossing human beings illegally and/or placing their lives at risk. Knowing the degree of punishment may dissuade and prevent persons from engaging in 

this illicit activity or at least, to act more responsibly in carrying through on their 

services. 

In conclusion, persons take the risk of entering without government authority in the hopes of bettering their lives and those of their families. The 

choice to move for the opportunity of improving one’s well-being in a 

stronger economy or a more open society is made by individuals responding to the driving forces of labor needs in an ever, integrating international economy. The shortcomings of current immigration law and policy 

that create obstacles to an orderly, safe and legal movement of people 

across international borders to resolve these labor market needs frame the 

context for increasing, the profitability for international commercial enterprises to move persons clandestinely across borders. In the equation, 

human life, rights and dignity are subordinated to profit. It is time to take 

the profit motive out of this illicit activity. It is time to provide legal alternatives of moving across international borders. It is time to reclaim life, 

dignity and rights for all persons.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. We now go to a round of questions for 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

I would like to begin with you Mr. Nun ̃ ez. You make an interesting point near the conclusion of your testimony, and you put this 

discussion into some context. And as the father of four, this is difficult for me to fathom this, the depth of this tragedy, but even 

more so the point that you make in that you point out that those 

that subject themselves and their families to this process, do so voluntarily. And that Mr. Homan made a distinction in his testimony 

between smuggling and human trafficking, in that human trafficking has elements of force and coercion that is not present, to a 

great extent, in smuggling. Is that not true? Is that not true that 

the individuals that put themselves this situation to be smuggled 

in the manner we saw in the film and in the manner that resulted 

in the tragedy in Victoria, TX recently, do so voluntarily. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Absolutely. They are desperate people, obviously. 

They are driven by various forces or attracted by various forces or 

both. They want to leave where they are, and they want to come 

here, but they make that calculation. It is a calculation. I think all 

of us, in one way or another, have recognized that the risk is 

known, it is voluntarily undertaken, but the volunteers, they certainly aren’t hoping that something bad will happen to them in the 

process of it, but, yes, they volunteer, because they realize that if 

they can get past the border, they are home free. And I think the 

main point of my testimony is that our immigration policy is so 

dysfunctional beyond the border because we basically do nothing 

about the 8 million plus that are already here, everyone in Mexico 

or Central America, they know that. They know if they can get 

past the border they are home free. They will get a job, no one is 

going to bother them. The police won’t look for them. The INS or 
32

the new INS, BICE, there is no real interior enforcement capability. If they are lucky, their kids will get a free education, they 

will get medical care, they will get public benefits, they will get 

driver’s licenses, they will get college aid, in-State tuition. We have 

laid out a potpourri of benefits that people in the Third World recognize. So, yes, I will volunteer to take the risk, because I know 

that the reward is tremendous if I can survive. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. You make another point in your written testimony speaking to the issue once you get here, you are ‘‘home free’’ in your words. You say the following, quote, and we need to stop 

the talk of a coming amnesty or a guest working program, both of 

which by themselves serve to encourage additional illegal immigration. What kind of message are we sending when we dangle that 

possibility before people desperate enough to put their lives at risk, 

end quote. 

Do you effectively equate the result of discussion of amnesty with 

the result of a discussion of a guest worker program with regard 

to the attraction of illegal immigration and those willing to put 

themselves and their families in this risk? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. There are some differences. Obviously, amnesty is 

the brass ring. That is the best benefit you can get. Guest worker, 

we have a guest worker program now, but nobody wants to use it. 

The immigration policy, the immigration law in United States provides a number of ways for employers to import workers. Employers don’t want to do it because it is easier to hire illegals. So why 

another guest worker program? We already have guest worker programs for farmers, for any industry. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. Agent Garza, is it correct, as some 

have done, to Blame Border patrol policies for aliens dying while 

trying to cross the border illegally, in your opinion? 

Mr. GARZA. In my opinion, absolutely not. The Border Patrol is 

like any other law enforcement agency. When we see a problem, we 

address it. Naturally, when our strategy calls for moving our resources forward and stopping the flow, the alien or the smugglers 

will move to other areas and in those instances, it is the smugglers, 

not the Border Patrol agents, that put these people in jeopardy. As 

far as the risks are concerned, sometimes the aliens must not know 

the risks, but the smugglers know the risks, and the Border Patrol 

has been involved in these Border Safety Initiatives since 1998. We 

are the most proactive agency in addressing the issues of border 

safety, more than any other agency on either side of the border. We 

have this public information campaign. Recently, after the tragedy 

in Victoria, those handbills that we are passing out to the truck 

drivers, trying to discourage them by educating them as to the consequences of illegal aliens, public service announcements that we 

have had aired in the Republic of Mexico, Central America. And 

the Border Safety Initiatives such as the 1-800 numbers, training 

our people to respond to emergencies and just working, even working with the Mexican Government to raise the awareness every 

which way that we can think of. 

In my sector with the boat patrol, we were one of the first sectors 

that started patrolling the river 24 hours a day. Our agents are not 

there in the middle of the river in boats to arrest people. They are 

there to talk to them on the loud speaker if they are going to enter 
33

illegally or to rescue them they should fall into distress. That is the 

only time our boat patrol people will try to touch an alien. Because 

we don’t want to cause them any harm. But the Border Patrol is 

very active in this area. And absolutely not, I don’t think the Border Patrol is to blame for these tragedies. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Agent Garza. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank to you all 

the witnesses who have presented us challenges today that I think 

we can work together. 

Let me raise questions that I hope will work with helping Mr. 

Garza and Mr. Homan. And Mr. Homan, being part of the investigation, we appreciate the work that was done. That was enormous tragedy. It impacted not only the victims, the immediate victims who lost their lives, but certainly many of their families have 

legal status here in the United States. 

One of the issues that I have come across is the ability to really 

go after, as you have indicated, the smuggling rings, to really go 

after these commercial rings for whatever purposes they may be organized. And I notice that your testimony talks about the overarching, antismuggling-human trafficking strategy requires intelligence-driven investigations against major violators. So you need 

information; is that not correct? 

Mr. HOMAN. Well, under the new agency, ICE brought to bear 

the new integrated and unique authorities from customs, legacy 

INS, Federal Protective Service and Air Marine Interdiction. They 

all have intelligence branches. All those branches are being coordinated, all the information is being shared. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you need to receive information that is my 

question? 

Mr. HOMAN. Right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If we had legislation that would provide extra 

incentives to those victims, to help smash the rings, as I think Ms. 

Jimenez indicated that she went to an apartment, and first it was 

fear, and then they began to provide information, would that be 

helpful in your operations if you could get the family members and 

even the victims to come forward, provide a close contact information right away, would that be helpful? 

Mr. HOMAN. Well, in some cases, the family members do come 

forward now. For instance, in Victoria the Mexican-American community was outraged. Many families came forward through the 

Mexican—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. But extra incentives, would that help others 

who may not have been involved in such a terrible tragedy come 

forward? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. 

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

Garza, I understand that there is a memo from the Department of 

Justice that indicated that there was a utilization in February of 

2002 of some unique technology, AVIAN, I believe it is the Advance 

Vehicle Integration and Notification, has to do with sensoring the 

heart beat, it is technology that has come from the Department of 

Energy, where this equipment would be able to sensor human life 

inside these large—and I saw the large 18-wheeler, huge, obviously 
34

with no ventilation. Is that the kind of technology are you suggesting in the work that you do at the border? When I say you are 

suggesting, would additional technology help you? We are looking 

at technology. I am a Member of the Homeland Security Committee 

that has been to the northern border. We have been to the southern border, at least I have. And I notice that these are busy borders. These are enormous borders. And so we want to ask the question whether additional resources and technology in your hands, 

would that help you detect human cargo, would that not be helpful 

to you? 

This indicated that this technology was used in an experimental 

fashion on February 7th and 8th in 2002. It may not have come 

to your attention, but it has to do with being able to use this sensor 

equipment without even opening the cargo, but being able to do so 

on the basis of suspiciousness. 

Mr. GARZA. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. And absolutely, that 

technology would help us. I am not familiar with this particular 

technology that you are talking about. At our checkpoints, we are 

pressed with high volumes of traffic. We have about 15 seconds per 

vehicle. That is always a concern about how much time you take 

to look at a vehicle. On top of that, we have to comply with the 

laws of search and seizure. As you know, our check points are not 

equivalent of the border. So we have to do things according to the 

rules. Since the tragedy, and now that we are the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the McAllen Border Patrol Sector has 

been using vehicle cargo inspection machines, x-ray machines that 

the Customs Agency Service was using at the ports of entry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So the greater technology would help you? The 

only reason I am asking you that question is it would help? New 

resources? 

Mr. GARZA. No question about it, Congresswoman Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me ask you on the issue of incentives for 

those that would help provide with you information. Because you 

are the law enforcement, you are on the ground, even though you 

are at the border, but you provide information as well, would that 

not provide you a greater opportunity to get this information, help 

smash those rings? 

Mr. GARZA. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just to Ms. Jimenez, Mr. Chairman, 

if I may. The days after the tragedy dealing with Victoria, and you 

have seen many tragedies, and we appreciate the leadership have 

you given to the City of Houston as the Chairman of the City of 

Houston Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugees, in seeing that, what is the key that you gleaned from these individuals 

coming across the border? And the vulnerabilities that they may 

face? How many families did have you to deal with who suffered 

a great loss because of the tragedy that occurred to their family 

members? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. In these particular cases, we deal with them on almost a daily basis. They are not new to immigrant communities. 

This one was very tragic because so many families were involved. 

I would like to just put in perspective the situation of the wellbeing and the responsibility that we do have as a society toward 

ensuring that people’s lives are protected. I hear that, well, it was 
35

people, it was their choice to engage in this activity. We can say 

the same of teenagers who are involved in car accidents, or we can 

say the same of women who choose to be in abusive relationships 

with their spouses. Nonetheless, as a society and the United States 

Constitution, we search for the well-being of persons within our 

borders. And the 14th amendment guarantees those protections to 

all persons. And so in that sense, I did want to put that in perspective. And in dealing with these tragedies on a daily basis because 

we do so and have done so over many, many years, families, you 

know, it was a bad trip. It is a commercial enterprise. It is a necessity to contract these services so that is what people say. It was 

simply a bad trip. They do want the person held accountable. 

The only way I can relate it to you is when a business operation, 

for instance, restaurants doesn’t put its food at the right temperature and all the people in the restaurant become sick and maybe 

some even die, there is a call for accountability of that business 

person, there is a call for accountability within the community for 

those people, but that doesn’t mean people won’t go back to the restaurant, doesn’t mean people won’t engage with another person 

hoping that this time this trip will be a safe one. And I can’t stress 

this, that is why I congratulate Mr. Flake and his colleagues for 

the bill that they have developed because I think it recognizes the 

reality, that integrated relationship, in terms of labor markets in 

Mexico, in the United States and Canada, at least in the three 

countries. 

And the families, like all families in such situations, do go 

through the suffering that any human being does when there is a 

loss of life. But the family will recuperate and others will come. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You think that financial incentives or incentives would help give families more opportunity and encouragement to give information, smash these rings? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I believe that they will help more than the financial incentives, I believe that the incentives are with respect to the 

ability to make a living legally, as they a——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Access legalization. 

Ms. JIMENEZ. As they wait the—because they are long trials. 

They have to work. This is one of the problems that is happening 

with the survivors of the Victoria, increasingly they want to work. 

That is why they came, they have a need to support families back 

home and families here, some of them lived here. And then the 

other issue, of course, is simply how to deal with other people. One 

of the recent cases in Houston, maybe 2 weeks ago, was a safe 

house in my own neighborhood a few blocks from where I live, in 

which the 29 people who were freed from that particular safe house 

are now in quarantine because they had chicken pox. So now, these 

people are frozen in terms of their ability to earn a living and at 

the same time to be able to be useful as witnesses for the Government. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chair for indulging me. That is 

the same legislation that we have dealing about earning access to 

legalization that I am writing as well. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes, Mr. Flake. 
36

Mr. FLAKE. Thank the Chair. Thank the witnesses. Mr. Homan 

and Mr. Garza, whoever is first on this, when someone is caught 

coming across the border, they are taken and their identification is 

taken down through the Ident system, as I understand it. With the 

average person that is caught, how many times have they tried 

previously to come across? I am told that there are records of some 

who have tried dozens and dozens of times who are apprehended 

sometimes and how many times are they caught and simply taken 

back across as opposed to actually prosecuted? 

Mr. GARZA. Thank you, Mr. Flake. It depends on the situation. 

I cannot give you an answer as three times or four times or five 

times. It would depend on the situation and the particular sector 

that you are operating in. If it is an aggravated case, somebody 

who has been a difficult person to apprehend, he could be set up 

for a prosecution or a deportation. Sometimes it is you just catch 

somebody, he is just an illegal entrant, he hasn’t entered in 2 years 

or a year, and he enters again or a span of time maybe five times, 

we will set him up for a prosecution or even a deportation hearing. 

But I can’t give you a specific answer, sir. 

Mr. FLAKE. If you looked at your sector and looked at the records 

on the average, how many times would each person have been apprehended? 

Mr. GARZA. I would say probably about six times. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Homan, are there any figures on—I know we 

have figure on number of apprehensions per day and per month in 

each sector, and we run those against what happened last year and 

what not, what kind of figures or estimate do we have about the 

number of apprehensions, as opposed to number of successful entries if you will, for every person apprehended? How many people 

come across and are not apprehended in some of the sectors you 

are familiar with? 

Mr. HOMAN. I would have to refer that question to Chief Garza 

because they track the number of border crossings. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Garza. 

Mr. GARZA. I am sorry, Mr. Flake, would you repeat the question? 

Mr. FLAKE. For every person that is apprehended, what are the 

figures on the people that cross successfully or are not apprehended, for every person are there two people that come across successfully or is it .5, .25? Mr. Garza, I know you can’t be precise. 

I know there are some figures out there. 

Mr. GARZA. Yes, sir. That is almost an impossible question to respond to because not all our border is under control. In areas 

where the border is under control or where we think we have an 

acceptable level of control, such as in Brownsville, TX, where we 

have the human resources and the technology, and we patrol on a 

routine basis and check for tracks at the known crossings and 

things like that, I could probably say 92 percent. But there are isolated areas such as the west part of my sector, Rio Grande City, 

and up in those areas where we are not totally staffed that I could 

never tell you how many are getting away from us. It is a very, 

very difficult question, and all I could ever do is give you an educated guess. 
37

Mr. FLAKE. In your opinion, Mr. Homan’s as well, would it be 

useful to have a relief valve of some type, where individual workers 

who want to come across, willing workers to come across and then 

return home, where they are getting legal entry, there is a legal 

framework for them, would it make life easier for you actually targeting those who want to come across extralegally or outside of the 

system? 

Mr. GARZA. Are you asking about a guest working program, sir? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Mr. GARZA. We already have a system by which people can enter 

the country such as tobacco farmers, and some of the States I understand that they import foreign labor and things like that. I 

think—I don’t know exactly. I think the difficult thing would be to 

know how many of these people are you going to let in. But of 

course it would always be good if you knew who was entering. That 

is the problem for illegal immigration, you don’t know these people 

who are entering. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Nun ̃ ez, you don’t draw much distinction between 

an amnesty and guest working program. I happen to think there 

is a quite good distinction. If you have, as myself and my colleagues are proposing, a temporary worker program where those 

who are here illegally at present are disadvantaged, assuming their 

ultimate goal is to become a citizen of this country, are disadvantaged relative to those who apply for a similar permit from their 

home country, be it Mexico or Guatemala or elsewhere, is that not 

an incentive to actually return home or not to cross illegally if it 

is a disadvantage to be here illegally in terms of signing up for a 

guest worker program? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Well, I don’t think an employer looks at it that way. 

I think many employers want illegal workers. They don’t want 

guest workers because then they have to play by the rules. And 

many employers don’t want to play by the rules. They want to underpay, mistreat, abuse the workers. So the guest worker program 

will not appeal to at least that group of employers. 

Mr. FLAKE. I would submit, just my time remaining, I would submit that that is say very—there are certainly those, but that is a 

small group. My experience has been that employers out there are 

in legal no man’s land. They are required to take some identification to ensure that the person is here legally. But they can’t ask 

twice or they can’t ask for too much for fear of being sued. It has 

been my experience that employers want to play within the rules. 

They would love to, but it is a very difficult thing right now. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. If they wanted to play within the rules, they could 

apply to bring in workers legally. The law currently allows any employer to do this. 

Mr. FLAKE. With all due respect, we do have some of those programs, H-2-Bs, and some are specific to agriculture or high tech industry. We don’t have a large, comprehensive, portable guest worker program. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Then the solution would be to expand the, expand 

the existing—— Mr. FLAKE. Or create a new categories. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. If you need new categories, but not just open the 

door. 
38

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman from Arizona. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank the panel 

for your testimony. This has been interesting to listen here today. 

I direct my first question to Mr. Homan. First I want to thank 

you for bringing the documentary on the immigrant smuggling that 

is actually—seeing it makes a difference, so we can see how that 

is done. 

As I sit here and listen to this, it reminds me of the Kunta Kinte, 

the series Roots. People are packed in, when they get out, they can 

barely walk. So now slave ships from the south is how I would describe it, in the form of pickup trucks and people packed in like 

sardines. You testified that human smuggling worldwide was about 

a $9.5 billion industry. Do you know how much of that is related 

to the United States itself, of that 9.57 billion? 

Mr. HOMAN. No. I do not. A vast majority. 

Mr. KING. Really. So that would mean certainly over half. So is 

it, could be conceivably $4 and a half to $5 and a half, even more, 

billion? 

Mr. HOMAN. I wouldn’t have the exact figures. Smuggling occurs 

globally in all countries, but the United States is by far the most 

popular destination for smuggled aliens and organizations. 

Mr. KING. Would that be a number that could you provide to this 

Committee? 

Mr. HOMAN. I could get back to you on that. I would have to 

check on that. 

Mr. KING. I would think if that is a quantifiable number, it 

would be broken down Nation to Nation or at least by hemisphere. 

I would be very interested in that and ask you to do that. Then 

the numbers that you have given us, and I see the difference between 17 and 19, two died later in that particular incident, do you 

have an estimate of the annual deaths due to human smuggling 

coming into the United States? 

Mr. HOMAN. Approximately 200 to 300 per year annually. I believe Chief Garza in discussions with him yesterday has the exact 

figure for the last couple fiscal years. 

Mr. KING. Two hundred to 300 is in the region. Then I don’t see 

Mr. Smith here, but I would credit this to him. As he pointed out 

in previous hearings, 20 percent of our prisons are populated by illegal aliens. Would you have any idea how many American citizens 

are murdered on an annual basis by an undocumented or illegal 

aliens? 

Mr. HOMAN. I do not have the exact figures, but I can say that 

criminal aliens pose a great risk to the citizens of this country. 

Mr. KING. The equation of how many are seeking to enter this 

country illegally versus how many citizens murdered by those 

illegals is a legitimate evaluation of our policy. 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much, Mr. Homan. 

Mr. Garza, yours was also very interesting testimony. And the 

way you have utilized resources there in showing the positive results. I particularly appreciate the technology and the methods you 
39

have and also the tone that you presented this with. The fact that 

you are not there necessarily to apprehend but to warn and to take 

care of people. I think Mr. Flake may have asked this question a 

little bit differently, but if we provided those resources and you the 

authority for the entire southern border, by what percentage illegal 

border crossings do you think would be reduced? 

Mr. GARZA. That is a very difficult question. The border is very 

long. We are responsible for the northern border and southern border. In my area, the areas that I have under control, I can tell you 

with some sense of certainty that places like Brownsville, TX, we 

could have about 90 percent effectiveness with the resources that 

we have there. But to try to establish that type of control throughout the Mexican border would be something very, very difficult. Regardless, I think somebody would crack through the line, even if we 

had that many resources. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. Mr. Nun ̃ ez, as I listen to your 

testimony, it struck me that you might be the person to ask this 

question. That is if we continue on the current policy, what does 

America look like to you at 25 and 50 years down the road? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Well, you look at the census projections and again 

depending on what you want America to look like, we are rapidly 

growing past all of the initial projections that the census and demographers predicted back in 1970. So the impact on air quality, 

water quality, you know, environmental issues, how many people 

live in a certain area, I mean those—most people don’t want to live 

in a congested befouled environment. So I am very concerned. Even 

at the number of legal immigrants we are allowing in, I think it 

is way past what is in the national interest at this time in our evolution as a country. It is the highest sustained immigration in the 

history of the country. We are not building transcontinental railroads, we are not trying to settle the Middle West or fill up the 

western half of the country, so I see no rational interest in what 

we are currently doing. 

And I think you can clearly make the case that the more legal 

immigration you have, the more illegal immigration results from 

that because people who come always leave somebody behind. And 

not everybody can come legally, every year, so whoever is left behind, now they have got an anchor in the U.S. somewhere, so it 

just promotes more immigration. And it just never stops. So we are 

clearly headed, I think, in the wrong direction, and the America 

that I see down the road is an overcrowded, unpleasant place to be. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really appreciated the testimony of each of the witnesses. I find 

it very interesting. 

Ms. Jimenez, you have focused a great deal on an issue that is 

a concern to everyone and that is the safety of people that are illegally crossing the border; is that correct? That has been a major 

concern of yours for a long time? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Yes. It has. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you——
40

Ms. JIMENEZ. Yes, that has been a major concern. It was our 

work that asked the University of Houston to do the first study of 

death at the border. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you say then that your concern has been 

to look out for the safety of those that have illegally crossed, illegal 

crossings and the all the potential danger involved in that would 

it be safe to say that have you been one of those campaigning aggressively to encourage people not to illegally cross the border? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. That I—none of us want to cross without Government authorization. If people had an alternative—— Mr. GALLEGLY. Have you been aggressively outspoken in discouraging people from trying to come into the country illegally? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I think that anyone in the immigrant community 

understands, and I myself understand, of the great dangers of 

crossing——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you——

Ms. JIMENEZ.—without documentation. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you—— Ms. JIMENEZ. I don’t think anyone, willingly, wants to contract 

a smuggler, cross borders, deserts, mountains——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms.—Ms.—— Ms. JIMENEZ.—die in the desert or pack in the back of a trailer. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Jimenez, would you say that the fact that we 

have, as we know, millions of people that are in this country illegally, and there is a notion out there, I think as evidenced by the 

witnesses and general knowledge, that the overwhelming majority 

of the people that once they get into this country feel as though 

they are in a pretty safe position because of the lack of interior enforcement or the will to enforce our immigration, whatever that 

issue is, that this provides a great incentive for people to take a 

chance to come across the border; is that a safe assessment? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I believe that people understand that you live in 

fear of an instability in the family and the community if you know 

that Immigration and Naturalization Service will take you at any 

moment. I can give you an example. A week and a half ago my father and I were watching television, we had four agents of the INS 

come into our home—— Mr. GALLEGLY. I think we know that is an exception rather than 

the rule, that otherwise we wouldn’t have 8 or 10 million people 

illegally in the country. Would you say that the fact that many people do believe that once they get here that the biggest hurdle is 

over; is that a safe assessment? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Well, that is——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes or no. 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That being the case, would you say that it would 

be very wise for to us have a very aggressive program to remove 

those that are illegally in the country to remove that incentive, to 

enforce the immigration laws of the country, would you say that 

would be a bad or good idea? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. If you wanted to have a police state, I think that 

is correct. The Mexican community has gone through that during 

the Depression, the repatriation program of the United States in 

cooperation with the Mexican Government. Over half a million peo-
41

ple were repatriated to Mexico. And it is—there are many stories 

of deaths of people—— Mr. GALLEGLY. We are—— Ms. JIMENEZ.—on the repatriation to Mexico. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So in other words, you are basically saying you 

don’t think that would be a good idea. 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I think you should legalize people. People in my 

community, in the immigrant community, when you ask them what 

do we do with the undocumented, they rarely answer deport them. 

Their answer is document them. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If you can illegally get into the candy store, once 

you are there you should be able to take whatever—— Ms. JIMENEZ. I think you should have alternatives of coming in 

legally as a first priority. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If you haven’t done that and you have entered illegally, do you think you should be removed and given an opportunity to be processed legally? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I think you should have an opportunity, demonstrated rewards. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. After or before you have returned to your native 

land? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I think we have a problem of people who are already settled here. I know many people that who have been here 

since 1977, and they still don’t have legal documents. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. People that were here in 1977 had the right to 

apply for amnesty and go through the process, in fact, about 57 

million people did that. 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Not if—I can give you cases in Houston, not if they 

were some shyster who said they would turn in their papers and 

they didn’t. So they missed that opportunity, not necessarily because they didn’t comply, but because having an undocumented 

population is a big business for many, many people and they are 

interested in keeping it that way. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, may I ask one 

short, hopefully, what hopefully will be a very quick——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Jimenez, I think it is commendable you are 

an American citizen. You have pledged your allegiance to this country as an immigrant. I would like to see everyone that is legally 

in this country, aggressively, be willing to pledge their allegiance 

to this country if they are here legally. If they are here illegally, 

I think they should return to their homeland. Could you share with 

the Committee, as an immigrant, how you initially entered the 

United States? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. My father entered legally in 1956. And he brought 

our family legally into the United States in 1957. But at that time, 

it was fairly easy for someone with my father’s skill, he is a machinist to quickly get his legal work done, and it only took us a 

year of petitioning. Now, it take years for a Mexican family to be 

reunited. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman from California. 

The Chair will now entertain a second round of questions and 

will yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, who has 
42

an appointment elsewhere. So we wanted to facilitate her asking 

questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Homeland Security Legislation is on the floor, and I am on that Committee, and 

I thank you very much for your, again, for your indulgence. 

Let me pursue. Ms. Jimenez, as you well know, we are writing 

legislation, in particular, on trying to smash smuggling rings and 

bring a real answer to this concern. The Jackson Lee Legislation 

in particular has a provision that deals with the new class of nonimmigrant aliens even the ability to earn access to legalization. 

Would that be a viable tool to deal with individuals who are not 

trying to come to do harm to the United States, but, in fact, are 

coming to fill in many of the gaps in the workforce that are here 

in this country? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Legalization and permanent residency, for those already here and in the future, is probably the most effective method 

combating these type of operations. Even the billions of dollars that 

are reaped by these commercial enterprises could easily be reoriented toward the U.S. Treasury because immigrants are willing to 

pay $1,500, $2,000, every time they cross. And have demonstrated 

that they——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So that nonimmigrant status would be helpful, in this portion of the bill that I am writing, would be helpful? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Yes, that would be helpful. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the incentives to provide to families to 

provide information to the source, the actual source, the culprits, 

would that be helpful as well? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. It would provide an incentive for many people to 

come forward that other wise don’t. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I might, I would ask to have an article 

dated Sunday, June 17, 2003, in the New York Daily News, I believe refugees still held captive by red tape. I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to include this in the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It begins: Michael Chin vividly remembers the 

Golden Venture as if it were yesterday. He will never forget the 

rats, the rations and his thirst for freedom. Michael Chin happened 

to be a Chinese-American, and he came in on the infamous Golden 

Venture June 6, 1993. To date, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chin is married, and owns a restaurant that many Americans are eating in in 

this part of this country. I think the point should be made that the 

immigrants have come to serve a working process or purpose. We 

understand our responsibility to our borders and to our Nation, but 

we have got to find a balance. Let me ask, Mr. Nun ̃ ez, your history, 

knowledge of this country, were we not built on the work and the 

influx of immigrants in many ways? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Certainly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is—I thank you very much. I want to put 

that on the record. Let me go again to Mr. Garza. And simply say 

that in the course of working on the Border Patrol, as you well 

know, I have had legislation to increase professional development, 

to provide more resources. And I think with Chairman Rogers, formerly of the Committee that deals with this and Ranking Member 

Serrano, all of us and dollars have come to the Border Patrol, I 
43

think, and we have tried to increase your numbers. In the course 

of seeing the kind of individuals coming across the border, the 

southern border, are these the kinds of individuals that—we must 

be astute and learned—I am not disregarding that there are by and 

large terrorists that are inclined to do harm to this Nation. What 

are you finding in your work? 

Mr. GARZA. Ms. Jackson Lee, thank you. The majority of the people that the Border Patrol encounters are economic refugees. They 

are looking for a better way of life. However, we do have a criminal 

alien situation. And in my sector, we are running a pilot program 

with a system called IAFIS. And we are doing that since January. 

We have had about 10,000 searches into this program. We have hit 

on about 800 criminal aliens, but most of the people that are coming in are coming in to look for a better way of life. But we do have 

a criminal alien element that is of great concern to many areas of 

our country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, therefore, if we were to provide you legislation that would give you the added incentives, not you, but added 

technology, as I have indicated in previous question that you are 

not familiar with it, but it is in a Department of Justice memo that 

this technology was used in an experimental basis, I do know the 

timing question is an issue but I think that with your expertise, 

you can tell the suspicious looking 18-wheelers versus the others. 

And then with laws that might provide extra incentives to those 

who would give information to help get at the source of the smuggling rings would be helpful as we move to smash these rings? 

Mr. GARZA. This technology has been a great help, like IAFIS 

and the extra machines such as are depicted in the picture there, 

for checking those 18-wheelers are a big boost to us, although those 

x-rays machines are not ours, they belong to the Customs Agency 

Service. We are looking to try to acquire them, and surely, they 

would increase our capabilities of doing a better job. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just close by saying that I know that 

the Chair is familiar with this issue. I thank him for his good work. 

I know that you are working with some of these individuals who 

have suffered, but I wanted to acknowledge that these were from 

China who were involved in this. They have lived, I think, legally 

and respectfully here since 1993, and they are trying to overcome 

red tape to get where they need to be. But they are serving in their 

community, and they are serving their country, frankly, and they 

love this country. They simply want to be able to access legalization. These are the kinds of problems that we need to try and solve. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this very, very, I think, 

effective hearing. Very instructive. Many of us will have legislative 

initiatives that will be moving through the Congress. We hope that 

they will be bipartisan legislative initiatives that we can work on 

and ensure that we solve this problem in a fair and just manner. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Garza, a couple of times we have been talking about technology today, as a result of Ms. Jackson Lee’s questions, and if you 

could, just briefly for the record, discuss and describe the tech-
44

nology associated with the card that is up here with the plate that 

we have. 

Mr. GARZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the checkpoints that we operate in Falfurrias, Texas, and 

Sarita, we have a tremendous volume of 18-wheelers that come 

there on a daily basis. An 18-wheeler is nothing more than a container on wheels. These vehicles are very, very difficult to check. 

They are loud, they are high, and an officer cannot look in the cab. 

Our dogs do a great job of detecting loads of contraband that may 

be hidden anywhere on that 18-wheeler. 

In this particular case, you are seeing some aliens up on the air 

dam that we would probably not have caught unless we had these 

x-ray machines that are presently on loan to us from the port of 

entry. They belong to the Customs Service. 

Now, we are the same agency. Because of the merger we were 

able to get them to assist us and provide those x-ray machines for 

us. They are doing a great job for us. But, in some of those cases, 

I feel that if we did not have that technology we probably would 

not have been able to make those cases. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Agent Garza. 

Mr. Nun ̃ ez, there has been some discussion about the 

incentivizing of individuals to help in the apprehension and prosecution of smugglers and to destroy smuggling rings. The folks at 

the Border Patrol, Agent Garza has supplied us with some of the 

leaflets and other postings that have been done by the Border Patrol with regard to disincentivizing those that might take part in 

the process of smuggling illegal aliens into the country; and that 

is available also as a card, as a placard that is being displayed 

right now. 

There are already incentives in the law to allow individuals to 

help in the prosecution of and apprehension of smugglers, prosecution of smugglers, and the destruction of smuggling rings. Is that 

not correct? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Well, yes, there are some. The biggest, I suppose, incentive is that, at least for those people who are themselves here 

illegally, there is the incentive that they won’t be prosecuted for 

having come here illegally or remaining illegally. In fact, you know, 

during the 20 years of my time prosecuting cases, we did not have 

that particular—the proposed incentive, and we really didn’t have 

any problem prosecuting alien smuggling cases. 

There is one other issue that you always have to deal with, and 

we—again, we see this in drug cases and tax cases. That is, that 

if you provide an incentive to a witness, that has to be disclosed. 

Now the jury is—and the defense attorney is obviously going to 

try to impeach that witness by saying, well, you are just testifying 

so that you will get amnesty;and it would be a great fear that we 

would have to deal with, that people would come forward—people 

that are here illegally would come forward to point their finger at 

some neighbor that they didn’t like, saying, hey, this guy is a 

smuggler or he has been involved in smuggling; now give me my 

amnesty. 

So you have to figure out a way to make that incentive not lead 

to perjury and obstruction of justice and other more difficult problems. 
45

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. 

Ms. Jimenez, there has been discussion today about various programs to normalize, regularize illegal immigrants into our society 

and give them status. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986—I was not here during that process, but my understanding 

is that there was a lot of discussion that it would reform and control immigration and especially control illegal immigration. 

But, today, as we have heard testimony today, and the statistics 

tells us that we have record levels of legal immigration and we 

have record levels of illegal immigration; and if we would pass legislation that would create some new form of legalizing of those that 

are here in the country illegally, isn’t it—or isn’t it our history that 

this would not stop illegal immigration, that there would still be 

those who would seek to enter the country illegally? And if we 

charged people coming into the country, if the Government charged 

them $1,500 to come here, then smugglers would charge a thousand dollars to came here, and if we charged a thousand, they 

would charge $750, and there would always be this incentive for 

the illegal immigration process to continue? Is that not right, given 

the history? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I think that if you also—beside the reform of immigration law—look for ways to expand economic opportunity in countries of origin—one of the things I think that is usually missed, 

whether the immigrant is undocumented or not, is that the person 

is also an agent of development in the sense that the billions of dollars sent home build communities. But they do not build them to 

the degree that we need to build them in order to develop sustainable economies that will allow for opportunities south of the border, 

if we are talking about Latin America. 

So I think that, coupled with that, and not just immigration reform alone as a unilateral action, one can begin to see that legalization does minimize the need for a smuggler simply because you 

don’t need to contract, you come in perfectly without any problem. 

And I think that the reason that smuggling rings particularly have 

consolidated into multi-billion dollar operations at this point is because it is much, much more difficult to cross borders. 

Again, these are studies done by the University of Pennsylvania. 

Doug Massey has studies on this issue. They were not as necessary 

10 years ago as they have become, because of border fortification. 

So legalization will ease that pressure, and I think particularly 

the lead that many of the representatives in Congress of Arizona 

have taken is because I think that they have observed that, no 

matter how much we try to correct after the incident happens, that 

there is a benefit in preventing it from happening and that one of 

those avenues is mechanisms of legal migration, whether they be 

temporary workers, as described in the bill that Mr. Flake has, or 

permanent residency, as the one that Ms. Jackson Lee has. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes himself for an additional 

minute. 

I want to follow up. My question dealt mainly with immigration 

into the country. The idea of bettering the economic status of other 

nations is an issue of jurisdiction of another Committee. My concern is immigration into the country. The experience says that amnesty does not work, and I guess what I should say is regularizing 
46

those that are here illegally does not work. It, in fact, has created— I think the statistics would show very easily that it has created an 

incentive to expand illegal entry into this country. 

So it sounds to me like what you are talking about is not limited 

legalization of those that are here but a process whereby there is 

essentially endless legal—and limitless legal immigration into the 

country for anyone in the world that wants a better life for themselves. Is that what you are suggesting? 

Because we cannot control the issues of other countries, their 

economic destinies, their political destinies, we are asking—you are 

asking, you are suggesting limitless and endless—and when I say 

endless, I mean no end with regard to chronology or time period— immigration to our country until we reach a critical mass where 

most—where everyone that wants a job in the world can get and 

has gotten a job in the world in the United States of America. Is 

that what I am hearing? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Well, if I understand from population studies of the 

United Nations, the people—worldwide, the population movements, 

the United States receives 1 percent of those movements. So I 

think first we have to understand the percentage that actually do 

move to this country. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If I can. And we constitute 4 percent of the 

world’s population. That means a 25 percent increase in the population of the United States. So you are right with regard to percentage of the world overall. You are correct. But with regard to the 

growth of the United States itself, you are suggesting and the 

United Nations is suggesting 25 percent growth of the United 

States every year. 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Well, I am not a population expert, so I can’t—I 

only know facts which are published and known and in many testimonies I am sure that you have had before. But I would like to sort 

of, as part of this dialogue, recommend that we do engage in a 

more serious study as to the effects of populations and economic 

growth. 

One of the arguments that is always placed forth publicly by one 

of our city council people and Mayor Pro Tem Gordon Quan in 

Houston is that if you do take all of the population of the United 

States and put them in California and Nevada, we still do not have 

the density of the population that Japan has. Yet, nonetheless, 

Japan has economic growth and development. 

So there are different issues that perhaps I cannot answer because I am not a population expert, but I think it is worth exploring and dialoguing about to understand that relationship between 

population growth and movement of people. 

The case we are making is for the case of particularly the population that is most—or when NINA says that 1.9 percent of the 

people arrested for being undocumented are Mexican Nationals, 97 

percent of them are Mexican Nationals, that there is at least a case 

for regulating the entry and exit of persons between Mexico and 

the United States and Canada. It has already been designed in 

terms of free trade agreements as partner countries, and labor 

market integration should be one of those goals. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Flake, for 5 minutes. 
47

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. 

I think that—I appreciate the testimony of everyone here and the 

perspective that each of you bring to this. 

I think it is important that when we talk about regularizing or 

we throw terms around like amnesty or guest work or whatever 

that we be precise in what we mean by that. The legislation that 

I and my colleagues have introduced or will introduce very soon is 

not amnesty in any way, shape or form. 

Amnesty is saying that, if you are here, that we are going to regularize you and make you legal or let you leap-frog over others in 

the process to become a legal permanent resident and thereafter a 

citizen. 

The legislation that we contemplate, that we will introduce, actually penalizes someone for being here illegally. They have a tougher 

track to legal permanent residence and then citizenship if that 

track is what they choose to take. So it is actually a disincentive 

to be here illegally. 

But we also recognize—and I think sometimes this is lost on people—that not everyone who comes here wants to become a legal 

permanent resident and thereafter a citizen. A good portion of 

those who come here, particular from Mexico, simply want to make 

life better for themselves in Mexico. They can only do that by earning money and sending it home to their families. 

When we look at the figures, the long-term data, the migration 

studies that been done—and I mentioned before we used to have 

a largely circular pattern of migration. Those who had come here 

stayed an average of 2.6 years. Now, because of increased border 

enforcement, it is more difficult to come. They stay an average of 

6.6 years. 

A good number—certainly there are people who come here who 

want to become citizens. It is the American dream. A lot of people 

want it. Others simply want to make a life better for themselves 

in their home country and want to send money home to do that. 

So I think we ought to look in totality and look at the long-term 

history that we have with immigration and recognize that not everything we associate with one group of people applies to another, 

that there are differing needs that migrants have. 

Ms. Jimenez, I was interested in your testimony. Do you see—

if you have a policy, if you have a guest worker program that does 

not give advantage to those that are here illegally right now, if 

they are not advantaged by being here illegally, do you see that as 

a way to encourage people to come over, rather than apply for a 

similar type of work permit from their home country, which would 

actually give them that advantage to somebody who is here illegally? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. It is difficult for me to answer that question because I don’t think immigrants or people who migrate think of, I 

am going to move because there is going to be a legalization program, and that is going to benefit me. People move whether there 

is or there isn’t. They will contract smugglers in order to come. 

There are other factors which motivate the people, the reasons 

people come in or out. Now, immigrants have been willing in the 

past to pay penalties such as the penalties by—required by those 

in 245(i). They were significant amounts, a thousand dollars per 
48

person; and they were willing to pay it per person and family. So 

those practices are acceptable in immigrant communities. 

Is there an advantage? I think what we are saying is that it 

doesn’t make much sense to work out a temporary worker program 

that does not include the protection of rights as well as the option 

for legal permanent residency of those that are not in the country 

if you already have so many within the country that don’t have 

legal status. 

Again, I don’t think this is the motivating factor for why people 

migrate. That is the essence of criminality around undocumented 

migration, is because the motivations are other than legal status. 

Otherwise, if it was there, people would access them; if they are 

not, people still come. 

Mr. FLAKE. I want to associate myself with the comments made 

by the Chair with regard to the Immigration Reform and Control 

Act of 1986. I think it was an unmitigated disaster, in that you 

granted amnesty and you encouraged people to came here for that 

purpose; and that is why I think, moving ahead, we need to distinguish. Like I said, words are important. We need to make sure that 

we have policies that actually don’t encourage that but rather policies that recognize why people want to came here. 

I thank the Chair. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The gentlelady from Texas made the remark that we have to find 

a balance to this policy I was raised in a different school, if something is wrong, it is wrong; if it is right, it is right. Sometimes you 

can’t balance between two opposing positions, and this may be one 

of those. I mean, I can hear clear divisions between this panel in 

the remarks made by the testimony. 

But she also asked the question pointedly, I think, of Mr. Nun ̃ ez 

that was this Nation built by immigrants? I heard an answer in 

the affirmative. It was you, Mr. Nun ̃ ez? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. So the question I would pose would be, 

Ms. Jimenez, do you agree with that comment, that this Nation 

was built by immigrants? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And then could you name me a nation that 

was not built by immigrants? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I guess, previous to the greatest migration to the 

Americas, the European migration, I suppose the Aztec nation or 

the Inca nation. 

Mr. KING. They migrated across the Bering Straits, according to 

any anthropologist. 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Well, thousands of years earlier. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

I will just go down the panel. Mr. Nun ̃ ez. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. One modification to my answer. Basically, this country was built on legal immigration; and I think that is a huge distinction when we are talking about this particular issue. We had 

no immigration laws really until 1882. Everybody came legally. 
49

Then, even after that, most of the people camelegally up until 

1965. 

Mr. KING. While I have you, can you name a nation that was not 

built by immigrants? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. No, I think Mexico is another nation—all of the 

countries of the Western Hemisphere today, obviously, were taken 

over or populated or colonized or—pick your word—by European 

powers. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Nun ̃ ez. 

Mr. Homan. 

Mr. HOMAN. I do not know of any, sir. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. Garza. 

Mr. GARZA. I don’t know of any, sir. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

I appreciate having that in the record, that none of us can name 

a nation that was not built by immigrants. That is the typical 

mantra that we hear over and over again is that this nation was 

built by immigrants. It was. We need to respect and appreciate the 

efforts and the contributions made by immigrants. But it is worldwide phenomena, and no nation can shed itself from that history. 

We need to construct a nation that is built upon a wisdom that 

goes beyond that statement. 

Let me see. Ms. Jimenez, you know, as I listened to your testimony, you made some remarks, including ‘‘that by no means are 

we calling for open borders’’ would be one of them; and ‘‘that we 

respect the need to maintain sovereignty’’ is another one. 

Some of your testimony seemed to be somewhat inconsistent with 

those statements, so I would pose to you this question: What, in 

your estimation, would be an appropriate number of immigrants to 

allow into the United States through any means, total, between 

legal and illegal immigration? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I leave that up to you. What we do know, though, 

is that the current framework of immigration law creates a great 

deal of obstacles for people in terms of adjusting their status as 

well as in, like in my case——

Mr. KING. However they come here, there are obstacles, that is 

certainly true, and I think you have testified to that very well. But 

how would you propose—if we have a legitimate obligation and a 

right to maintain our sovereignty and control our borders and have 

a limitation on immigration policy, which I think we concur that 

is a logical thing, then how would you propose that we maintain 

those limits? What would you do to enforce our laws? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. Well, I think that if people—I—first of all, I do 

think there is a case for allowing the right of mobility between the 

nations that are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement 

to begin. 

Mr. KING. Are you referring to enforcement by——

Ms. JIMENEZ. Well, just taking another example of the Americans, the Mercosur agreement, in which the eight member countries of the Mercosur have agreed to basically allow its nationals 

to work as temporary residents for 2 years in any of the member 

nations——
50

Mr. KING. Neither does that sound to me like enforcement or limitations. I am asking you, would you propose any method or would 

you support any means by which we would limit or enforce our border laws? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I believe that, in the case of the three countries, 

we do need to look at ways of permitting mobility. 

Mr. KING. Rather than enforcement? So you don’t want to go 

down the path of enforcement with me. But you have advocated or 

at least suggested that the population density of Japan is certainly 

greater than that of the Southwest, and that that would be something that seems to be acceptable in your view. Would that also be 

acceptable for the United States as a whole to reach that kind of 

population density that Japan has? 

Ms. JIMENEZ. I clarified that I wasn’t a population expert. What 

I suggested was that we needed to look, as part of this dialogue, 

which I am thankful that this Committee has taken the initiative 

to begin this dialogue, as to all of the elements in terms of economic growth of countries, that we look at the example of Japan. 

Perhaps the Committee could subsequently hold hearings with people who are demographic experts in it as well as other experts that 

deal with these types of issues, but I think that it is a consideration for those people who preoccupy—or are preoccupied with 

numbers in terms of population. 

Mr. KING. Ms. Jimenez, I do want to thank you for that. That 

is a legitimate response to my question. It is something that should 

be put on the table and considered, along with a whole series of 

the demographics that we have to consider—population density, 

the load on our resources, on our environment, on our law enforcement, on our health care, on our transportation industries, and our 

entire infrastructure. The pressure and the changes that will inevitably take place in the culture of this country versus the culture 

of the donor countries, all of these things need to be considered as 

we set forth on our national policy. Because, as we look back 25 

years and see what kind of country it was then and what that policy brought forth with immigration policies that we have today, we 

need to be able to project that into the future. 

There are very weighty decisions to be made, and those decisions 

are something that I don’t hear this Congress really looking at or 

discussing. I appreciate all of the input that has come out here 

today. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Gallegly, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry Sheila isn’t here, but I know that Mr. King and others 

have referred to the question that she asked of Mr. Nun ̃ ez as it related to the contribution that immigrants make. 

Let’s face it. We are the greatest country on the face of the earth, 

and we are a country of immigrants. We are also a country of laws. 

We allow more people the legal right to immigrate to this country 

every year than all of the rest of the countries in the world combined, and I support that. 

I think it was Father Hesburg—and someone correct me if I am 

wrong—that said one of greatest threats that we have to our immi-
51

gration in this country is the fact that the front door is being 

threatened to be closed because the back door is off the hinges; and 

that is something that I think that we have to be very, very careful 

about. 

We have a situation in California, my home State. The Golden 

State, the beautiful State of California, $40 billion in red ink. We 

have a governor that very likely will be recalled, the first time in 

history. Very few have been willing to step up to the plate and 

identify one of the principal reasons that the State of California is 

facing bankruptcy. 

We look at the issues of health care, education, criminal justice. 

And the issue of criminal justice, Mr. King asked the question 

about how many illegal immigrants are in prison. Well, I happen 

to know that, on a Federal basis, my understanding is 26 percent 

of the Federal penitentiary population, the people are in that penitentiary for committing a crime that has nothing to do with their 

immigration status, yet they are illegally in the country. 

In my home county of Ventura I am told by the district attorney 

that 50 percent of the cases where he puts people in jail for committing a crime, they are people that are illegally in the country. 

The illegal immigrant population in Los Angeles, and to a large 

degree the entire State of California, are using our emergency 

rooms and trauma centers not for emergency care but for general 

health care. Emergency rooms are closing every day. We are in an 

absolute crisis with health care in California. 

The wisdom of our legislature in the State of California is denying an American citizen that might have lived in California all of 

their life, transferred to another State for a year because of business, their child moves back to California and is required to pay 

in-State—or out-of-State tuition at $18,000 or $20,000 a year. If 

you are illegally in the State or if you are illegally in the country, 

you pay $600 or $700, as compared to $20,000 for a citizen. 

These are issues that are creating tremendous problems in California and across the Nation. This is no longer limited to California. Illegal immigration is an issue that someone is going to 

have to be bold enough to stand up and not be mean spirited but 

for the good of the country and for everyone involved identify this 

as a real problem. 

Mr. Homan, a question that I have for you. We have talked a lot 

about the integrity of the border today; and, of course, the purpose 

of this hearing has to do with the smuggling of people across the 

border. But I think that we also have focus on why people are coming here to start with, because if there was no need there wouldn’t 

be a smuggling problem. 

Do we have the will, do we have the resources, and do we have 

any form of commitment to interior enforcement? Because I firmly 

believe that the issue of interior enforcement is every bit as important as border enforcement. Because if you have don’t have a magnet, vis-a-vis jobs, benefits and so on and so forth, there is no reason to come. People don’t come to the wonderful State of California 

because of our beautiful beaches. There are beautiful beaches in 

many of the countries that they come from. 

Could you address that? 
52

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. I have been enforcing immigration laws for 19 

years. I started in the Border Patrol, and I have been a special 

agent for the past 15 years. As a street agent, not a policymaker, 

I can tell you that interior enforcement has not received the resources the Border Patrol has. Interior enforcement under the legacy INS was not a priority. 

I can honestly say under this new structure we now have an organizational structure and operational support through ICE, 

through the leadership of the Assistant Secretary, Michael Garcia, 

and Director of Operations, Michael Dougherty. I can tell you that 

investigators in this country under ICE are excited about our new 

structure and by our new strategy. I can honestly say. As an investigator in the field, Operation No Mercy in Victoria, TX. Was a 

clear example of how this new integrated authority from all of 

these legacy agencies came together. 

INS now has ability to do data analysis, telecommunication 

intercepts. We bring our experience of alien smuggling to the table. 

This agency I think will excel in interior enforcement in the future, 

like the legacy INS was not allowed to. 

Resources are always an issue. Legacy INS had approximately 

2,000 interior enforcement special agents. After 9/11, the Border 

Patrol saw a huge augmentation in resources. Internal enforcement 

has seen nothing. Under this new integration, we now have about 

5,500 special agents. We are going through an assessment period 

now of finding out, do we have enough resources to attack the 

issues? 

The strategy is being put in place now, for the incident response 

teams, the proposed command coordination center that we are 

going to set up for incident response teams. So in the next few 

months we are going to find out what our resource issue is. But, 

right now, I can tell you we are in better shape now than we were 

with the legacy INS. The leadership that we have now is much better than the leadership I have ever seen in the past. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent for 20 seconds. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Homan, again, for the record, we know that 

the budget has been tripled for INS over a period of 10 or 12 years. 

We know that interior enforcement for the last at least—I don’t 

know how many years—5 or 6 years has been almost nonexistent. 

For the record, are you absolutely convinced that there is going to 

be a more aggressive enforcement on our interior for the purposes 

of removing people, criminal or otherwise, that are illegally in the 

United States? 

Mr. HOMAN. Since the integration of ICE, I can tell you the attitude, the strategy, the leadership has changed. They are more dedicated to interior enforcement than I have ever seen in 19 years. 

Am I convinced we will be successful? We will be a lot more successful than we have been in the past. 

Will we need resources? Of course. We are dealing with—you 

know, in San Antonio alone last year, we processed nearly 10,000 

criminal aliens. We did that with a staff of 50 agents, half of them 

dedicated to nothing but the jails and the prisons. That leaves another 25 agents to investigate anti-smuggling investigations, work-
53

site enforcement initiatives such as Operation Tarmac, fraud investigations such as the sale of fraudulent documents on the street, 

visa fraud, people entering the country through visa fraud. 

One of the things that can help us is I think is this Government 

needs to send a message: If you enter this country illegally, we got 

to stop dangling this carrot of amnesty and guest worker programs. 

If there is a legislation on guest worker programs, I am hoping 

it is open to the people in Mexico to enter the United States, not 

giving the opportunity to people that are illegally in the United 

States. Because in my 19 years I have interviewed literally thousands of aliens that I have personally arrested; and they are all 

looking for that amnesty. They are all looking for that guest worker 

program. 

So, hopefully, in this legislation—I haven’t seen the legislation, 

but, hopefully, they take that into account. Because as long as that 

carrot is being dangled, we are going to continue having immigration problems. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for a very, 

very good hearing. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman from California. 

The Chair wishes to inform the Committee that the record will 

stay open for 7 days for any additions that Members would like to 

make. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for your very excellent testimony and your assistance in this matter. It is our hope that the 

situation that took place in Victoria, TX, is not repeated, for the 

sake of those that may be impacted. I thank you for all of your 

input that you have given today. It has been very helpful to the 

Committee. 

The business of the Subcommittee being completed, this hearing 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN STEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION FOR

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

This statement outlines FAIR’s views on the causes and tragic consequences of 

nearly unchecked illegal immigration, including the growing development of alien 

smuggling operations.

BACKGROUND

Illegal crossing of international borders has always been dangerous, as tragically 

recorded in the shooting deaths of persons fleeing persecution at the Berlin Wall. 

Fortunately, this cruel era is behind us, but accidental deaths continue to occur at 

the U.S.-Mexican border and elsewhere. Too often we learn of illegal migrants who 

drown or in past years were hit by vehicles as they ran across the border highway 

in San Diego. 

Today the incidence of tragic deaths in urban areas has declined as the Border 

Patrol has regained control over illegal entry into what were once the primary corridors for illegal immigration. The pattern has now shifted to deaths in new rugged 

areas far from population settlements. At the same time this pattern of illegal entry 

has come to be associated much more with the operations of alien smugglers than 

in the past. Alien smuggling has become a major business in Mexico, and it operates 

as well on the U.S. side of the border, as was tragically demonstrated in recent instances of the deaths of illegal immigrants in Victoria, Texas, in highway accidents, 

and in rail cars used to transport illegal aliens into the interior of our country. 

UNITED STATES AND MEXICO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRAGIC LOSSES

It is clear that this ongoing loss of life of illegal immigrants is a challenge to our 

immigration law enforcement authorities to find means to ameliorate the danger 

without at the same time abrogating their responsibility to uphold the law. It seems 

obvious that the current level of continuing illegal immigration across the MexicanU.S. border would not continue at the current level if the Mexican government were 

to adopt an active and continuous policy of identifying, apprehending and prosecuting alien smugglers. Recent campaigns announced by the Mexican government 

towards this end should be carefully watched to see if they are successful and sustained. 

The responsibility to deter illegal immigration to the United States does not, however, lie entirely with Mexico. For example, every time local, state, or federal policymakers take steps or announce plans for some form of amnesty through a new 

guestworker program, offer cut-rate college tuition for illegal aliens graduating from 

American public schools, or otherwise act to make life easier for illegal resident 

aliens, the result is always the same. Predictably, that result is new waves of illegal 

aliens, more death on our desert border, and more death at the hands of alien and 

drug smugglers. Similarly, our efforts to diminish the magnet of easy access to jobs 

in the United States have been deficient. 

UNITED STATES MUST EFFECTIVELY COUNTER THE WORK MAGNET

Congress recognized in 1986 that to deter illegal immigration it is necessary to 

deny access by illegal workers to U.S. jobs and adopted the employer sanctions system to discourage employers through penalties from knowingly hiring illegal alien 

workers. Ten years later Congress acknowledged that the system had a major loophole because employers had no way to verify the identity and employment eligibility 
56

documents that new employees were required to show their employer. The result 

was the establishment of the pilot verification projects. The Basic Pilot project has 

been operated on a test basis since then, has been evaluated by outside contractors, 

and has been found to be successful with only minor glitches. 

Congress last year reauthorized the Basic Pilot and other test verification studies 

for another two years even before having received or studied the project evaluation. 

Thus, unless Congress acts more expeditiously, the issue of deciding to adopt the 

document verification system as a national mandatory system for all new employees 

will not be on the agenda for at least another year or two. 

FAIR believes that the delay in adopting document verification to correct the primary deficiency of the employer sanctions system is unconscionable, especially when 

seen in light of the loss of human life that results from the continuing strong magnet of easy access by illegal alien workers to U.S. jobs. We urge members of the 

Subcommittee to shortcut the delay built into the reauthorization of the study of the 

Basic Pilot verification system and to initiate legislation to implement it at the earliest possible date as a national mandatory system. 

It is clear that this will not entirely deny work opportunities to illegal alien workers. However, it will remove the job magnet for all employers who are unknowingly 

hiring illegal aliens as a result of counterfeit documents, and that is the vast majority of all jobs taken by illegal alien workers. When that is achieved, it will be much 

easier to concentrate the enforcement capability of immigration inspectors on those 

employers who continue to knowingly hire and exploit illegal alien workers. Prosecutions will become much easier when the defense of claiming to be unaware of the 

status of the illegal alien workers is no longer available. 

Those defending a dependence on illegal alien workers are sure to claim that large 

sectors of the economy would collapse if illegal alien workers were removed. While 

it is true that some sectors of the economy, e.g., seasonal crop agriculture, have become addicted to illegal alien workers, that does not mean that the economic sector 

would confront disaster if illegal aliens were cut off from filling those jobs. 

First, the inception of document verification by employers would apply only to all 

new employees. So only newly applying illegal aliens would be denied jobs. Illegal 

alien workers who are already employed would be denied employment only when 

they changed jobs. Thus the weaning process would be gradual. 

Secondly, weaning these sectors of the economy from their dependence on illegal 

alien labor is necessary to restore the effective operation of the law of supply and 

demand to the sectors. If the employers in these sectors are unable to recruit legal 

workers for the wages that they have been paying—which in inflation adjusted 

wages are lower than were paid thirty years ago—they will have to offer higher 

wages to this most poorly paid segment of the U.S. workforce. 

Third, the operation of document verification will put employers on a level playing 

field that has been absent for a long time. Today, an employer who wants to have 

a stable workforce by attempting to avoid hiring illegal alien workers by verifying 

valid Social Security numbers with the SSA, may face unfair competition from a 

competitor who, because of the profit motive, chooses to turn a blind eye toward the 

likelihood that illegal alien workers are on the payroll. This tends to penalize the 

responsible employer and reward the unscrupulous employer. 

Finally, the on-going discussion of a new guestworker agreement to deal with the 

millions of illegal alien workers from Mexico and elsewhere ignores the fact that 

there is already a guestworker program designed to provide access by U.S. employers when they can demonstrate that they are unable to attract U.S. workers at the 

prevailing wage. In a period of contraction of the illegal alien worker population, 

there would be no reason that the H-2a and H-2b visa programs could not be used 

increasingly with only minor modification during the period of weaning away from 

illegal alien labor. 

The objective would be to assure that temporary workers supplant illegal alien 

workers. The obvious benefits would include combating the exploitation of illegal 

alien workers and assuring a regulated and an orderly flow of foreign workers while 

avoiding the costs and dangers of entering the country illegally through smuggling 

operations. An added benefit would be that the job contracting process would assure 

that U.S. workers are not discriminated against by being undercut by illegal alien 

workers. 

To summarize, both Mexico and the United States share a joint responsibility to 

combat the alien smuggling operations that increase the jeopardy for aliens attempting to illegally enter our country. Congress can make a major contribution to deterring illegal immigration and channeling foreign workers into temporary legal work 

programs by establishing the Basic Pilot document verification program as a national mandatory system without further delay. This will not only combat illegal immigration, it will reduce alien smuggling and the attendant risks to the illegal 
57

aliens, and it will put U.S. employers on a level playing field in which the law of 

supply and demand is restored as the principal means for deciding the earnings of 

U.S. workers.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Last week, prosecutors indicted 14 people who allegedly organized or facilitated 

the smuggling incident that ended on May 14th when a crowded trailer was found 

abandoned at a truck stop in Victoria, 100 miles southwest of Houston. The 14 were 

charged with various counts of conspiracy to conceal or transport immigrants. 

Twelve could face the death penalty if prosecutors decide to pursue it. More than 
67

70 immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and the Dominican Republic were 

crammed into the tractor-trailer. Among the dead was a 5-year-old boy from Mexico. 

Seventeen immigrants died at the scene, and 2 others died later. 

According to U. S. Attorney Michael Shelby, ‘‘alien smuggling is all about money. 

These aren’t people who are trying to make a better life for (others) and just providing them a pathway. This is about an American dollar bill and people that will 

do anything and risk anyone’s life in order to gain that dollar bill.’’ In this incident, the price per immigrant was $1,500 to $1,900. Alien smugglers 

have reaped millions of dollars in profits, with some not only collecting a fee up 

front, but also robbing, beating, and raping the immigrants once in the United 

States. 

Last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, was critical of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with 

respect to its efforts to combat alien smuggling. The GAO said that INS efforts to 

curb smuggling were disorganized, seldom tracked, and did not meet the required 

level of accountability. GAO investigators stated further that in several border 

areas, including Arizona, multiple antismuggling enforcement units existed that had 

overlapping jurisdictions, operated autonomously, and reported to different INS officials. The INS officials had no clear criteria about which cases needed to be investigated. 

The INS has since been disbanded and its enforcement divisions have been folded 

into the Department of Homeland Security as part of the Customs and Border Protection unit. It does not follow necessarily, however, that this organizational change 

will result in more effective field operations. We need to use our oversight authority 

to ensure that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection does not make the 

same mistakes that were made by INS. 

The Arizona border with Mexico has become the hub of alien smuggling. About 

one-third of the 1.2 million arrests of undocumented immigrants that the Border Patrol expects to make this year will occur along a 260-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexican border southwest of Tucson. This section of the border has alien-smuggling corridors that run through hostile desert terrain where there is little or no water, and 

summer temperatures can soar to 120 degrees. 

Last year, Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector apprehended 449,675 undocumented aliens, more than 1,200 a day. Despite these enforcement efforts, more 

than a hundred undocumented aliens died in the desert, and many more had to be 

rescued. 

The high level of activity along this border is a consequence of an increase in the 

effectiveness of law enforcement along other sections of the border. As it becomes 

more difficult for the smugglers to cross along one section of the border, they shift 

their smuggling activity to another section of the border. 

Alien smuggling will not stop until we establish an immigration policy that substantially reduces the need for illegal entry into the United States. In the meantime, 

our highest priority should be to do what we can to reduce the deaths. I will be introducing a bill later this week that would help in achieving that objective. It would 

do this by establishing a three-point program which has been designed to facilitate 

the investigation and prosecution, or disruption, of reckless commercial smuggling 

operations. 

The first point of this program would provide incentives to encourage informants 

to step forward and assist the federal authorities who deal with commercial smuggling operations. The Immigration and Nationality Act presently provides a nonimmigrant classification for aliens who assist the United States government with 

the investigation and prosecution of a criminal organization or with the investigation and prosecution of a terrorist organization. My bill would establish a new, third 

category for aliens who assist the United States government with the investigation 

and prosecution of a commercial smuggling operation. 

This new nonimmigrant visa classification would be offered to potential informants by the State Department and the Justice Department, in addition to being offered by the Homeland Security Department. Alien smuggling operates across international lines. No single federal agency can deal with it. 

The real incentive, however, would not be a nonimmigrant visa classification. It 

would be lawful permanent resident status. If, in the opinion of the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General, the informant 

has supplied information which has substantially contributed to the success of the 

investigation, prosecution, or disruption of a commercial alien smuggling operation, 

the Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to adjust the status 

of the informant to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

Moreover, adjustment of status could be offered also to the spouse, the married and 

unmarried sons and daughters, and the parents of the alien. 
68

The bill also would offer a monetary incentive to become an informant. It would 

establish a reward program to assist in the elimination or disruption of commercial 

alien smuggling operations in which aliens are transported in groups of 10 or more, 

and where either the aliens are transported in a manner that endangers their lives 

or the smuggled aliens present a life-threatening health risk to people in the United 

States. 

The rewards program would be similar to the one the State Department presently 

uses to obtain informants in cases involving terrorists. It would be administered by 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation, as appropriate, with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. 

I am concerned about the safety of the people who become informants, so the bill 

also would establish a protection program. If the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General determines that the identity of an 

informant or the members of the informant’s family must be protected, such official 

would be able to take such lawful action as the official considers necessary to protect 

them. 

The second point in the program would be a penalty enhancement provision. In 

the case of a person who has been convicted of smuggling aliens into the United 

States, the sentencing judge would be able to increase the sentence by up to 10 

years if the offense was part of ongoing commercial smuggling operations, the operations involve the transportation of aliens in groups of 10 or more, and either the 

aliens are transported in a manner that endangers their lives or the smuggled 

aliens present a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States. 

The third point would be an outreach program. It would require the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, in consultation, as appropriate, with the Attorney General and 

the Secretary of State, to develop and implement an outreach program to educate 

the public here and abroad about the penalties for smuggling aliens. It also would 

provide information about the financial rewards and the immigration benefits that 

would be available for assisting in the investigation, disruption, or prosecution of 

a commercial alien smuggling operation. 

I believe that this can be a bipartisan bill and that the three-point program it 

would establish would reduce the number of deaths from reckless alien smuggling 

practices. 

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JEFF FLAKE

Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for your leadership in conducting this oversight 

hearing today on the very important topic of alien smuggling. As you know, this 

issue is of particular relevance in my home state of Arizona where, according to the 

Border Patrol, 146 aliens died in 2002 while attempting to enter the country from 

Mexico. As you know, I have requested a field hearing by the Subcommittee in Arizona on this very important topic, and remain hopeful that a visit by Members of 

the Subcommittee to the southwest border would be instructive to them on the 

many issues facing Arizona as a result of its location on the border. But this hearing 

is certainly a great first step in that direction. 

Mr. Chairman, the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border has spawned numerous 

problems. One need only glance at the Arizona papers on any day, and the headlines tell countless stories of lost lives, destroyed property, and mistreated people—

in general, a troubling situation: 

Nearly every day, the desert claims the life of another illegal immigrant attempting to enter the U.S., most likely seeking work and the chance to make a better 

life for themselves and their families. 

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s office is puzzled by a string of execution-style 

slayings, but speculates that it could be a turf battle between rival gangs of coyotes. 

Health care costs have skyrocketed and hospitals have cut back on crucial services 

in Arizona, as they must treat those injured while trying to cross the border illegally. 

Shootings on the border have been observed with alarming and increasing frequency. 

Frustrated property owners, seeing their property destroyed, and fearing the immigrant traffic across their property, take matters into their own hands. 

Family members of illegal aliens who have perished at the hands of smugglers 

while attempting to cross the border have filed lawsuits against the U.S. government. The lawsuits contend that the immigrants’ deaths could have been prevented 

if a humanitarian group had been allowed to install water stations in the desert. 
69

While we may not agree with the choices taken by these immigrants to break the 

law and enter our country without proper authorization, we cannot help but be 

moved by the abuse that many of them face at the hands of unscrupulous coyotes. 

However, sympathy alone is not enough. As legislators we are charged with addressing problems as serious as the ones faced on the southwestern border, and that is 

why I believe Congress should consider an initiative that could alleviate many of 

the burdens that Arizona and the rest of the country suffers due to the problem of 

illegal immigration. A temporary foreign worker program would direct the flow of 

workers into legal channels and promises to aid the government in getting a better 

handle on who is here and who is crossing the border. 

There is a demand in the U.S. for labor that many Mexicans are willing to supply. 

Rather than turning a blind eye to that fact, I support a program that would allow 

these workers legal entry into the U.S. so that they can perform the jobs that U.S. 

employers are offering. This legal framework would allow the U.S. to collect taxes 

and would provide the workers a safe and legal way to return to their homes and 

families. 

I recognize that there are many who say the answer to the problem of illegal immigration is to tighten border security. Certainly, the southwest border should be 

secured more effectively. However, it is naive to assume that more agents along the 

border alone will stem the flow of illegal immigration. 

Research indicates that, prior to the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, the flow of Mexican laborers was largely circular. The average stay 

in the United States of an undocumented migrant from Mexico was 2.6 years; by 

1998, after the enhanced border enforcement of the 1990s, the median stay had 

risen to 6.6 years. 

Our border policy aimed at reducing illegal immigration has perversely encouraged illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. Crossing the border is risky, so illegal 

workers are increasingly reluctant to repeat the trip more often than necessary once 

they are here. Also, smugglers are expensive, so workers must remain in the U.S. 

longer to pay for the high cost of crossing. A temporary worker program that once 

again permits immigrants to enter and work in the United States, then return home 

again, will re-establish this circular migration flow. 

From 1986 to 1998, the amount of tax dollars that Congress appropriated for the 

INS increased eightfold, and for the Border Patrol six fold. The number of Border 

Patrol agents assigned to the southwest border doubled to 8,500. The end result 

of this huge increase in enforcement efforts? More than 7 million illegal aliens reside within U.S. borders. How can we honestly tell the taxpayers that this strategy 

has been a success? 

According to Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, ‘‘A real effort to control the border with Mexico would require perhaps 20,000 agents and the 

development of a system of formidable fences and other barriers along those parts 

of the border used for illegal crossings.’’ The wisdom of embarking on such a project 

is questionable, at best, I believe. Many of these illegal immigrants do know the 

risks of an illegal border crossing, and it does not deter them. They believe that the 

opportunities in the U.S. outweigh the risks associated with a desert crossing. 

Mr. Chairman, we can crack down on alien smugglers more harshly, and impose 

stricter penalties on them when we catch them. I am working on legislation to do 

just that. However, when we hear law enforcement officials estimate that, in certain 

Mexican border regions, immigrant smugglers can earn up to $1.5 million a day, I 

would submit that we cannot fight such irresistible market forces. We need to collect 

the courage to take a serious look at the problems that our current border policy 

has wrought, and acknowledge that there may be a better way to address the situation. Let’s put the smugglers out of business and formulate a more realistic approach. 

Thank you again for the hearing on this important topic. I look forward to the 

testimony of the witnesses.
70
71
72
73
74
75Æ