U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–682 PDF 2009

IMMIGRATION RAIDS: POSTVILLE AND BEYOND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2008 

Serial No. 110–198 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 24, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3 

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 4 

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

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 5 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

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

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

State of Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

The Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19 

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

The Prepared Statement of the Honorable David Davis, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Tennessee 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Ms. Deborah Rhodes, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

Ms. Marcy Forman, Director of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 56 

Mr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, Professor of Modern Languages, Florida International University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 77 

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

Mr. David Leopold, David Wolfe Leopold and Associates, on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 100 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 102 

Mr. Robert R. Rigg, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal 

Defense Program, Drake University Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 115 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 117 

Page

IV 

Mrs. Lora Costner 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 123 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 124 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 143 

(1) 

IMMIGRATION RAIDS: 

POSTVILLE AND BEYOND 

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m., in 

room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 

Sa ́nchez, Gutierrez, Ellison, Smith, King, Gallegly, and Lungren. 

Staff present: J. Traci Hong, Majority Counsel; Andre ́s Jimenez, 

Professional Staff Member; and George Fishman, Minority Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

The Chair, by unanimous consent, may adjourn this hearing at 

any time. 

Before making my opening statement, I would like to make a 

couple of administrative comments. 

First, I think there are more people in this room than I have 

every seen before, and so we are opening up an overflow room for 

those of you who would like to sit down—and I think, really, we 

have got too many people in here in terms of fire safety—and that 

overflow room is 2226 over in the Rayburn Building, and the hearing will be broadcast there. So if some people who are standing in 

the back could consider moving there, that would be quite terrific. 

And also this hearing will be broadcast on Channel 2 of the 

House Television Network so people can also, if you are here on 

staff, will be able to watch it from your offices, and that might be 

more convenient as well. 

I will just note that this is a serious hearing based on accounts 

that we have now received about the largest ICE raid in the history of the United States. It seems to me one of the hallmarks of 

our great country is that we do not treat people like livestock. Justice is not a commodity in America; it is personal. 

And over 4 days in May at the Waterloo National Cattle Congress, each case was listed individually—the United States vs. a 

single person—and yet the information suggests that the people 

charged were rounded up, herded into a cattle arena, prodded down 

a cattle chute, coerced into guilty pleas and then to Federal prison. 

2 

This looks and feels like a cattle auction, not a criminal prosecution 

in the United States of America. 

Our country was founded in opposition to the brutal practices of 

English tyrants. Our Western legal system is grounded on the firm 

belief that people in America have rights to due process. The crushing power of the states is constrained by the Constitution, which 

guarantees those rights. 

So what happened at Waterloo? Seventeen defendants to one 

lawyer, group hearing, script telling lawyers what to say in court, 

limited time for lawyers to meet defendants even without the language barriers the lawyers faced. Kind of like a cattle auction. 

The goal seems to have been that government would look tough 

on illegal immigration. But did our government follow the law, follow the Constitution and give meaningful due process? 

We should also be concerned by the following: The raid and prosecutions may have interfered with ongoing investigations into serious labor-law violations, including allegations of child labor and 

abuse. The workers prosecuted by the government may have been 

able to assist in that investigation or may have been victims of the 

violations themselves. 

Many of the workers apparently had no idea what a Social Security number or card even was. It may have been the employer tagging them with the number so it could hire them. The Federal Government spent at least $4 million to put people 

through all of this. 

What was accomplished? Well, it didn’t help people like the person Representative Davis mentions in his testimony or the witness 

on one of our panels, who had her identity stolen. And why do I 

say that? No effort was made to punish the persons who truly 

meant to steal identities and use them to harm honest, hard-working Americans. 

The American system of justice is designed to ensure that only 

those who commit crimes are convicted and to identify the truly 

egregious, intentional, harmful acts by criminals and punish them 

accordingly. Those who intend to steal identities don’t walk away 

with just 5 months of prison time. 

We spent more than $4 million interfering with a legitimate 

labor-violation investigation, violating the principle of individualized justice and locking up impoverished, uneducated workers trying to provide for their families without allowing them a chance to 

talk to a lawyer who has the time and skill to explain a complicated process to them. 

This is a magnificent country we have. In this country our Constitution guarantees that a poor person of any race, of any ethnicity, whether here legally or not, has a right to due process and 

to be represented by a lawyer when the government tries to prosecute and put her in jail. And that representation is not a formality. It is a meaningful right that includes the appropriate 

amount of time and space for the tools needed to conduct substantive and qualitative representation. Only through individualized processes can we be sure that, at the end of every trial, justice 

has indeed been served. 

I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member Steven King for his opening statement. 

3 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I want to thank in advance the witnesses for agreeing to 

come here and testify, especially when it is Members, because you 

have busy schedules, and we also know that you go on the record 

on both sides of the microphone in this place, which is quite an interesting dynamic to be on the other side. 

I wasn’t present at the Agriprocessors Incorporated plant in 

Postville, on May 12, when 389 illegal immigrant workers were arrested and detained by ICE. Nor was I present during the prosecution of those workers a short while later. 

But what I have heard from parties who were present is that the 

workers were in this country illegally. They used false identification documents and stolen Social Security numbers to get their job. 

They were provided competent criminal defense attorneys and interpreters during the prosecution process and were given a choice 

of pleading guilty or going to trial. 

If this is the case, I see no reason for this hearing other than to 

try to lend credence to the arguments of those who want amnesty 

and believe that working illegally in the United States is a 

victimless crime. When an illegal immigrant gets a job in this country using the identification documents or Social Security number of 

another person, it is a crime, and the other person is the victim of 

that crime. 

The FTC estimates that 8.3 million Americans were victims of 

identity fraud in the year 2005, and that number is on the rise. We 

will hear today from Mrs. Lora Costner. Both she and her husband 

had their identify stolen by illegal immigrants, and she will tell us 

how it ruined their lives. 

With respect to Agriprocessors—the enforcement action—the allegations are that the illegal immigrant defendants somehow did 

not receive due process. But each defendant was provided a criminal defense attorney, and it was up to those defense attorneys to 

ensure due process. They were also provided interpreters. 

According to one of the defense attorneys present, the client did 

get due process. According to a July 11, 2008, New York Times article, attorney Sarah Smith stated, ‘‘I think they understood what 

their options were. I tried to make it very clear.’’ And according to 

the article, Mrs. Smith said she was convinced, after examining the 

prosecutor’s evidence, that it was not in her client’s best interest 

to go to trial. So a defense attorney, who was an advocate for her 

client, believed her clients made the right choice by accepting the 

plea agreements offered by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

For far too many years, employers have gotten the message that 

they can hire illegal immigrant workers with few or no consequences. ICE worksite enforcement actions, like the ones in the 

Postville, put these employers and the illegal workers themselves 

on notice that, if they chose to violate the law, they are subject to 

prosecution. 

And listening to the gentlelady from California’s opening statement about the defendants being coerced into guilty pleas, I think 

that is a presumption that I would—if we can hear that confirmed 

here today, I would be quite interested. 

But if you have an attorney—if you come into the United States 

illegally, and you go to get a job, and you are breaking the law, and 

4 

then you are rounded up in an ICE raid, and this country and the 

taxpayers fund to the tune of $4 million your attorney and your interpreter, and then you plead guilty because it is in your best interest—and by the way, in a plea bargain agreement, as well—I 

mean, that is the equivalent of—this is on a far-higher scale for 

those of you who will choose to misinterpret my intent here. 

But let us just say that law enforcement arrests someone on suspicion of murder, and they say, ‘‘Tell us where the body is, we will 

plea agreement that down, and we won’t go for the death penalty.’’ 

If that defendant tells where the body is, they get a plea agreement 

for a life sentence rather than a death penalty. That is not in proportion, obviously, but that illustrates for you what a plea agreement really is. And if they have to hand them a piece of paper so 

that they can answer in English in America, that is not what I call 

confusion. 

So in group hearings, by the way, we are looking at 12 to 20 or 

more million people in the United States unlawfully, and I don’t 

know how we process 12 to 20 million in an individual fashion. If 

you do it in group, they consent to that, I believe their rights were 

protected. I am willing to listen to the arguments to the contrary 

here today. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would now invite the Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee 

for an opening statement if he wishes to give one. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am pleased that we are holding this hearing because it gives 

us a chance to revisit a very important subject. 

We have the Ranking Member of the full Committee here, and 

we have Steve King, the personification of what we ought to do in 

sort of a get-tough mode with immigration policy, full-bore enforcement. 

And we have a way of trying to figure out where we go from the 

Immigration Reform Act that we started out. It was supposed to be 

a big advancement forward, something happened in the Senate, 

and here we are. 

So for me, I am looking for a way back to how we can get to the 

middle, Steve, if there is a middle way in this. 

What is it that we can do to enforce the law—first of all, recreate 

the law, and we want to look at that. And, secondly, how do we 

enforce it? And these raids where in a way they were brutal, they 

were payback, they are gotcha and it seemed like there was something else going on besides being the biggest raid in history so far. 

And so I am looking for this way that we can begin to examine 

what we can do besides deport 12 million or more people. I think 

we can figure that out. 

But there is a lot of emotional attachment to this subject matter 

that brings us here today with this Committee. 

First of all, in a downward-spiraling economy, we have a lot of 

people looking for somebody to blame, and there is nobody more eligible for blame than people who aren’t qualified or legal citizens 

and that factors into this. I want to try to separate some of that 

out. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield? 

5 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments. I 

would like to say that I don’t think that we should be blaming 

legal, law-abiding citizens. And when we talk about having to deport 12 million or 20 million or whatever the magic number is, you 

were here in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, better 

known as Amnesty or IRCA—Immigration Reform Act—and where 

we made between 4 and 5 million people that were illegal legal 

under the premise that this will never happen again because we 

have a safety valve called employer sanctions. The only problem is 

that we never enforce those employer sanctions. 

I contend that we could solve a tremendous number of the problems with illegal immigration today without one border patrol 

agent. I think all we have to do—we don’t have to deport anyone. 

If we enforce the laws under IRCA and subsequent laws in the 

1995 act, as it relates to benefits, jobs and the overwhelming reason why people came here to start with, if we deny them access to 

the things that they are illegally entitled to, I think a large number 

will self-deport. 

Then when we find that we have unmet domestic needs for certain things—the whole premise of our immigration policy is based 

on assimilation and bringing people here from countries all over 

the world to fill jobs and make America a greater and strong place. 

But we do it under the rule of not—under the rule of law, not 

under the cover of darkness. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, now that I have given you half of my opening statement time just—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. [Off mike.] 

Mr. CONYERS. No, but I want payback, though, even though it 

doesn’t happen often. [Laughter.] 

Now, Elton, here is—may I get an additional minute if I—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, the Chairman is allocated an additional 

minute without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Well, here is the problem, Elton. It was under the Administration that you advocated far more forcibly for than me and under 

a 12-year of Republican leadership in the House of Representatives 

that all these complaints arise from that you are telling me what 

we should have done. 

Now I will yield you the rest of my 1 minute left. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I appreciate that. During that same period of 

time, we also had 8 years as a president—and really enforcing the 

laws of the land is not the legislative branch, it is the executive 

branch. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we will 

now ask the Ranking Member of the full Committee—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. If he would like to make a brief opening statement so that we can get to our witnesses. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I always appreciate the graciousness of the full Committee 

Chairman and his yielding to Members, as he just did. 

6 

Madam Chair, it seems to me that the more the Administration 

tries to do its job investigating companies who employ illegal immigrants and prosecuting employers and illegal immigrants who violate the laws against working in the U.S. illegally, the more they 

are criticized for enforcing the law. If Members of this Committee 

believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to work, the appropriate response should be to repeal employer sanctions. 

Of course, Americans expect that any law enforcement investigation and prosecution be conducted properly. As long as that goal is 

met, the prosecutions should continue unless the law is changed. 

Today’s hearing was prompted by allegations of a court interpreter, who is here to testify, that illegal immigrant defendants 

prosecuted in connection with the worksite enforcement action 

were not treated fairly. However, from the beginning, these detained workers, most of whom were charged with crimes related to 

identify theft, apparently were, in fact, treated fairly. 

Sixty-two of them were almost immediately released from custody on humanitarian grounds. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice provided the illegal workers 

with a clean and safe detention environment, and they had criminal defense counsel appointed to represent them—and interpreters—all at taxpayers’ expense. 

Today we will hear from DOJ and ICE, who will describe the 

procedures followed during the investigation and persecution— 

prosecution of 297 of the 389 people detained by ICE officials. Just 

because someone does not agree with the prosecution or does not 

like the fact that illegal workers are detained and placed and deportation procedures doesn’t mean that such prosecutions are inhumane. 

Instead of focusing on the rights of illegal immigrants who take 

jobs from American workers, we should focus on ways to protect 

the jobs of American workers. A report by the Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants are displacing Americans in the job market or depressing their wages significantly. 

Black workers are disproportionately displaced by illegal workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in June nearly a 

third of all young Black adults were unemployed and many others 

are so discouraged that they have left the labor force. Unfortunately, if employers can hire an illegal employee at less cost than 

a legal employee without the risk of prosecution, they will hire the 

illegal immigrant, who will cost them less. 

Enforcement is working. When illegal immigrants know they can 

no longer get jobs, they often leave the area, and most return 

home. After states like Arizona and Oklahoma enacted laws to 

crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, newspapers 

were filled with stories detailing how illegal immigrants were leaving the country. This is happening in communities across the U.S. 

And communities benefit from ICE worksite enforcement actions. 

Last year, Georgia’s Crider, Inc. lost over 600 illegal workers during an ICE worksite enforcement action, but the company increased wages $1.00 an hour and continues to fill positions with 

legal workers. 

And after ICE arrested nearly 1,300 of its illegal workers, Swift 

& Company, a national meat-packing business, also raised wages 

7 

and found U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to hire from the surrounding areas. And they were disproportionately minorities. 

Madam Chair, I expect today’s hearing to show that procedures 

were in place to ensure proper treatment of illegal workers, then 

maybe we can start holding hearings that highlight the harmful 

impact of illegal immigrants on American workers. 

And I will yield back. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman yields back. 

In the interest of time, other Members are invited to submit 

opening statements for the record. 

Today we will hear from three panels of witnesses to help us consider the important issues before us. 

The two panels following this first will focus in on the Postville 

issue and—but we have had ICE enforcement raids throughout the 

country, and Members have had an interest to talk about this general enforcement issue as it has affected their constituencies. And 

so we are quite honored to have four of our colleagues here today 

to offer their testimony and their perspectives on this phenomena 

in our Nation. 

First, it is my pleasure to introduce Congressman Bruce Braley, 

who represents Iowa’s 1st District. Congressman Braley attended 

Iowa State University and graduated from the University of Iowa 

School of Law in 1983. He has represented employees challenging 

dangerous company safety standards and has fought for people who 

lost their jobs due to corporate downsizing. 

Congressman Braley serves on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Small Business Committee. He is also the 

chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and 

Technology and the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. 

Congressman Braley is married to Carolyn Kalb, who lives with 

her and their children—Lisa, David and Paul—in Waterloo, Iowa. 

So, Congressman Braley, we appreciate your being here today. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking 

Member King and Members of the Committee, for holding this important hearing today and for inviting me to testify. 

I am very pleased that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing 

to examine what happened in the investigation, arrest, detention, 

conviction, incarceration and deportation of hundreds of undocumented workers at the Agriprocessors Inc. meat-packing plant in 

Postville, Iowa. 

As the Chairwoman noted, I live in Waterloo, IA, which is the 

site of the National Cattle Congress—which we are very proud of— 

and I also happen to represent a portion of the town of Postville, 

although the plant itself is located in Congressman Latham’s district. 

I have been pressing for accountability and looking for answers 

into what happened before and during the raid at Agriprocessors, 

which is the world’s largest kosher meat processor, since the May 

8 

12, 2008, raid of the plant. Even before the raid, in fact, in November of 2007, I have been questioning the conditions at the 

Agriprocessors plant. Unfortunately, I have received few good answers to my inquiries and just last week received conflicting information from the Department of Labor and ICE on their coordination before the raid. 

The raid at Agriprocessors, in which they detained nearly 400 

workers on immigration and criminal charges, has been touted as 

the largest enforcement action of its kind in U.S. history. There is 

no doubt that workers who violate the law need to be held accountable. Identity theft and fraudulent use of Social Security information are crimes, and crimes should be prosecuted. 

However, while ICE has been effective in finding and detaining 

undocumented employees who may have broken the law, I am 

equally concerned that the employer, Agriprocessors, be fully investigated and prosecuted for any violations of the law on its part. The 

sheer number of arrests made by ICE during the May 12 raid 

raises serious questions about the company’s knowledge of what 

was going on in its facility. Almost half of the entire workforce was 

detained by ICE officials, including a dozen minors, who are prohibited by Iowa labor law from working in a slaughterhouse in the 

first place. 

The affidavit filed by Federal officials in support of this raid cited 

numerous allegations of questionable behavior by company officials, 

including under-the-table cash payments to undocumented employees and physical abuse. The Des Moines Register has reported that 

Agriprocessors has ‘‘a history of noncompliance with state and Federal regulations related to food safety, pollution and workplace 

safety at its Postville facility.’’ 

These allegations are serious and disturbing. I am pleased that 

the Department of Labor has confirmed that the Wage and Hour 

Division district office in Des Moines had begun an investigation of 

Agriprocessors earlier this year for possible violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act and that the department is working in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney and the State of Iowa to protect 

the rights of workers and properly enforce the law. 

However, I am also concerned that this ICE raid may have had 

an impact on the ability of the Department of Labor to conduct a 

thorough and comprehensive investigation of the workplace itself. 

A letter I received from ICE last week said that, prior to the May 

12 operation at the Agriprocessors facility, ICE fully coordinated its 

activities with other Federal agencies, including the Department of 

Labor. 

This statement directly contradicts a letter I received from the 

Department of Labor on July 3, which said that, ‘‘The raid occurred 

without the prior knowledge or participation of the Wage and Hour 

Division’’ and that, ‘‘No advance notice was given to WHD or any 

other Department of Labor agency prior to the raid.’’ In addition, 

the DOL letter states that the May 12 enforcement action ‘‘changes 

the complexion of WHD’s investigation of Agriprocessors.’’ 

I am very concerned that there is conflicting information from 

these Federal agencies on whether ICE communicated with the 

DOL prior to the raid, and I intend to continue pushing for anVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
9 

swers about any communications between the agencies prior to the 

raid. 

While upholding immigration law is important, so is ensuring 

workplace safety, and one should not come at the expense of the 

other. I sincerely hope that the lack of communication between ICE 

and DOL did not and does not lead to decreased safety for workers 

at the plant, although the evidence seems to indicate that that is 

precisely what is happening in Postville. 

The situation at Agriprocessors is further evidence that our immigration system is broken. I believe that Congress needs to think 

boldly and act confidently for a change in order to fix it. 

As I learned this year on my trip to the border in Mexico, we 

need to invest in technology, infrastructure and personnel to secure 

our border. We need to debate the feasibility of an effective and affordable employment-verification system, and we need to agree on 

what to do with undocumented immigrants who are already here. 

We also need to ensure that the appropriate agencies are fully 

coordinating with each other and that employers like 

Agriprocessors, who break our immigration laws, are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 

Unfortunately, under current Administration, the prosecution of 

employers who violated immigration law has plummeted. In 2004, 

only 4 employers faced sanction for hiring undocumented workers 

out of more than 9 million employers in the United States, and 

that record has only improved slightly in recent years. 

The Federal Government must demonstrate a commitment to enforcing the law against corporations who profit by looking the other 

way when immigration, workplace safety, child labor, environmental and food-safety laws are being broken. Unless we enforce 

our laws equally against both employees and employers who break 

the law, we will continue to have a serious immigration problem 

here in this country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braley follows:] 

10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE L. BRALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA


Braley-1.eps
11 


Braley-2.eps
12 


Braley-3.eps
13 


Braley-4.eps
14 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Next, I would like to introduce our colleague Congresswoman 

Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents the 18th District of Texas. 

Congresswoman Jackson Lee chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation, Security and Infrastructure Protection and serves on the Judiciary and the Foreign Affairs Committee 

and, in fact, is a Member of our Subcommittee. She is a leader in 

the immigration debate and is also the author of H.R. 750, the 

‘‘Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.’’ 

Congresswoman Jackson Lee received her bachelor’s degree with 

honors from Yale University and her Juris Doctor degree from the 

University of Virginia. 

Before her election to Congress in 1994, she served on the Houston City Council and was an associate municipal court judge. 

Congresswoman Jackson Lee is married to Dr. Elwyn C. Lee, and 

they have two children: Erica, a graduate of the University of 

North Carolina and Duke University, and Jason, a 3rd-year student at Harvard University. 

Welcome, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, for your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

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

and to the Ranking Member. 

And my son will not let me rest without saying he has graduated, and I want to—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, I was misadvised. Congratulations to you and 

your proud family. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Only because you have to deal with young 

children. 

But let me thank you very much and thank the Chairman of the 

full Committee and the Ranking Member of the Committee as well. 

I do want to acknowledge, Madam Chairwoman, that the basis 

of this Committee is that we adhere to the law, and I thank you 

for your leadership on this. We recognize that this is a Nation of 

laws, but we also recognize that it is a Nation of immigrants as 

well. 

The Committee memorandum notes that we started with 15 ICE 

teams in 2005 and we now are looking to 104 in 2008. Committee 

memorandum also indicates that we had a deportation rate in 2002 

by these ICE raids of 485 and now we are up to 4,000. 

And I think what it says is that—the question is whether or not 

these are the appropriate methods that can really get us to the 

question of law enforcement and the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. It seems that it cannot. 

And so I raise the points regarding the issues that have occurred 

in Houston, Texas, in particular Shipley Do-Nuts, which is a family-owned chain that has been catapulted into a highly controversial debate when Federal agents raided the company’s Houston 

headquarters and arrested 20 suspected undocumented immigrants 

employed at the facility. 

On Wednesday, April 17, 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in a caravan of 50 vehicles, detention vans and 

an ambulance, swarmed Shipley’s office and warehouse complex on 

15 

North Main Street at 5 a.m. A government helicopter circled overhead as the Shipley workers were led away in handcuffs to face 

civil charges of being in the country illegally. 

The Houston raid took place at the same time ICE raids conducted—ICE agents conducted raids of chicken-processing plants in 

Texas, Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia and Tennessee. Apparently, the Administration believes that this is the method toward 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

I believe that these raids are the pathway to potential violence, 

the arresting of minors and pregnant women, and their wrongheaded and misdirected approach to go forward on the idea of ensuring border security and the security of all Americans. 

In essence, we are shutting down small businesses, restaurants, 

construction sites, not because we believe that the workers that are 

there are the only workers. We are very much supportive of the 

working of American people. But if you listen to the small businesses and construction companies and restaurants across America—and processing plants—this is, as I indicated, wrong-headed. 

Shipley Do-Nuts had its share of problems. Its own employee 

filed a discrimination lawsuit. It was a place that was well known. 

Individuals could have been arrested in a far different manner, but 

the ICE agents chose to use a cowboy-style ICE raid. 

After the raid in the Shipley Do-Nuts in Houston, Action Rags 

USA was raided. Approximately 70 percent of the 166 detained 

workers—about 116 workers—were women, including 8 pregnant 

women, in the Action Rags USA plant raid on June 25, 2008. Many 

of those workers were detained by ICE, though at least 73 have 

been released for humanitarian reasons, and some were documented individuals. 

The vast majority of these women were caring for children and 

had families. It is shocking to imagine that, on that fateful day, 

many children returned home to empty homes and apartments 

wondering where their mothers would be. Equally appalling, the 

pregnant workers were subject to stress and anxiety of arrest and 

detention when their own health and well-being is critical to the 

health and development of their baby. 

The chaos and fear of the aftermath of the raid caused injuries. 

Four women sustained injuries that required immediate medical 

attention, including one women that required an immediate life 

flight by helicopter to a nearby hospital, as she was so fearful of 

the raid and the ensuing chaos that she climbed on a stack of 

wooden pallets and fell 20 feet to the ground. 

The detainees in both raids were of Mexican and Central American decent. The raid on Action Rags USA resulted in detention of 

138 Mexican, 12 Honduran, 8 Guatemalan and 8 Salvadoran. 

The Shipley Do-Nuts raid resulted in the detention of men from 

Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. 

In both raids, youth were detained. The Shipley Do-Nuts raid resulted in detention of one youth, who was placed in the care of 

Catholic charities and allowed to attend school until ICE could secure deportation papers. 

Two youths were detained in the raid on Action Rags USA. One 

of the youths, a rising high school senior, worked at Action Rags 

USA as a summer job and had only been employed from 1 week 

16 

prior to the raid and was also under the Dream Act legislation. He 

is now awaiting deportation and will be deported before he is able 

to achieve his high dream of a high school degree. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Davis said the fact that 85 percent 

of company workers of the plant were undocumented was suspicion 

to show a conspiracy fraud. U.S. Magistrate Frances Stacy ruled 

there was evidence to support Federal conspiracy charges against 

the owner and three managers, saying that they knew undocumented workers were hired, but it has been proven that the owner 

had been at the plant only 1 hour and 57 minutes. Valerie 

Rodriguez, 34 years old, was described by government officials as 

a company resource manager; however, it was reported that Ms. 

Rodriguez was nothing more than a secretary. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, let me simply say that this 

gives a litany of false starts, raid-like activities that create the potential for violence. It does not speak to the issue of comprehensive 

immigration reform, which my legislation speaks to, which provides 

for additional detention space, increased border patrol agents, enhancing border patrol training, establish immigration, customs and 

agriculture inspector occupations, reestablish the border patrol 

antismuggling unit and establish criminal investigator occupations 

within the Department of Homeland Security, increase border patrol agent investigator and other types of aspects that can bring 

about real comprehensive immigration reform. 

This is a dangerous approach, it is a sad approach, it is an unworkable, and I hope that we will ask the president of the United 

States to take the bully pulpit and lead us toward comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

I thank the gentlewoman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

I would like to thank Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren from California and Ranking 

Member Steve King from Iowa for holding this very important hearing on the recent 

immigration raids in Houston, Texas and across this great nation. Chairwoman 

Lofgren has continued to bring relevant and timely hearings and continues to work 

for comprehensive immigration reform. For this she should be applauded. 

As a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee and the former Ranking 

Member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, it is of the utmost importance 

that we thoroughly investigate the raids that took place at Shipley Do-Nuts and Action Rags USA by ICE officials. Both of these raids occurred in my district of Houston, Texas. 

I. SHIPLEY DO-NUTS

Shipley Do-Nuts is a family-owned chain that has been catapulted into a highly 

controversial debate when federal agents raided the company’s Houston headquarters and arrested 20 suspected illegal immigrants employed at the facility. 

On Wednesday, April 17, 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

agents—in a caravan of 50 vehicles, detention vans and an ambulance—swarmed 

Shipley’s office and warehouse complex on North Main Street at 5 a.m. A government helicopter circled overhead as the Shipley workers were led away in handcuffs 

to face civil charges of being in the country illegally. 

The Houston raid took place at the same time ICE agents conducted raids of 

chicken processing plants in East Texas, Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, and Tennessee. In all, 290 workers were arrested during raids at Texas-based Pilgrims 

Pride plants on suspicion of identify theft, document fraud and immigration violations, the agency said. 

17 

ICE officials have released few details of the Shipley investigation, saying only 

that it would continue. The undocumented workers arrested Wednesday face deportation. 

The Shipley raid centered on its 140,000-square-foot warehouse, processing plants 

and office complex. It is part of a four-block compound the company operates at 

5200 North Main, where doughnut mix and other fillings are made for many of the 

86 Houston-area locations. 

The site includes at least five trailers and 14 small homes. The neatly maintained 

properties sit behind cyclone and barbed-wire fencing used by some Shipley employees. 

The people caught in this raid were hard working people. ICE should make certain that minors were not caught in this raid. And, if minors were caught, ICE 

should ensure that these minors are returned safely to their families. 

Shipley Do-Nuts has been the subject of recent discrimination lawsuits. Recently, 

in 2006, 15 workers filed a discrimination lawsuit against the company, seeking 

damages for allegedly enduring daily slurs, such as ‘‘wetback’’ and ‘‘mojado’’ while 

working at the company’s warehouse. Most of the allegations were filed against a 

former plant manager, Jimmy Rivera, and two supervisors. The company settled the 

lawsuit with the workers in February. The settlement terms are confidential. 

If Shipley Do-Nuts was hiring illegal immigrants it has a duty to abide by the 

immigration laws. If Shipley is to blame, then we must work to ensure that Shipley 

adheres to the law or faces stiff penalties. 

II. ACTION RAGS USA

Within weeks of the Shipley Do-Nuts raid, on June 25, 2008, ICE agents raided 

the Action Rags USA plant in Houston. In all, 166 of the 192 workers at the plant 

were undocumented. 

Approximately 70 percent of the 166 detained workers, about 116 workers, were 

women including eight pregnant women. Many of those workers were detained by 

ICE, though at least 73 have been released for humanitarian reasons. The vast majority of these women were caring for children and had families. It is shocking to 

imagine that on that fateful day, many children returned home to empty homes and 

apartments wondering when their mothers would return. Equally appalling, the 

pregnant workers were subject to the stress and anxiety of arrest and detention 

when their own health and well being is critical to the health and development of 

their baby. 

The chaos and fear in the aftermath of raids did cause injuries. Four women sustained injuries that required immediate medical attention, including one woman 

that required an immediate ‘‘life flight’’ by helicopter to a nearby hospital as she 

was so fearful of the raid and the ensuing chaos that she climbed on a stack of 

wooden pallets and fell 20 feet to the ground. 

The detainees in both raids were of Mexican and Central-American descent. The 

raid on Action Rags USA resulted in the detention of 138 Mexican, 12 Honduran, 

8 Guatemalan, and 8 El Salvadoran workers. The Shipley Donuts raid resulted in 

the detention of men from Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. 

In both raids, youths were detained. The Shipley Donuts Raid resulted in the detention of one youth who was placed in the care of Catholic Charities and allowed 

to attend school until ICE could secure deportation papers. He was subsequently deported before finishing the school year. 

Two youths were detained in the raid on Action Rags USA. One of the youths, 

a rising senior in high school, worked at Action Rags USA as a summer job and 

had only been employed for one week prior to the Raid. He is now awaiting deportation and will be deported before he is able to achieve his dream of a high school 

degree. Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Davis said the fact that 85 percent of company 

workers at the plant were undocumented was sufficient to show a conspiracy existed. U.S. Magistrate Frances Stacy ruled there was evidence to support federal 

conspiracy charges that Mabarik Kahlon, 45, owner of Action Rags USA, and three 

managers knew undocumented workers were hired and they had presented false 

work documents. 

Four government informants, three who were paid a total of $13,200 along with 

immigration benefits will be a key part of the case. The three paid informants were 

illegal immigrants planted at Action Rags USA by ICE agents. Because the paid informants were given cash money and documents allowing them to legally stay and 

work in the country, there is a strong incentive for anybody to say what the agents 

want them to say. 

The ICE surveillance reports documented only one hour and 57 minutes in which 

Mr. Kahlon was at the plant. Mr. Kahlon is the owner of several vitamin suppleVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
18 

ment companies, and may not have been actively managing daily operations at Action Rags USA. 

Among the persons arrested at Action Rags USA was 34 year old, Valerie 

Rodriguez, described by government officials as the company’s resource manager. It 

was reported that Ms. Rodriguez was nothing more than a secretary. 

Both Mr. Kahlon and Ms. Rodriguez were released last week from custody after 

posting bond. The judge denied bail for Cirila Barron, 38, one of two illegal immigrants ICE documents describe as company managers at the plant. 

Another undocumented worker, Mayra Herrera-Gutierrez, 32, was denied bail. 

She was arrested for allegedly being an illegal alien and working as a warehouse 

supervisor. There is evidence, however, that she did not have the authority to hire 

and fire workers. 

As members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, we exercise 

oversight of ICE’s actions. Shipley Do-Nuts is a family-owned and operated business 

with a 72-year history in the Houston area, and 190 stores in several states. 

I am concerned for the well-being of the employees that are being detained and 

their families. I am concerned that the detainees be treated fairly and are not denied counsel or their basic human and civil rights. Lastly, I am concerned that these 

raids have disproportionately focused upon the undocumented employees and the 

employers largely have been left unharmed from these raids. I believe that it is an 

injustice in the immigration system that the ‘‘crackdown’’ has been directed at the 

‘‘undocumented’’ workers who are working to support themselves and their families. 

These raids demonstrate that Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform. I have long advocated for comprehensive immigration reform. Indeed, in December 2007, I introduced, HR 750, Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act 

of 2007. This bill would provide for comprehensive immigration reform. 

Importantly, the bill authorizes DHS to adjust the status of aliens who would otherwise be inadmissible (due to unlawful presence, document fraud, or other specified 

grounds of inadmissibility) if such aliens have been in the United States for at least 

five years and meet other requirements. Additionally, it authorizes the emergency 

deployment of Border Patrol agents to a requesting border state. 

The bill also directs DHS to: (1) provide for additional detention space for illegal 

aliens; (2) increase Border Patrol agents, airport and land border immigration inspectors, immigration enforcement officers, and fraud and document fraud investigators; (3) enhance Border Patrol training and operational facilities; (4) establish immigration, customs, and agriculture inspector occupations within the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; (5) reestablish the Border Patrol anti-smuggling unit; 

(6) establish criminal investigator occupations within the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS); (7) increase Border Patrol agent and investigator pay; (8) require 

foreign language training for appropriate DHS employees; and (9) establish the 

Fraudulent Documents Task Force. 

This bill also sets forth unfair immigration-related employment practices. Additionally the bill requires petitioners for nonimmigrant labor to describe their efforts 

to recruit lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens. 

As these investigations move forward I will make sure that all issues are addressed surrounding this raid. This raid demonstrates the importance of immigration reform. As members of Congress, let us work together to resolve this matter 

and ensure that everyone’s rights are protected! 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Next, I am pleased to introduce my colleague from California 

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. 

Congresswoman Woolsey is currently serving her eighth term as 

the representative of California’s beautiful 6th District, which includes all of Marin and most of Sonoma County. 

As the Chairwoman of the Education and Labor’s Workforce Protection Subcommittee, she held a hearing earlier this year on how 

immigration raids at workplaces impact children, families and communities. Congresswoman Woolsey is also co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are pleased to hear her testimony today. 

19 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. 

Congress has to play and does play a very important role in ensuring that Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE—raids 

are conducted humanely and consistent with protecting the human 

needs of families and children, and I commend the Subcommittee 

for this hearing and for your continued oversight. 

The manner in which ICE raids are carried out can be as important as when and where they take place. Unfortunately, ICE’s 

practice in my district have been neither humane nor protective. 

Agents arrested parents right in front of their children, creating 

widespread panic and resulting in 50 to 60 students leaving school 

for weeks at a time. 

Despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of children with undocumented parents are U.S. citizens, ICE has not developed a consistent and comprehensive policy for dealing with children. In fact, 

ICE’s increasing reliance on home raids, which are not covered by 

ICE’s guidelines for humanely conducting workplace raids, means 

that children are often left unprotected. 

During home raids in my district conducted in March of 2007, 

some parents sent their children to school because they believed 

they weren’t safe at home. One little girl was told by her mother 

to pack some essentials in her backpack and leave it by the door. 

Then, if, when the girl returned from school, she found that ICE 

had taken her mother, the little girl was instructed to take the 

backpack and to go to her aunt’s home. Imagine—imagine what 

this child was thinking as she left for school. Imagine what she felt 

when she was sitting in the classroom. Try to imagine that little 

girl. 

There is more, Madam Chair. 

Earlier this year, ICE agents stopped a father in my district 

walking his daughter to school at Bahia Vista Elementary School 

in San Rafael, California. The father did not speak English. So ICE 

agents asked the young girl, who was not 8 years old, to translate 

for him as ICE questioned her dad about his immigration status. 

ICE later took this girl’s father away. Imagine how that child felt. 

On May 20, as Chairwoman Lofgren told you, as the Chair of the 

House Workforce Protection Subcommittee, I held a hearing on how 

ICE workplace raids have impacted children and local communities. At this hearing, a constituent of mine, Kathryn Gibney, 

principal at the San Pedro Elementary School in San Rafael, testified about how school officials cared for frightened students during 

last year’s raid and rode the buses to make sure students didn’t return home to empty houses. 

Two days after the recent Subcommittee hearing, ICE agents 

launched another raid in San Rafael. They say it was not retribution. Ms. Gibney’s school was again one of the schools most impacted by the raid. ICE vans parked near school bus stops, terrifying children as they left their parents and boarded the school 

buses. That day, absentee rates at the schools increased dramatiVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
20 

cally. One of the schools canceled its open house plan for that 

evening out of fear for the safety of parents and students. 

Madam Chairwoman, Members of this wonderful Committee, 

there are no more effective and humane ways to enforce our immigration—are there are no effective and humane ways to enforce our 

immigration laws other than through the raids that terrify children 

and communities? 

Senator Ted Kennedy and I have each sent letters to the Department of Homeland Security discussing the need for a more comprehensive policy to address the needs of children impacted by ICE 

raids. I ask to submit these letters to the Committee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, they will be made part of the 

record. 

[See Appendix.] 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And I need to tell you that neither of us has received a response from ICE. 

We can no longer, Committee, wait to address the impacts these 

raids are having on families and children, many of whom are in the 

U.S. legally, many of whom are U.S. citizens. It is unacceptable 

that home raids for children are more likely to be impacted do not 

have a strong protection for children nor are they covered by the 

guidelines for humanely conducting ICE raids. Who, if not children, 

deserve humane treatment? 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairwoman Lofgren, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. 

Congress has a necessary role in making sure that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids are conducted humanely and consistent with protecting the 

needs of families and children, and I commend the Subcommittee for its continued 

oversight. 

The manner in which ICE raids are carried out can be as important as when and 

where they take place. Unfortunately, ICE’s practices in my District have been neither humane nor protective. Agents arrested parents right in front of their children, 

creating widespread panic and resulting in 50 to 60 students leaving school for 

weeks at a time. Despite the fact that nearly two thirds of children with undocumented parents are U.S. citizens, ICE has not developed a consistent and comprehensive policy for dealing with children. In fact, ICE’s increasingly reliance on 

home raids, which are not covered by ICE’s guidelines for humanely conducting 

workplace raids, means that children are often left unprotected. 

During home raids conducted in March 2007, some parents sent their children to 

school because they believed they weren’t safe at home. One little girl was told by 

her mother to pack some essentials in her backpack and leave it by the door. If she 

found ICE had taken her mother when she returned from school, the little girl was 

to take the backpack and go to her aunt’s house. Imagine what this child was thinking as she left for school. 

Earlier this year, ICE agents stopped a father walking his daughter to school at 

Bahia Vista Elementary School in San Rafael, California. Her father did not speak 

English, and ICE agents asked the young girl, not more than eight years old, to 

translate for him ICE’s questions about his immigration status. ICE later took this 

girl’s father away. 

On May 20, 2008, I chaired a hearing in the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee on how ICE workplace raids have impacted children and local communities. At this hearing, a constituent of mine, Katherine Gibney, the Principal at the 

San Pedro Elementary School in San Rafael, testified about how school officials 

cared for frightened students during last year’s raids and rode the buses to make 

sure students didn’t return to empty homes. 

Two days after the Subcommittee hearing, ICE agents launched another raid in 

San Rafael. Ms. Gibney’s school was, again, one of the schools most impacted by the 

21 

raids. ICE vans parked near school bus stops terrified children as they left their 

parents and boarded their school buses. Absentee rates at the schools increased dramatically. One of the schools canceled its Open House planned for that night out 

of fear for the safety of parents and students. 

Madame Chairwoman, there are more effective and humane ways to enforce our 

immigration laws than through raids that terrify communities. Chairman Edward 

Kennedy and I have each sent letters to the Department of Homeland Security discussing the need for a comprehensive policy to address the needs of children impacted by ICE raids, and I ask to submit these letters for the record. Both of the 

letters are awaiting a response. We can no longer wait to address the impact these 

raids are having on families and children, many of whom are in the U.S. legally 

and many of whom are U.S. citizens. It’s unacceptable that home raids, where children are most likely to be impacted, do not have strong protections for children. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

Finally, I would like to introduce Congressman David Davis. 

Congressman Davis represents the 1st Congressional District of 

Tennessee that includes the 12 upper east Tennessee counties. 

He serves on the House Committee on Education and Labor. He 

is the Ranking Member on the Small Business Committee’s Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology, and he and I serve together on the House Homeland Security Committee. 

And we are very pleased to have you here to give us your testimony, Congressman Davis. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, 

and Members of the Committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee on 

the effects illegal immigration has on communities in Northeast 

Tennessee. 

Also, thank you for your interest in the story of Lora Costner, a 

constituent of the 1st Congressional District of Tennessee and a 

resident of Cocke County, who will testify here today. 

Illegal immigration places a heavy burden on our country and on 

our taxpayers. No more a problem limited to the counties along our 

borders, even Appalachia must face the threat to our economy. 

Families in Cocke County directly suffer from the effects of illegal 

immigration and our government’s inability to enforce our laws. I 

encourage this Committee to take Ms. Costner’s story of identify 

theft by an illegal immigrant as an indication of just one of the 

many damaging effects of lack of immigration enforcement. 

Many immigrants come to Hamblen County to work in the poultry-processing industry. Much like the raid in Iowa generated this 

hearing, the parent company of Hamblen County’s plant operation 

in Cincinnati, Ohio, and their Chicago headquarters were subject 

to ICE raids. The illegal immigrant who stole Ms. Costner’s identity used the information to gain employment at the Morristown 

poultry plant. 

This hearing asks how we move forward with our immigration 

policy in light of these raids and the poultry industry. 

One of the best tools the Department of Homeland Security has 

to enforce our immigration laws is the 287(g) program. This program allows local law enforcement agencies to partner with ICE on 

illegal immigration matters. ICE trains local law enforcement in 

22 

immigration law, and the local agency is given the authority to enforce those laws. 

Metro Nashville Davidson County, Tennessee, has been operating under a 287(g) agreement for some time now. The Nashville 

community has seen the benefits of the local law partner shift 

through improvement in enforcement of our immigration laws. 

You would be hard pressed to find a community who would benefit more from such a partnership than Hamblen County and Morristown, Tennessee. According to the University of Tennessee 

study, Hamblen County has one of the fastest-growing immigrant 

populations in the Nation. Hamblen County schools, hospitals, 

roads and housing agencies are unable to keep up with the trend. 

The Hamblen County jail is overrun with citizens of other countries with no U.S. immigration status. These individuals are in 

Hamblen County illegally. If our immigration laws were enforced, 

these individuals would be removed to their country of origin and 

barred from reentry into the United States. 

Unfortunately, the Hamblen County Sheriff lacks the authority 

to enforce these laws. Hamblen County approached ICE to participate in the 287(g) program. Citing lack of resources and manpower, 

ICE could not agree to the partnership. It is imperative that this 

Congress expand the 287(g) program to allow any willing community to participate. 

I am privileged to serve on the House Committee on Homeland 

Security with oversight of the department and the Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Agency. In 2007, the Committee took up 

legislation reauthorizing the DHS. I offered an amendment in the 

Committee expanding this program that fell for a lack of a majority 

on a 15-15 tie. The House Rules Committee, by a vote of 8 to 4, 

refused to make this same amendment and order when the bill 

moved to the House floor. I have introduced this bipartisan amendment as a stand-along legislation that has been referred to this 

Committee. 

Also referred to this Committee is Congressman Shuler’s SAVE 

Act. This legislation would authorize increases to all programs related to enforcement of our immigration law. One-hundred-andninety Members of Congress have signed the discharge petition to 

bring Congressman Shuler’s legislation to the floor. I would encourage action on this bill. 

Finally, this Congress must again take up legislation reauthorizing the Department of Homeland Security, giving guidance to 

ICE on immigration policy and law enforcement. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, and 

I will look forward to the testimony of Ms. Costner as well. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee on the effects illegal 

immigration has on communities in East Tennessee. I also thank you for your interest in the story of Lora Costner, a constituent of the First Congressional District 

of Tennessee and resident of Cocke County who will also testify here today. 

Illegal immigration places a heavy burden on our country and our taxpayers. No 

more a problem limited to those counties along our borders; even Appalachia must 

face this threat to our economy. Families in Cocke County directly suffer from the 

23 

effects of illegal immigration and our government’s inability to enforce our laws. I 

encourage this Committee to take Ms. Costner’s story of identity theft by an illegal 

immigrant as a indication of just one of the many damaging effects of lack of immigration enforcement. 

Many immigrants come to Hamblen County to work in the poultry processing industry. Much like the raid in Iowa generating this hearing, the parent company of 

the Hamblen County plant’s operation in Cincinnati, Ohio and their Chicago headquarters were subject to ICE raids. The illegal immigrant who stole Ms. Costner’s 

identity used that information to gain employment at the Morristown poultry plant. 

This hearing asks how we move forward with our immigration policy in light of 

these raids on the poultry industry. One of the best tools the Department of Homeland Security has to enforce our immigration laws is the 287(g) program. This program allows local law enforcement agencies to partner with ICE on illegal immigration matters. ICE trains local law enforcement in immigration law and the local 

agency is given authority to enforce those laws. Metro Nashville/Davidson county 

Tennessee has been operating under a 287(g) agreement for some time now. The 

Nashville community has seen the benefits of the federal/local partnership through 

improved enforcement of our immigration laws. 

You would be hard pressed to find a community who would benefit more from 

such a partnership than Hamblen County and Morristown, Tennessee. According to 

a University of Tennessee study, Hamblen County has one of the fastest-growing 

immigrant populations in the nation, Hamblen County’s schools, hospitals, roads, 

and housing agencies are unable to keep up with the trend. The Hamblen County 

jail is overrun with citizens of other countries with no U.S. immigration status. 

These individuals are in Hamblen County illegally. If our immigration laws were 

enforced these individuals would be removed to their country of origin and barred 

from re-entry into the United States. Unfortunately the Hamblen County Sherriff 

lacks the authority to enforce these laws. 

Hamblen County approached ICE to participate in the 287(g) program. Citing lack 

of resources and manpower, ICE could not agree to the partnership. It is imperative 

this Congress expand the 287(g) program to allow any willing community to participate. 

I am privileged to serve on the House Committee on Homeland Security with 

oversight of the Department and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. In 2007 the Committee took up legislation reauthorizing DHS. I offered an 

amendment in Committee expanding this program that failed for lack of majority 

on a 15–15 tie. The House Rules Committee by a vote of 8–4 refused to make this 

same amendment in order when the bill moved to the House floor. I have introduced 

the amendment as standalone legislation that has been referred to this Committee. 

Also referred to this Committee is Congressman Shuler’s SAVE Act. This legislation would authorize increases to all programs related to enforcement of our immigration laws. 190 Members of Congress have signed the discharge petition to bring 

Congressman Shuler’s legislation to the floor. I would encourage action on this bill. 

Finally, this Congress must again take up legislation reauthorizing the Department of Homeland Security giving guidance to ICE on immigration policy and law 

enforcement. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today and I look forward to 

the testimony of Ms. Costner. 

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

And thanks to all four of our colleagues. We do understand that 

Members have multiple hearings and markups going on. We hope 

to ask you questions, but if you are called to another hearing, we 

understand because we have all been in that spot, and just let us 

know if that happens to you. 

We will begin our questioning at this point, and I will lead off. 

Congressman Braley, this is basically your hometown where all 

of this happened, and I am interested in—in the case of the 

Postville raid, it is—well, I have got the letters, I mean, from ICE 

and Department of Labor, and they just say diametrically different 

things. ICE says that the DOL knew about the raid, and DOL says 

no they didn’t. 

And so it appears—and as a matter of fact we have that reaffirmed verbally by DOL today that they knew nothing about this. 

24 

So what happens to the DOL investigation into the labor violations that may have been present at the Agriprocessors plant? It 

seems to me that, if we have prosecuted the individuals—the workers—who were there, they are in jail or in prison, and then they 

are going to be deported, how can they be witnesses to—on—I assume—the case that was to be brought against the employer? 

Are you concerned that this action has jeopardized the DOL investigation and possible prosecution of the labor-law violations that 

have been alleged? 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, yes, I am. That is one the reasons I have been 

asking for these answers. 

And just for the record, while the hearing has been proceeding, 

I just received word from my office that we have been informed 

that a fax was received from the Department of Labor’s Office of 

Inspector General, which confirmed they were given verbal notice— 

the OIG of the Department of Labor—prior to the May 12 raid and 

encouraged to be present—just the OIG, not the Wage and Hour 

Division—and they were specifically instructed not to inform the 

Wage and Hour Division that the raid was pending. 

And the reason I am concerned is because, given the short 

amount of incarceration periods under the plea agreement, given 

the fact the deportations are scheduled to occur as soon as those 

short sentence are completed, and given the language barrier for 

many of the key witnesses to these workplace safety violations, it 

seems to me it is going to be very difficult for the Department of 

Labor investigation to get the best evidence possible. 

And when you look at the history of workplace safety violations 

at this company and the fact that after certain agreements have 

been entered into, there have been repeat violations discovered by 

the Iowa Department of Labor of the very conditions that were supposed to be mitigated, I have very strong concerns about the impact 

of the ongoing investigation. And when you add that to the childlabor issues, then it is a very serious concern. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will find out later from other witnesses perhaps, but we don’t know how many of the employees have been deported so far and whether there has been an effort to maintain 

their presence in the United States as material witnesses to this 

other investigation. 

I know that you have been trying to do the best thing for your 

constituents. Have you been advised about that? 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, most of the information I get, quite frankly, 

comes from news reports. Senator Grassley and I both were aware 

of what was going on at the Cattle Congress before the raid was 

carried out. We were informed that there was a training exercise 

involving ICE and other Federal agencies and received no prior notice of what was going on. 

But one of the things we do know is that there has been a report 

that nine people have been deported under contract with a private 

plane service, and we know that there are many people being 

housed or incarcerated right now in county jails and in Federal detention facilities in Iowa and other Midwestern states. So the very 

nature of how the incarceration is being carried out makes it difficult to find witnesses in a central location as they would be if 

they were in the workplace. 

25 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will just—before turning this over to the Ranking Member—note that it is disturbing to hear that ICE notified 

the IG of the Department of Labor. That tells me they knew that 

there was an ongoing Department of Labor investigation about violations, including child labor, at this plant. But to tell the IG and 

not the Wage and Hour Division insured that there would not be 

a presence there, and it is almost as if ICE intended to disrupt the 

investigation—and potentially prosecution—of this company for violations of the law. 

You know, when we enforce the law as a government, we are also 

required to live by the law. And I wonder in this case whether that 

is really what occurred here or whether there was an active involvement to really cover up and prevent the enforcement of the 

labor laws on the part of the Department of the Homeland Security. It is a very disturbing piece of information. 

My time has expired. 

I would now turn to the Ranking Member for whatever questions 

he may have. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I thank all the witnesses. 

And, you know, Iowa’s not used to being in the spotlight, not for 

natural disasters and not for immigration issues, but those things 

have emerged in the last few years. And so I would just turn to 

my colleague, who is a member, of course, of the Iowa delegation, 

and say, first off, I agree with you on the principle that you emphasized here that we need to enforce the law against employers as 

well. And I am curious about how we will get there and get that 

done. 

I would point out that the point was made earlier today that we 

do pass the laws here, as the Chairman of the full Committee said, 

and we review them, but in the end, it is the executive branch that 

enforces the law, and I have been in the business over the last 51⁄2

years of seeking to encourage them to do so. 

I don’t know that this hearing encourages enforcement of the 

law. I think it actually works in a counterproductive fashion because the tone has to be intimidating to the ICE workers. 

But I take this point is that one of the thing that ICE was concerned about, I believe, and—is that their communications with the 

Department of Labor might have provided a leak that could have 

warned the plant that there was a raid. 

And so I would suggest we have two things going on. One is we 

are concerned that this kind of information will leak out to perhaps 

local officials who would then tip off the plant or maybe another 

department of the government. 

We have another problem. The Social Security Administration 

doesn’t know what the Department of Homeland Security is doing 

and neither do other departments of government, like a company 

that has divisions that don’t communicate with each other. 

So I would ask you if—I mean, I have proposed a piece of policy, 

Mr. Braley, that recognizes this: That I think, when an employer 

knowingly and willfully hires illegals, that they should not be able 

to deduct the wages that they pay or the benefits they pay from 

their income tax. And I believe we can allow them to protect themselves and give them safe harbor if we let them use E-Verify. 

26 

And then we should allow the IRS to come in, when their normal 

audit, run the Social Security numbers of those employees through 

the E-Verify. If the employer knew or should have known that they 

were illegal, they should then be denied deductibility of those expenses. And I would ask you if you agree if that would be a way 

that we could add to a way we could enforce the law? 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, I think we certainly need to have much stricter enforcement sanctions against employers who knowingly violate 

the law. And this employer is a perfect example of that because—— 

Mr. KING. Would you allow them to deduct the wages that they 

paid to illegals? 

Mr. BRALEY. It is one of those issues that we have to be looking 

and talking about because, in this case, many of the workers were 

denied checks that they had earned because they had been deported and weren’t available, and that is one of the things the 

Wage and Hour Division had to get involved in. 

And in this particular case, this employer was involved in a labor 

dispute in 2000 in its Brooklyn, New York, facility and tried—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let our colleague answer, if you would—— 

Mr. KING. I just think he misunderstood my question. He is on 

the other side of my question, and I want to make sure our time 

is used in a fashion here that is prudent. 

But I yield the gentleman. I can restate the question if I need. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman will proceed. 

Mr. BRALEY. I think that there are a host of different enforcement actions, including the one you are proposing, that need to be 

considered as a way of getting the point across to employers who 

are exploiting workers for their profit, yes. 

Mr. KING. I thank you very much for that response. And it is a 

direct one, and that is the way we talk in the Midwest, just nice 

and directly. 

So in another direct fashion here, as I review your testimony and 

you reference undocumented workers, and I would ask you directly, 

those who have pled guilty and—of which, by the way, of those who 

were rounded up in that raid, 62 were released for humanitarian 

reasons so they had children to take care of, and so I wanted to 

make that point. 

But of those who have pled guilty then—do they then transition 

from undocumented workers into illegal aliens or criminal aliens? 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, once they have pled guilty to a charge after 

due process, they become identified however the law classifies 

them, yes. 

Mr. KING. Which would be illegal aliens or criminal aliens depending on the case of the conviction? 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, to me a criminal is a criminal no matter what 

their naturalization status is. If you plead guilty to a criminal offense in this country, then you are deemed to have been convicted 

of a criminal offense. 

Mr. KING. And then they are criminals? 

Mr. BRALEY. Yes. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Braley. 

And I turn to Mr. Davis, and I know that, coming in out of this 

from Tennessee you advocated strongly for a 287(g) program. You 

have been blunted at every effort to do that. I encourage you to 

27 

keep trying and I—the resources—local law enforcement and their 

cooperation are in short supply. What is your sense when you promote 287(g)? Is there pushback? 

Mr. DAVIS. There is not pushback at the local level. There is not 

pushback at the state level. There is pushback at the Federal level, 

most of my colleagues, unfortunately. 

I can tell you, though, this is a bipartisan approach. When I introduced legislation to bring the amendment to the floor, the first 

thing I did is reached across the aisle, had one of my fellow Members who is a Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee introduce the legislation with me. So I am trying to not make this 

a partisan issue. Trying to make this an American issue. 

I can tell you—this is coming directly from the sheriff of 

Hamblen County and from the chief of police in the city of Morristown—they want some help. The odds of finding a Federal agent 

on street corners across America are very slim. The odds of finding 

a member of a sheriff’s department or a police department in local 

communities are there, they are high, they know what is going on 

in their local communities, and I would encourage us to use our 

local law enforcement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And we have 

been notified that we will have a series of votes sometime in the 

next half hour so we will lose this panel, no doubt, at that vote 

time. I am going to ask people to be as brief as they can. 

And Mr. Conyers, the Chair of the full Committee, is invited to 

ask any questions he may have of our colleagues. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, one thing is clear, that we don’t have much 

cooperation between the organizations in the government, between 

Homeland Security, between the Department of Labor and others. 

And I guess that works to everybody’s detriment. 

There was in 1982 a memorandum of understanding between the 

Immigration and the Wage and Hour Division that was signed to 

mandate cooperation and notification. And so that apparently isn’t 

working too well, and we need to do a little bit more about it. 

But over and above that, there is a spirit of meanness that seems 

to underheard this massive raid that went on in the congressman’s 

area, and I am trying to figure out if there are ways that we and 

Judiciary can, first of all, get more cooperation and understand 

what the process is. I mean, this was a fantastically expensive undertaking, and it may have blown the Wage and Hour issue that 

the Labor Department may be taking up if you have deported these 

folks out of the country. 

Is that the case? Do I understand this right? I will ask our distinguished witnesses here. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, that remains to be seen, and 

that is why I am continuing to push for further clarification from 

Department of Labor, from the Justice Department and from ICE. 

And one of the concerns that I raised, based upon the history of 

labor violations and workplace safety violations at this employer, 

is because we know that building a case against employers according to the Department of Justice takes time, and that is why they 

apparently have not issued any indictments against the owners of 

this company and others in key management positions. That is the 

response we are getting, that the investigation is billed. 

28 

And the same thing is true in a workplace safety investigation. 

And if you remove key witnesses who may have information about 

violations, it could definitely compromise the outcome. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, if I might, the question you asked, 

whether this is an effective manner of immigration reform of enforcement, we see that we have gotten only 4,000 of those deported 

out of the ICE raids that have occurred and now with 114—and 

they are particularly mean. 

The two individuals in Texas who were citizens were surrounded 

at their homes in the early morning. They were taken to a detention center. Their families were told that they could be bonded out. 

They are grounded in the community. They are not flight risks. 

They never got bonded out, and they were brought the next morning with cameras, with leg irons, with waist irons and cameras and 

a great display. 

This is, I believe, ineffective and pricey as it relates to ICE duties, and what happens is criminal undocumented aliens who wind 

up creating tragedy, are going uncaptured, and I think that is 

where our efforts should be along with comprehensive immigration 

reform. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am not enamored by my friend Steve King 

telling me how many people took a plea. Those of us with experience in the criminal justice system, you can end up taking a plea, 

when you are faced with either 6 months or you get the maximum, 

buddy, take your choice, and you have got a language problem, 

maybe, to boot, you have appointed counsel, interpreters—we don’t 

know where they are. Some of the language problems even go beyond Hispanic. There were some people with Indian and Hispanic 

backgrounds. So I don’t feel that that is some determination of 

guilt at all under those circumstances. 

Do you agree with that, Steve? 

Mr. KING. No, I don’t, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I didn’t think you would. [Laughter.] 

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

We would now turn to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for any questions he may have for our colleagues. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I really have just three very brief questions that I hope can be 

answered yes or no. 

And, Congressman Davis, let me start with you and work across 

the panel. 

The first is do you think employers should check to see whether 

new employees can legally work in the U.S. or not? 

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. That is the only way we can deal with 

this is internally and on the borders. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Congressman Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, yes. Except I think it is up to us to make 

sure that the information they gather is accurate. I mean, we have 

a system that can’t even get people through Immigration and get 

two people in one family so how—— 

Mr. SMITH. I agree—— 

29 

Ms. WOOLSEY. It does no good to give false information to the 

employer. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Congresswoman Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member. But I also want 

you to know that the owners of, in particular, Rags USA, checked 

the documents that they were given, used the system that was in 

place and got no pushback on the documentation. We need to fix 

a broken system. 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman Braley? 

Mr. BRALEY. I would agree with the remarks of my colleagues. 

Mr. SMITH. All three? 

Mr. BRALEY. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Next question is this: Do you think illegal immigrants—start 

again with Congressman Davis. Do you think illegal immigrants 

take jobs away from American workers or depress their wages because of competition? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I don’t believe they take jobs away because in my 

district, for example, they take jobs that other people will not do. 

But I think wages become depressed when we don’t have labor 

laws that cover our low-paying workers. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Congresswoman? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think if you ask the construction industry 

and the restaurant industry and a lot of other industries, they are 

in essence being shut down because of their lack of work to the agricultural industry. 

I think we have a commitment—an obligation—to hire America 

first, but at the same time, I think we have a commitment to provide an employment stream, if you will, legally with comprehensive 

immigration reform for all those industries that have come to the 

Congress and say they are suffering. 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman Braley? 

Mr. BRALEY. I think I would give a qualified yes in that, as a 

general principle, it is true, but that you also have differences in 

growth populations among states and differences in job opportunities. You have a state like Iowa, which Mr. King and I represent, 

there were four casts that were going to have a labor shortage in 

the future because of the baby boomers retiring and so we are looking at workplace needs, and that is why a state like Iowa historically has depended upon immigrant populations to meet its labor 

needs. We have to look at comprehensive reform so that we can 

make sure we are bringing the workers in we need to fill those. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Congresswoman Jackson Lee actually anticipated my next question, which is this—and I will start on the right again—do you 

think American employers should hire American workers before 

they hire foreign workers? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, no doubt. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Congresswoman Woolsey? 

30 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, if there is available American workers. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand and I assume that they would be available. Yes. 

Congresswoman? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Ranking Member, as you well know, we 

worked on this issue absolutely, and we should reach out to populations here in the United States and at the same time, however, 

provide the comprehensive immigration reform to provide the 

streams of labor that we need in this country. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Congressman? 

Mr. BRALEY. I would agree with those remarks. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Actually, I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Gallegly, because I think we are getting ready 

for a vote. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jackson Lee, later today we are going to hear from a person 

who is trying to get her life back together after her identity was 

stolen by an illegal immigrant. What would you say to our own citizens who have been rightfully prosecuted for identity theft and 

given strong prison sentences if we were to give amnesty to illegal 

immigrations for the same act? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I don’t think anyone who has perpetrated a crime should be relieved of the responsibility. So I believe, in fact, with you, Mr. Gallegly, that I would much prefer ICE 

enforcement agents going after direct criminal action—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So you believe that illegals should be prosecuted—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Direct criminal actions by undocumented, not 

mistaken. On the other hand, I think they are wasting time by 

raids that generate no relief. 

I would like to have the individual who created the tragedy in 

San Francisco arrested. The individual who, unfortunately, killed 

an officer in Houston arrested. I don’t think we are getting to that 

direction by these raids. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. One last question to you, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

You stated very appropriately—and I think articulately—that 

you believe we are a Nation of laws and we should continue to 

focus on being a Nation of laws, and your concerns towards—and 

I don’t mean to be paraphrasing—some of the means of deportation 

has been done in an inhumane way and subjecting children and innocent people to harm; is that not correct? It is something—yes or 

no—it is something to that effect? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They have been roughshod raids, yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Okay. Let me ask you this: Would a more 

humane way be—we currently have a database of over 10.5 million 

people that are working in this country with an illegal Social Security card. Would it not be more humane to send a notice to the employer—by the way, the employer has the name, address, phone 

number and shoe size of the employee, as does the Social Security 

service of the employer and the employee. 

31 

Should we not be sending a notice to the employer to either clarify that they have the right number or terminate that person immediately without an officer going out there to do it, if they don’t, 

$1,000 a day fine until they do, and then at the same time the employer that has been terminated must do E-Verify before he could 

get a job somewhere else? That being the case, we would probably 

have 90 percent of the illegal immigration problem solved except 

for those that are working underground. And then we could go to 

work and find out what the unmet domestic need is and find a 

legal way to do it. 

But would you agree that that would be a very humane way to 

do it, send letters out and enforce the law under the employer-sanction provision of the 1986 IRCA law? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think most employers, Mr. Gallegly, would 

agree with you, a consistency in documentation. In fact, when I 

spoke to these owners, they said they thought they were following 

E-Verify, they though there was a process. At the same time, we 

have a pending comprehensive immigration bill, and I do think we 

need to find a way to address this question in that manner as well. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. With all due respect, I have to respectfully disagree that most employers do not believe that, or they would be 

using an E-Verify program that is 10 times simpler to use, if not 

100 times simpler, than the I-9 form that takes a 21-page booklet 

to fill out. It is an ‘‘I don’t know and I don’t want to know because, 

if I know, I am going to lose 90 percent of my employees.’’ 

I yield back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Employers that I spoke to said they would like 

to use it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just FYI, through misunderstanding, the gentleman was given 5 minutes by the clerk, when you yielded, so if 

you want to take the remainder of your time, you should do so. 

You are through. Okay. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. [Off mike.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Very good. 

I will turn now to our colleague, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. First of all, I want to thank the gentlelady 

Chairwoman for conducting this hearing. As she knows, we have 

been working closely together. We will be visiting Postville this 

Saturday with other members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus because we think it is important to go and examine all of the 

different aspects of this raid, including the human tragedy, which 

has befallen Postville. 

So I would like to thank everyone for their testimony and all of 

my colleagues for coming this morning. 

And I would like to say that, as we have this debate, for those 

of you who aren’t on the Judiciary Committee, you can see part of 

the debate that we have here. I find it interesting that my colleague Mr. Braley was asked whether or not there should be an 

IRS sanction against an employer who has wages. It is interesting 

when the other side says—one side’s ‘‘Criminal. Send them to jail,’’ 

and other side, ‘‘Let us do an accounting procedure. An IRS thing. 

Don’t let them deduct it from the taxes.’’ 

Other people get ripped asunder from their children, from their 

spouses. The employer, give them an IRS thing that they can’t 

32 

make a deduction. That is pretty simple, but it doesn’t surprise me 

because it is very clear to me that the undocumented workers don’t 

have the kind of power and influence. They obviously don’t have 

political action committee. They don’t make campaign contributions. They are not in a position of power, as many great 

Agriprocessors are in a position of power, to influence the debate 

that we have here in Congress. So it really doesn’t surprise me. 

But I think that we have to have a real discussion. 

Mr. Braley, do you know anything about the cost of this? Have 

you looked into the cost of this raid at Postville? 

Mr. BRALEY. Absolutely. One of the biggest issues in immigration 

reform is what it is going to cost to carry out the planned deportation that was under consideration of anyone in this country illegally. 

And because this Postville raid has been represented as the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history, I have requested 

from all related Federal agencies to provide me with a complete accounting of the cost of the investigation, the apprehension, the detention, the prosecution, and the incarceration associated with this 

one single raid of 400 employees in the workplace. I have received 

nothing in response to that. 

But I have also asked for similar information about the Swift 

raids that were carried out in Marshalltown, Iowa, just a year and 

a half ago. I think it will give us all some insight into what we are 

talking about when we are looking at the problem that everyone 

has been talking about on the panel. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. There have been estimates given of upwards of $40 billion to begin this process, not to totally complete the process 

but to begin the process. 

But if the congressman were ever to receive that information 

and—I am sure the Members of this Committee would be very, 

very appreciative to him for getting us that information because I 

think it goes kind of to the crux of the matter here. 

We have—Homeland Security and I—and I know that the Chairwoman sat across the street from Mr. Chertoff, and he negotiated 

with us because he said to us, ‘‘Our immigration system is broken.’’ 

That is what he said to me. That is what he said to Members of 

Congress, as he, the secretary of Homeland Security came down 

here to negotiate with us a comprehensive immigration reform. He 

said it is broken; it is bad. 

His boss, the president of the United States, said publicly the 

system is broken and people are being denied basic human rights, 

they are being exploited, we need to bring them out of the shadows, 

we need to bring them into the light of day. This is the president 

of the United States, who, through his ambassador, Secretary 

Chertoff, came to me and other Members of this Committee and 

Members of Congress and spent nearly 6 months negotiating—or 

attempting to negotiate—a comprehensive—— 

So what I find so astonishing about this is they say one thing 

and then they do the other. They take most of their capacity of 

Homeland Security, which I thought was to protect us against terrorists, smugglers, drug dealers, people who are going to do harm 

to me, my family and my community, and you know what they do? 

They hoodwink us. Because now, as the minority so clearly stated 

33 

as they asked you ‘‘Are they criminals?’’ Yeah, technically they are 

criminals now because here is the plea agreement—I want to follow 

up with the Chairman—here is the plea agreement. This is what 

they had to plead to because of criminals. 

They said, ‘‘If you plead guilty to the charge of knowingly using 

a false Social Security number, the government will withdraw the 

heavier charge of aggravated identity theft, and you will serve 5 

months in jail, be deported without a hearing, and placed on a supervised release for 3 years.’’ Okay. 

But what if you don’t? ‘‘If you plead not guilty, you could wait 

6 to 8 months’’—that is 3 months more than we are offering you— 

‘‘without right to bail’’—because you are immigration detained. ‘‘If 

you win at trial, you will still be deported—waiting longer in jail 

than if you plead guilty, and you would also risk receiving at trial 

the 2-year minimum sentence.’’ 

I mean, this is what this is really about. What our government 

did in Postville to people who were working is that they charged 

them with aggravated identity theft, which means they must have 

knowingly, with premeditation taken that identity to do what? 

Commit a serious crime. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. What crime did they commit? They applied for 

a job. That, the last time I checked, is not an aggravated felony. 

And so I think—and I am—I think that that is really the crux 

of the matter here is are we safer today 

Ms. LOFGREN. The—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. Because they locked up 300 people—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. In Postville? I think not. I don’t feel 

safer. As a matter of fact—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. I feel ashamed of the Nation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we have 

just gotten, I think, our—is it the 10-minute notice? All right. 

Then we will take 5 minutes for Mr. Lungren, and I think we 

probably will not be able to get to our remaining two Members, but 

we will return after the vote. 

Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

This is a most interesting hearing. Having been here in 1986 as 

the Ranking Republican on immigration and having obtained the 

Republican votes to have the largest single legalization in the history of this Nation, I also recall we coupled it with, for the first 

time, employer sanctions, of which I was one of the authors. 

And the complaint has been since that time that neither Republican nor Democratic administration had enforced it nor did they 

do anything about going to worksites to check on it. And so now 

this Administration, finally, in the last couple years of their Administration, is beginning to do that, and it seems to me the tenor 

of many of the comments is that they should not have done that. 

Mr. Braley, it has been stated—or you said that you have worked 

on the problem of corporate downsizing resulting in loss of jobs for 

employees—— 

34 

Mr. BRALEY. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. For which I congratulate you. 

One of the things, it seems to me, it is important for us to do— 

and I ask if you would agree—is to deal with the issue of illegal 

immigration because in some cases it results in the loss of jobs to 

Americans. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. BRALEY. In some cases I believe it does. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And, Ms. Jackson Lee, one of the things I was surprised at hearing you say is that in the construction—I believe that 

you said it—or maybe Ms. Woolsey said—in the construction trade 

we have the need for foreign workers. When we passed the bill in 

1986, the presence of illegal immigrants in the construction trade 

was virtually nil. And now it is more than that, some would say 

substantial. 

And at that time I expressed a concern about the high rate of unemployment with African-American males age 17 to 35. And it 

seemed to me that we as a country could not use as an excuse that 

we couldn’t find Americans, particularly African-American males 

age 17 to—to 35, to work in the construction industry, and yet we 

have a worse situation now. It is not like agriculture, where it is 

distant from where people live. 

And do you disbelieve that there is any negative impact on the 

African-American male community for the presence of illegal immigrants in the workforce in construction around our country? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me clarify my point. I did not say that 

they were needed, what I said was those industries are being shut 

down because of the census in the population in those industries, 

including restaurants and the construction industry. 

I will use as my reference your Ranking Member Mr. Smith. We 

have been leading on the issue in years past on ensuring the reach 

to the African-American community on a number of issues, including technology. But as we speak, in the city of Houston, I am leading on an effort to hire African-American young men on construction sites. Of course, I am an equal-opportunity person, who believes that all people should have the opportunity to work, but we 

are doing it to reach out to them. 

My point is is that these industries, as my good friend Mr. 

Braley said, are suffering from demographics and census, and, 

therefore, their work is being stopped. We need to find a comprehensive reform system, Mr. Lungren, so that we can hire Americans first, we can outreach to American workers and at the same 

time we can provide a pathway to citizenship. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Do I understand it correctly that you object 

to the raids, per se, or you object to raids that are in the spirit of 

meanness, that are cowboy style, that are roughshod raids, that are 

dangerous, unworkable and sad? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. First of all, let me say that I have a great deal 

of respect for the enforcement officers across America. They are 

working very hard. They have my support. 

But, yes, I believe that we get little value out of these raids. I 

think we get more drama. We don’t get comprehensive immigration 

reform, we don’t get the illegal, violent—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I am not suggesting what do you get. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Off of the street and—— 

35 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not suggesting—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. An effective approach. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not suggesting you get comprehensive immigration reform from raids, but the raids are aimed at going after 

illegal immigrants who have jobs to which they are not entitled or 

are using false identification, which then impacts other people in 

this country. And wouldn’t you—well, let me ask you this: Would 

you suggest we stop doing the raids? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me say this: In speaking to employers who have had experience of today and then 5 years out, ICE 

agents used to come to the site—you can’t move a big factory—they 

used to go through the individuals and be able to both enforce 

against the employer—— 

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Were illegal. All I would say is 

that it is an ineffective approach of doing what we want to do. 

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

We will be in recess for this set of votes. 

Mr. Braley, do you have something you need to—— 

Mr. BRALEY. Before the record is closed, I do have a copy of the 

fax that I mentioned earlier, and I would just offer—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that will be made part of the 

record. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

36 


K-1.eps
37 


K-2.eps
38 

Ms. LOFGREN. We have four votes so we will not be back probably before 1 o’clock. We will begin with our second panel at 1 

o’clock. I think there is a cafeteria in the basement of this building 

if someone wants to get a bite or a cup of coffee. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee will be coming to order in a 

minute. 

As we reassemble here, I did want to mention something I neglected to say this morning, which is how appreciative we are to 

the House Administration Committee and their staff. The room 

that we ordinarily use is taken for another hearing in the Judiciary 

Committee, and the House Administration Committee was kind 

enough to make this hearing room available to us, and they have 

really gone the extra mile with our Judiciary staff to accommodate 

us, and we are very appreciative of that. 

And I am on the House Administration Committee, so this is not 

a new room to me, but it is an ornate room, and luckily we don’t 

have all the standers here for our second panel, who I would like 

to introduce now. 

I am pleased to welcome two witnesses. The first is Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Deborah Rhodes. Ms. Rhodes assists 

the deputy attorney general on a variety of criminal and other 

issues. She is also the United States attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, where she oversees all Federal criminal and civil 

litigation in an office of approximately 50 professional staff. 

Ms. Rhodes was formerly counselor to the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the United States Department of 

Justice. She also supervised the Office of Policy and Legislation 

and was the department’s liaison to the American Bar Association 

Criminal Justice section. 

She graduated with honors from Rutgers Law School in Camden, 

New Jersey, where she was editor-in-chief of the Rutgers Law 

Journal, and she graduated with high honors from Wheaton College Illinois, and I found out this morning, when we said hello, that 

she is also a—originally a fellow Californian. 

So we welcome you today. 

I am also pleased to introduce Marcy Forman. Ms. Forman is director of the Office of Investigations for the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Service, otherwise known as ICE. As director, Ms. 

Forman oversees the largest investigative arm of the Department 

of Homeland Security with more than 7,000 employees and 178 

other field offices throughout the United States. 

Ms. Forman is responsible for the policy, planning, management 

and operations conducted under five major investigative program 

divisions within the Office of Investigations. 

Ms. Forman holds a Masters of Science degree in management 

from National-Louis University, a Bachelor of Science degree from 

American University and has completed the Senior Executive Fellowship Program at Harvard University. 

She is a 2007 recipient of the Secretary of Homeland Security 

Silver Medal for her leadership and dedication in leading ICE’s enforcement efforts. 

Your full written statements will be made part of the record. We 

ask that you summarize your statement in 5 minutes. 

39 

And this morning—it is very difficult to keep one’s colleagues 

within 5 minutes, but we are going to ask the witnesses, as much 

as possible, to stay within the 5 minutes’ time because we have another panel after you. 

And the little machine on the table, when it turns orange, that 

means you have got 1 minute left, and when it turns red, it 

means—and it always comes a surprise—your 5 minutes are up so 

we would ask that you please conclude at that point. 

And we will begin, Ms. Rhodes, with your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH RHODES, SENIOR ASSOCIATE 

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. RHODES. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King 

and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss the Justice Department’s role at Agriprocessors in Iowa. 

Worksite enforcement is an important part of our immigration 

strategy, and I can assure you that the department and our U.S. 

attorneys in the field are fully committed to ensuring that we pursue it in a manner that protects every defendant’s constitutional 

rights. 

The integrity of a nation’s borders and its immigration laws are 

fundamental to any nation’s security. For this reason, the attorney 

general has identified immigration enforcement as one of the department’s priorities. 

Immigration policy is comprehensive. We enforce many statutes 

in a variety of contexts, including the borders, interior space and 

worksites. In my written comments, I have mentioned recent cases 

against violent organizations, smuggling and trafficking humans, 

employers and corporations who knowingly hire illegal workers and 

those who provide false identity documents to others, like the 

charges that are currently pending against two supervisors at 

Agriprocessors, where the investigation is ongoing. 

We also prosecute those who use false immigration or Social Security documents, identities that are often stolen from real people 

to circumvent immigration laws. In fact, these prosecutions often 

help investigators to work up the chain and obtain evidence from 

the witnesses who can testify directly against the document vendors, employers and corporations. 

Our efforts have been successful. During the first 8 months of 

this fiscal year, immigration prosecutions along the Southwest border increased by 19 percent. At the same time, apprehensions along 

the Southwest border decreased by 21 percent. This is a remarkable change in both directions in a short period of time. And apprehensions aren’t down in just isolated areas. They are down in each 

one of the Southwest border districts. 

We believe that this is further evidence that our success is due 

to a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy, which 

builds upon itself and incorporates each of the efforts described 

above. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE work closely together to ensure that worksite enforcement actions are conducted in a manner 

that carefully safeguards constitutional rights and treats each person fairly and with respect. This was also true in Iowa, where exVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
40 

traordinary precautions were taken. My written statement describes those efforts in detail, but I will mention a few key points 

here. 

Every defendant was appointed experienced and capable criminal 

defense counsel to advise them concerning their case. Defense 

counsel, assisted by a court-certified interpreter, typically had the 

opportunity to meet with the defendant both before the first court 

appearance and immediately afterwards. This is earlier than happens in the ordinary case since counsel is usually not appointed 

until the first court appearance. 

Consulate officers from the defendants’ countries were also 

present to advise their citizens. 

Defense counsel could, of course, continue to meet defendants 

after they were transferred to other facilities. 

Defendants who were charged with the same offense were assigned to the same counsel and housed together to the greatest extent possible in order to facilitate meetings with defense counsel. 

Defense counsel were free to meet with their clients as they saw 

best. 

Defendants represented by immigration counsel also had the 

benefit of their advice prior to any plea. The immigration counsel 

consulted with the criminal defense counsel, and defense counsel, 

in fact, raised immigration concerns in several cases based upon 

specific facts. 

Defense was provided with all of the necessary and appropriate 

discovery material at the earliest time. In most cases this was prior 

to the first court appearance. Again, this is earlier than the normal 

procedures. 

The discovery package included the charges, a copy of the evidence supporting the charges and other relevant materials. The 

package also included a proposed written plea agreement and the 

relevant court documents for entering that plea. The plea and court 

documents were translated into Spanish. 

All of the files were based upon the evidence, the law and the 

sound discretion of career prosecutors in the U.S Attorney’s Office. 

Because the defendants, most of them, had stolen real identities, 

they were charged with aggravated identity theft. 

The plea offer gave them the opportunity to plead only to the 

lesser charge. In exchange, they agreed to stipulate to the removal, 

which ordinarily follows a felony conviction, and exceptions were 

made in this—on case-by-case basis based upon individualized 

facts. They also agreed to cooperate with the government, which 

was a key part of the agreement. 

The defendants pled guilty before a Federal judge on the record 

in open court with the public present and with the advice and consent of counsel. They went through a long plea policy, the same one 

that is used in ordinary cases, where each defendant was questioned at length, as was defense counsel. They admitted that they 

understood everything about the charges, penalties, plea agreements and sentence, in addition to many other things detailed in 

my written statement. 

The court asked counsel if there was any reason the plea should 

not be accepted, and no one objected. Defense counsel and the court 

both had an obligation to object if the plea was unsound. 

41 

No constitutional corners were cut. While the scope of the criminal activity in this case presented unusual challenges, the defendants’ constitutional rights were carefully protected and exercised 

throughout. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Rhodes, your time has expired. If you could 

wrap up, that would be helpful. 

Ms. RHODES. There is no reason to conclude that either the Federal judges or the defense counsel, who had an independent role in 

these proceedings, abdicated their role, much less than both of 

them did. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rhodes follows:] 

42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH J. RHODES


Rhodes-1.eps
43 


Rhodes-2.eps
44 


Rhodes-3.eps
45 


Rhodes-4.eps
46 


Rhodes-5.eps
47 


Rhodes-6.eps
48 


Rhodes-7.eps
49 


Rhodes-8.eps
50 


Rhodes-9.eps
51 


Rhodes-10.eps
52 


Rhodes-11.eps
53 


Rhodes-12.eps
54 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Forman, we would welcome your 5 minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MARCY FORMAN, DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

Ms. FORMAN. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking 

Member King and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. It 

is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss ICE’s law enforcement operation, in particular our worksite enforcement operation. 

ICE is first and foremost a Federal law enforcement agency with 

the mandate of protecting national security and public safety by 

enforcing the Nation’s immigration and customs laws. Our agents 

and officers perform the mission lawfully, professionally and compassionately. We take extraordinary steps to identify, document 

and appropriately address humanitarian concerns of all those we 

encounter during law enforcement operations and, in particular, 

during our worksite enforcement operations. 

While I am here today to specifically address many of the steps 

that ICE agents take when planning a large enforcement operation, 

it is important to note that the enforcement operations are just a 

small part of the overall investigation. ICE worksite enforcement 

investigations target employers who adopt a business model of employing and exploiting undocumented workers. Our investigations 

identify employers who hire large numbers of undocumented 

aliens, often representing a substantial percentage of the employers’ workforce. 

Our responsibility is to enforce the immigration laws, and that 

means arresting undocumented aliens, the employers, the document vendors, and any other individuals revealed by our investigation who have engaged in criminal activity. ICE has worked with 

Members of Congress and their staffs to develop worksite enforcement guidelines. The office is used when developing their operational plan. These guidelines were developed to ensure that parents who have been arrested and who have unattended minors or 

family members with disabilities or health concerns are identified 

at the earliest point possible. 

Within the law enforcement community, the consideration ICE 

gives to identifying and resolving personal family issues is unparalleled and unique. For example, during a large worksite enforcement operation, ICE coordinates with the Division of Immigration 

Health Services—DIHS—to provide a sufficient number of healthcare providers to assess the medical and humanitarian needs of 

arrestees. DIHS personnel are given prompt access to all arrestees 

under safe and humane conditions on the day of the action. 

When appropriate, ICE coordinates with state and local socialservice agencies to assist with humanitarian screening. Operational 

security concerns sometimes dictate that this coordination cannot 

occur in advance of an operation. Even then, however, ICE will actively contact the local social-service agencies and local nongovernmental organizations to advise them of the operation once it was 

underway to request their assistance in identifying and sharing information on any humanitarian issues that come to their attention. 

ICE evaluates these issues against other standard considerations, 

55 

and detention decisions, such as the arrestee’s criminal record, immigration history and other relevant factors. 

During our May 12 operation at Agriprocessors in Postville, 

Iowa, ICE agents executed criminal and civil search warrants at 

the company, resulting in the seizure of boxes of evidence and the 

arrest of 389 undocumented alien workers. 

Extraordinary care was taken to determine if any of the 

arrestees were sole caregivers or raised other humanitarian concerns. This process involved the direct questioning of all arrestees 

on the day of the enforcement operation by ICE personnel, as well 

as interviews with DIHS representatives. Detainees were questioned no less than three times about humanitarian issues, such as 

child custody or serious medical concerns. ICE arranged to have 

DIHS professionals at the arrest site to immediately determine the 

need and status of any children affected by the operation. 

Through this comprehensive effort, 62 of those arrested were 

placed into removal proceedings and then released for humanitarian purposes while their removal proceedings continued. Most 

were released from the arrest site in the course of the operation. 

Worksite enforcement operations are not poorly planned, haphazard incidents. They are professional law enforcement operations 

conducted by a professional law enforcement agency, whose primary mission is the enforcement of the laws of the United States 

and the protection of the American people. 

While planning for the operation in Postville, I spent several 

months coordinating the investigation and operation with our Federal partners, such as the United States Attorney’s Office, the U.S. 

Marshal Service, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and others. 

ICE will continue to faithfully enforce the Nation’s immigration 

laws using all the tools and assets at our disposal. By utilizing all 

our authorities to pursue aggressive enforcement and the training 

offered with the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and 

Employers—or IMAGE—program, ICE is establishing a culture of 

immigration compliance in America and reducing the magnet of illegal employment. 

On behalf of the men and women of ICE, who serve this Nation 

by enforcing the Nation’s immigration and customs laws, I would 

like to thank you for your continued support. These men and 

women have a difficult and oftentimes controversial job to do in 

often dangerous circumstances, but they strive always to do their 

essential work as consummate professionals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Forman follows:] 

56 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCY M. FORMAN


Forman-1.eps
57 


Forman-2.eps
58 


Forman-3.eps
59 


Forman-4.eps
60 


Forman-5.eps
61 


Forman-6.eps
62 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for that testimony. 

Now we will begin our questions. 

Would you like to proceed? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, and I think 

perhaps where I would start with this would be—if I direct my first 

question to Ms. Rhodes—with regard to what the rights might be. 

Is a judge—when a judge is presented with a plea agreement, is 

a judge free to reject the plea agreement if he believes due process 

has not been followed? 

Ms. RHODES. Yes, they are. In fact, judges are required to do so 

if they find that the defendant is not competent, doesn’t understand the charges, the penalties, understand the terms of the plea 

agreement. The judge specifically asks the defendant if he is satisfied with the representation of counsel, if he understands his constitutional rights, if he wants to waive them, if he wants to plead 

guilty. The defendant is explicitly asked under oath whether or not 

the factual basis supporting the guilty plea is true and correct. The 

defendant is asked whether he is under any coercion or whether 

the plea is voluntarily. 

That is just part of the list. There is a lengthy colloquy, and the 

judges, in my experience—I am a career prosecutor. Judges, in my 

experience, take their roles very seriously, as do defense counsel. 

It is an adversary system. Defendants represent their clients zealously. And defendants are also asked questions all through the colloquy—defense counsel—excuse me—are also asked questions all 

through the colloquy to ensure that they also believe that the plea 

is appropriate. 

Mr. KING. And if I could follow up on that a little bit and ask 

how has that colloquy been compiled? Is it a history of case law 

that is given more and more questions to make sure that the alleged criminal has been—have received their justice, or is it some 

scholar that sat back and wrote up the colloquy? 

Ms. RHODES. The requirements are set forth in Rule 11 of the 

Criminal Rules of Procedure, which govern what must be covered 

in order to have a valid guilty plea. 

In addition, it is my experience that most judges have a form or 

a script on their desk, which they use as a checklist, and they go 

through all of the questions, they are very detailed, and in that 

way they make sure that they don’t miss a single one. Sometimes 

it is also the case that judges give that script to counsel so that 

both the government counsel and defendant—the defense counsel 

can follow along the script and ensure that each and every question 

is asked and that satisfactory answers are given—— 

Mr. KING. Well, then would highly intelligent and very skilled 

immigration lawyers, like the Chair of this Committee, be looking 

for those omissions? 

Ms. RHODES. I can’t speak for the Chair of this Committee, but 

I am sure that lawyers would be looking for omissions. 

Mr. KING. And are you aware that they have discovered omissions in that colloquy? 

Ms. RHODES. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. KING. And I don’t know that this Committee is going to hear 

any testimony that would allege such a thing. 

63 

But there has been an allegation made in the—by the previous— 

I will say implications—in the previous series of witnesses about 

the Department of Labor not being informed of the ICE raids, and 

I would just ask if you are comfortable speaking to that issue? 

Ms. RHODES. I can speak to it initially, and then I would suggest 

that ICE is in a position to address that. 

But my understanding is that ICE did coordinate—and the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office always coordinates with the investigating agencies as well—but they did coordinate with the Department of 

Labor, both through OIG, who was present at the site, and through 

both state and Federal labor departments that were located in 

Iowa. 

And I will give—— 

Mr. KING. I will be happy to hear from Ms—— 

I am going to come back to you on that answer to that question, 

Ms. Forman, because I have just one more follow up—— 

Ms. RHODES. Okay. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. For Ms. Rhodes. 

And that is do you have numbers that can give us—this Committee—some sense of how many victims of identity theft were associated with the workers arrested at Agriprocessors? 

Ms. RHODES. Yes, I do. There were—of those who were criminally 

prosecuted to this point, there is approximately 306. The vast majority of those—hundreds—had the identities of real people. So 

there were hundreds and hundreds of real victims in this case. 

The investigation actually showed about twice as many as that, 

but not all of those people were apprehended. But approximately— 

well, more than 70 percent of the workers who were both illegal 

and had Social Security numbers that didn’t match. There were 

hundreds that real people, and there were hundreds of victims. 

Mr. KING. And, quickly, why are not company officials—senior 

company officials—charged immediately? 

Ms. RHODES. The investigation is ongoing. I can assure you it is 

being pursued. Two supervisors were indicted last week and will 

continue. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

And I realize, Madam Chair I am out of time. I wonder if I 

might—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. We may have a second—we may have a second 

round. 

Mr. KING. Just for the opportunity to allow to Ms. Forman to respond to the question? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, all right. 

Mr. KING. The lingering question? 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. 

And if I need to restate that, was the Department of Labor informed? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes, they were in April of 2008. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

64 

I would note that the Committee asked the U.S. attorney in Iowa 

Mr. Dummermuth to attend this hearing, and the Department of 

Justice sent you instead, and it is nice to see you here. But were 

you at—did you participate in these trials? 

Ms. RHODES. No, I didn’t. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You weren’t there? 

Ms. RHODES. No. But I have spent hours on the phone with—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. I just have a simple question. You weren’t 

there—— 

Ms. RHODES. No, I wasn’t. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And I don’t blame you, but I think it 

is disappointing that the department wouldn’t send the U.S. attorney who was there, who we asked to attend, and I will just note 

that for the record. 

I would like—and it may be that you don’t know this information. If so, I would like you to get it. 

But I would like to know what information was provided by the 

Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security—any or all of them—to the Federal court in Iowa. 

This was planned for a long time. When was the connection made 

with the court, and what measures were taken to ensure that the 

court’s view of the cases would not be affected and that judicial 

neutrality would not be compromised? 

Ms. RHODES. My understanding—primarily for logistical reasons. 

That is not unusual. If there is going to be an enforcement operation that is going to bring a large number of cases to the court, 

it is not uncommon to give the court a head’s up on that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So Judge Reade would have been contacted in advance? I am not making a value judgment, I am just trying to find 

out what happened. 

Ms. RHODES. That is correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, we were—there have been accounts—and I 

don’t know if they are accurate—that the U.S. District Courts for 

the Northern District of Iowa—Judge Reade—personally called defense lawyers asking them for favors and warning them not to tell 

anyone and then inviting them to attend a meeting in Cedar Rapids with other defense lawyers to take on the representation. Did 

anyone at DOJ ask Judge Reade to do this? Do you know if that 

report is accurate? 

Ms. RHODES. I know that defense counsel were contacted somewhat in advance, at least some of them were. 

Ms. LOFGREN. By Judge Reade? 

Ms. RHODES. That is my understanding. I don’t have all the details. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Given the number of individuals apprehended in 

this raid, I am curious of who picked the ratio of the number of 

defendants to lawyer? You know, ordinarily, one has—you know, 

you are charged with a crime, you have your lawyer to represent 

you. But these were bunches of defendants with a single lawyer. 

What guided you on the ratio? Do you know what the—— 

Ms. RHODES. I don’t know who selected that ratio—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Was it the judge, do you think? 

Ms. RHODES. I don’t know. I do know that she contacted the lawyers to keep the date available. I don’t—— 

65 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sorry. 

Ms. RHODES. It is not uncommon in immigration cases—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, these were prosecution of crime, though. 

These were not immigration cases. 

Ms. RHODES. Excuse me. It is not uncommon in immigration— 

criminal immigration cases to have a defense lawyer represent 

most—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. But this was not a prosecution for a criminal immigration matter. It was an identity theft prosecution. 

Ms. RHODES. The pleas that were actually conducted were not on 

identity theft. They were on other documents so it was a violation—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. That was the plea, but the—— 

Ms. RHODES. That is correct. My point is simply this, not to quibble over the charges but to simply say in these kinds of cases it 

is not uncommon to have defense lawyers represent multiple clients. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you, in terms of the—during the raid, 

it has been reported—I don’t know if it is true—that the ICE officers arrested and interviewed each of the arrested workers before 

they had access to criminal defense counsel. Were they Mirandized, 

and, also, was any of the information obtained in those interviews 

used in the prosecution—the later criminal prosecution? 

Ms. RHODES. They were Mirandized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. By the ICE interviewers? 

Ms. RHODES. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Did the decision to threaten the workers with aggravated identity theft charges that would require prison time of 

mandatory minimum of 2 years come from main Department of 

Justice, or was the final decision made in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and is this a new policy at DOJ? 

Ms. RHODES. You know, all of the charging decisions were made 

by the career prosecutors in the local office. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So DOJ didn’t have anything to do with it? The 

main office? 

Ms. RHODES. DOJ was consulted because of the size of the operation and to ensure that all constitutional protections would be afforded. It was also consulted because it was a fast-track operation 

and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, let me be more precise on my question. 

The decision to charge them with a criminal offense, as opposed 

to what has often been the case to administratively process and deport these individuals, was that a DOJ—— 

Ms. RHODES. That was—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Main—— 

Ms. RHODES [continuing]. Made by the career prosecutors in 

Iowa, and it was made primarily for two reasons: in order to obtain 

cooperation and also because there was a case that they were—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Cooperation in what? 

Ms. RHODES. Because a part of every one of the plea agreements 

was that they would continue to cooperate in the government’s ongoing investigation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But aren’t they going to be deported? They are not 

going to be here to cooperate with you. 

66 

Ms. RHODES. They are here for the next 5 months, and there is 

a case where—a case in the district of Nebraska, which is the same 

circuit, which dismissed a case against a corporation precisely because the workers were no longer available—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. So it may be the government’s intention that I am 

to keep these individuals here past their sentence as material witnesses to the ongoing—is that what you are telling me? 

Ms. RHODES. I can’t speak to that, but I can say that the investigation is ongoing and that cooperation was a key component to 

the criminal plea agreements. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But let me ask a final question because my time 

is expiring. But were any of the defendants notified of their right 

to contact their consular officers, as required under the Vienna 

Treaty? 

Ms. RHODES. Members of the consulate from all of the countries 

were present on location. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. So they were all there. 

I am going to turn now to Mr. Gutierrez for his 5 minutes, and 

as I mentioned earlier, we may have a second round of questions 

since there aren’t that many Members here and we have lots of 

issues and material that we would like to learn about. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

I would like to ask Ms. Rhodes, is this—I am going to read something, and tell me whether it is true or not. 

‘‘If you plead guilty to the charge of knowingly using a false Social Security number, the government will withdraw the heavier 

charge of aggravated identity theft, and you will receive a term of 

5 months in jail, be deported without a hearing, and placed on supervised release for 3 years. If you plead not guilty, you could wait 

6 to 8 months for a trial without right to bail since you are an immigration detainer. If you win at trial, you will still be deported 

and could wind up waiting longer in jail than if you plead guilty. 

You would also risk losing at trial and receiving a 2-year minimum 

sentence before being deported.’’ 

Is this is a copy of the interpretation of what was asked to be 

interpreted to the 300-and-some-odd detainees. Is that an accurate 

interpretation? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, I understand that that was the interpreter’s 

rendition of what the choices were. What I would say is—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Could you give—I am the detainee. 

Ms. RHODES. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Tell me. Give me the plea agreement. 

Ms. RHODES. That they could—that they were charged with two 

offenses originally. They were charged with the underlying document offense because they had a false document. They were also 

charged with aggravated identity theft because the documents belonged to real people, and each one of the people who pled guilty 

admitted to that. And so, yes, those were the two choices that they 

faced. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And if I go to—so but I was offered a lesser of 

two charges? 

Ms. RHODES. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. And if I didn’t accept the lesser of two 

charges, then I would be—wait in jail 6 to 8 months, possibly for 

67 

a trial, and then the minimum, if I am convicted, is 2 years under 

the aggravated identity theft? 

Ms. RHODES. They can go to trial, and they can fight the offense 

and take whatever verdict the jury gave them. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But you did tell them they would be deported 

nonetheless whether they win or lose? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, that wasn’t—as I understand that, that 

wasn’t a conversation the government—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, you know what, then, you see, there is a 

big flaw here because if the interpreter—who hired the interpreter? 

Ms. RHODES. The interpreter was arranged by the court. There 

were—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. By the court. So this is an officer of the court. 

Ms. RHODES. That is correct. But they are interpreting what the 

defense counsel is saying to the client. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So then we have—okay. So we still have 

a problem. We still have a problem with this proceeding because, 

if I am the detainee and the interpreter is there—and the interpreter is pretty knowledgeable because these interpreters, this isn’t 

their first trial. Many of these interpreters have gone through hundreds of trials; isn’t that true? 

Ms. RHODES. And so have the defense counsel. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And so have the defense attorneys. Good. So we 

have defense attorneys who know what they are doing—according 

to you, your testimony—and interpreters who know what they are 

doing. 

So if the interpreter is telling us that this is what he was asked 

to interpret, we have a problem here because that is not your—that 

is not what you are offering; right? 

You are contesting that this interpretation—right—is what was 

the offer to the detainee. 

Ms. RHODES. No. I think it was consistent. They would have—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It was consistent. So basically what you have 

done—now, did you make the decision to charge them—the Department of Justice—or did Homeland Security make the decision to 

charge them with aggravated identity theft? 

Ms. RHODES. The charging decisions were made by the career 

prosecutors in the office in Iowa. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. From the Department of Justice? 

Ms. RHODES. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They are the ones that made the decision. 

Was there any information given from Homeland Security that 

well over 100 of the Social Security numbers really didn’t match to 

anyone. 

Ms. RHODES. No. For everybody who pled guilty, Social Security 

confirmed that the Social Security number did in fact belong to a 

real person. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Did in fact belong to a real person. 

Ms. RHODES. That is correct. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So were there any in the underlying indictment 

or charges that you made to the 400—were there any Social Security numbers that didn’t belong to anybody? That really weren’t 

useful Social Security numbers? 

Ms. RHODES. There were some that—— 

68 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. There were some? 

Ms. RHODES. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So what you did is you carefully went 

back—now, when—you said there were two charges; right? Could 

you explain the two charges? There was aggravated identity theft, 

and what was the other one? 

Ms. RHODES. Whatever they were charged with as an underlying 

crime. For some it was submitting a false document to obtain employment. For some it was having a false immigration document. 

There were a few underlying charges that were used. 

And let me correct if I misspoke. It wasn’t 100 percent of the 306 

people that had a real person’s identity. It was the vast majority. 

There were a few that—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Okay. So it wasn’t 100—so then these people basically lied to the court when they admitted to knowingly— 

right?—having a false identity since I cannot knowingly have a 

false identity to an identity that I created myself. 

Ms. RHODES. Well, no. Then they would have—they would not 

have pled to that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But you said that some of them didn’t have 

a—— 

Ms. RHODES. Right. But—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. Social security number. I mean, I 

would ask the court reporter to repeat what you said, but you just 

stated that some of them did not have a Social Security number 

which indeed was being used by someone. 

Ms. RHODES. Right. It was a Social Security number not being 

used by somebody, but the charges would have been—they would 

not—those people would not have been asked to admit something 

false. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, you know, we have—my 5 minutes are up, 

but what I gathered was—from your testimony—that there were 

some people. First, you corrected yourself twice. 

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

We will have one more round of questions so that we can get any 

additional pieces of information that we wish to get. 

And I will turn now to Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

To start this off, I was actually waiting for Mr. Gutierrez to come 

back so he could hear from me directly and understand my position. 

My position was represented to this panel inaccurately. It has 

been consistently for enforcement of immigration laws, against 

those who cross the border illegally, against those who willfully 

overstay their visas, against those who hire people who are unlawful, where it is proven unlawful to work in the United States, and 

I don’t believe that the gentleman from Illinois can come up with 

a logical enforcement bill, and I am not a co-sponsor of. 

It isn’t fining employers that I am after. I am after bringing the 

departments of the Federal Government together and working in 

cooperation so that we can effectively assist ICE and the other 

agencies in enforcing immigration law. That is my stand, and that 

is my position, and it is unusual—and I apologize to the people 

that are here to testify today who do not always see the activities 

69 

of this Committee. It is unusual to see a Member of Congress misrepresent a position of another Member of Congress, especially on 

the same panel, especially when we are working together on a dayby-day basis and there should be no misunderstanding. In fact, I 

don’t believe there was one. 

So I turn to Ms. Rhodes, and I would ask you the question that 

why is the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa not here 

to testify today? 

Ms. RHODES. It was decided that I would be here to testify and 

that I was involved in reviewing the fast-track program itself. I 

have reviewed all of the underlying documents relating to these 

charges and I do have an understanding of not only this case but 

some others. 

Mr. KING. I am fully convinced of that. But isn’t it also true that 

he is conducting further investigations and it is policy not to—for 

a U.S. attorney not to come testify before Congress if there is an 

ongoing investigation that he is heading up and that—I don’t know 

of exceptions, and do you know of any exceptions? 

Ms. RHODES. That is right. 

Mr. KING. No exceptions. Then I think that clarifies why Mr. 

Dummermuth isn’t here today. 

Then I would turn to Ms. Forman. And can you first—can you 

tell us why Agriprocessors was targeted for worksite enforcement? 

What were the original indicators? 

Ms. FORMAN. ICE received information from very reliable sources 

that Agriprocessors was—had hired a number of illegal aliens and 

had built their workforce, they were an egregious violator in terms 

of hiring large numbers of illegal aliens. 

Mr. KING. And, you know, you are going—you probably have reviewed the testimony of one of the interpreters, Mr. CamaydFreixas. And I first ask you, have you reviewed his written testimony? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes, I have. 

Mr. KING. And so, as an opportunity to answer the charges that 

we are—this Committee is going to hear, how would you compare 

your holding area? He compared it to a concentration camp. How 

would you describe it? 

Ms. FORMAN. Well, first, personally and professionally, I find 

that quite offensive. Being of Jewish faith, I equate concentration 

camps to the murder of over 6 million Jews and other individuals. 

ICE is a professional law enforcement agency. Our detention centers have to meet certain standards, and the one that was put together in—in Iowa was one that I would—that was first rate. It 

had pods, it was full of beds, there were foods, there were meals, 

there was television, there was recreation centers. Most concentration camps that I have become aware of don’t possess those items. 

Mr. KING. Would it be possible to—to bring enforcement against 

employers without identifying illegal employees whom they had 

hired? Is it possible to bring a prosecution—a successful prosecution and conviction? I will go first to Ms. Forman—if I have time, 

back to Ms. Rhodes—but would it be possible to do so without— 

without first identifying illegal workers and prosecuting them so 

you have got those facts to work with? 

70 

Ms. FORMAN. Certainly, illegal aliens are a key component of any 

illegal worksite operation. However, I mean, there are different 

methodologies to work these types of cases, and oftentimes you 

can’t start from the top down. You have to work your way up in 

investigations—— 

Mr. KING. If I could quickly then—excuse me—go to Ms. Rhodes. 

Do you know of any circumstances by which we could successfully get convictions on employers if we didn’t have the—if we 

didn’t have the evidence of the illegal employees. 

Ms. RHODES. Certainly we have to have evidence that illegals 

were hired. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I think that makes my point, and I thank 

the witnesses. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

I am curious, do you know whether any of the people who were— 

who pled guilty have been deported yet, or are they all—they are 

currently in the United States? 

Ms. RHODES. I think ICE could probably speak more accurately 

to that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you know? 

Ms. FORMAN. There are over 200 individuals who currently are 

in still Federal custody. There have been approximately 30 that 

have been deported thus far. Ten are still in detention. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So 30 of them have been deported already? 

Ms. FORMAN. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So I guess that makes me question how we are 

going to proceed on the prosecution of the potential labor violations 

without the witnesses. It is pretty clear that ICE is—you know, 

and that is provided for in law. I don’t quarrel with that. But once 

a person has finished serving their criminal sentence, they are deportable and we are deporting our witnesses. So I think the concerns about destroying this case in terms of the employer’s misconduct are well founded. 

I am interested, Ms Rhodes, on the approach in this case. A common practice—well, let me just ask this. Well, oftentimes defendants—or in this case criminals—will be offered a sentence reduction for producing substantial assistance in the prosecution of others. Is that envisioned in these cases? 

Ms. RHODES. Yes. In fact, that was the whole reason for having 

that term in the plea agreement, so that the government could 

then find out who would be the best witnesses. And there are a 

number of ways of preserving their testimony in any criminal proceedings should one be necessary. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But the plea agreement itself—item 6, last sentence—says, ‘‘Due to the government’s agreement to a substantially 

reduced sentence, defendants shall have no expectation of any additional sentence reductions or substantial assistance.’’ 

So wouldn’t—really, you have lost your leverage once you have 

got the person, they have pled guilty—this is really backwards 

from the way these things are usually done, isn’t it? 

Ms. RHODES. It is not the way it is usually done, but that is the 

way it was done here, and there will be no additional benefit. The 

benefit was given upfront. 

71 

Ms. LOFGREN. So the opportunity used—5(k) in the sentencing 

guidelines—is really out the window? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, it wasn’t 5(k), it was charge bargaining in 

this case. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Ms. RHODES. Charges reduced. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask, in terms of access to immigration lawyers, was there an effort made, when the defense counsel were secured, to find people who knew anything about immigration law so 

they could understand the interplay between the two bodies of law, 

the criminal law defense and the immigration law? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, in fact, several immigration lawyers showed 

up at the site and were given access, actually, before criminal 

charges were brought in many cases. They were given access even 

during the booking process. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So there were several immigration lawyers and 

how many individuals? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, there were 300, but there were joint meetings 

held between the immigration lawyers and the defense counsel, 

and as a result of those meetings and information that was exchanged, some of the defense lawyers did bring immigration issues 

to the attention of the prosecutors. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask in terms of, again, the immigration 

benefits. I understand most of these individuals, at least from the 

press reports, were from Guatemala, which has a very checkered 

human rights record. Was there screening by the department to 

identify whether any of these individuals had been victims of torture or might have a claim to asylum based on the situation in 

Guatemala? 

Ms. RHODES. I think—I can answer—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you know the answer, Ms. Forman? 

Ms. FORMAN. I am not aware of that coming up, no. 

Ms. RHODES. No one did claim asylum. I do know that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, they ordinarily—you know, not well educated, Guatemalan meat cutters might not really be aware of the 

law of political asylum. 

Ms. RHODES. Right. But they had lawyers who were consulting 

with immigration lawyers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, that is—we received reports that immigration lawyers who came forward were actually turned away. But I 

will explore that with the immigration lawyers that are on the next 

panel. 

Let me ask you this: How did you know in advance who to give 

a charge reduction to in exchange for their cooperation? 

Ms. RHODES. It was given to everybody upfront so that we would 

have the opportunity to later find out who would be the best witnesses. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is kind of a pig in a poke, isn’t it? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, it was a risk we took. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You know, I want to get on to the next panel so 

I am not going to go any further, but I think certainly there are 

a number of issues that are posed here for me. 

I would just also note that the—in terms of the prosecution of 

low-level misdemeanor immigration violations—you mentioned the 

72 

Southwest border—we had testimony in the Administrative Law 

Subcommittee just a few weeks ago that, although there has been 

substantial increases, that came at a cost of a 40 percent reduction 

in organized-crime prosecutions in the same area. So, you know, we 

are prosecuting the busboys and the nannies, but the drug cartels 

are no longer having to worry. 

My time has expired. 

Let me turn to Mr. Gutierrez to see if he has additional questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Sure. Thank you very much. 

Yes, you said in order to obtain the cooperation of the detainees 

you did what, Ms. Rhodes? 

Ms. RHODES. They were offered—part of the plea agreement was 

that every detainee was offered a cooperation term, which means 

that they would cooperate in the government’s ongoing investigation. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me ask you, so you say that the lawyers 

there made the decision at that moment to pursue the indictment 

for aggravated identity theft, that these were lawyers in Iowa. 

Ms. RHODES. That is correct. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They made the decision. Is that usually the way 

it works? I thought there was like a chain of command? 

Ms. RHODES. No. Individual decisions on charging are left to the 

district. In this particular case, what was approved by the department was the fast-track program itself, which meant that they presented to us that they were planning on doing a large-scale operation and that they wanted to do it under the fast-track. The 

point—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Who wanted to do it under the fast-track, the 

lawyers from ICE, or the lawyers from DOJ? 

Ms. RHODES. It is the career DOJ lawyers—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. The career DOJ lawyers. 

Ms. RHODES [continuing]. Who present this. The benefit is it allows—it benefits the community because it allows for a large law 

enforcement operation to take out a large number of criminal defendants all at once. It does it in a way that doesn’t flood the 

courts. It does it more efficiently, and the defendants receive the 

benefit of that by getting a drastically reduced sentence. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They get a reduction to—— 

Ms. RHODES. Those programs exist permanently in many districts, and they also can be done on a case-by-case basis—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me ask you something. If this is the first 

time this was ever done, Postville’s precedent setting? 

Ms. RHODES. Pardon me? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. This had never been done before, this fast-tracking? 

Ms. RHODES. No. Fast-tracks in worksite enforcements have been 

done before. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And at this scale? 

Ms. RHODES. I am not aware of anything at this precise scale, 

nor am I aware—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Would you—I don’t expect that you have the information. Could you give to the Committee when this was first 

done? Because it is new to me, and it is new to many Members of 

73 

this Committee and I know some of the Members of Congress, 

which are the ones, in the end, that establish the immigration policies for this Nation. I mean, there should be some coordination between what we do here and the laws we enact and what you carry 

out at the executive branch of the government, especially the judicial branch of government. 

So could you please afford the Committee at some point in the 

very near future when you first began this fast-tracking, what the 

first case was, so that we could have some history of when this 

began? Because it is kind of new to me in terms of what gets done. 

Because, when you charged the people, you charged them with 

not knowingly using a false Social Security number, but you really 

charge them with aggravated identity theft—right?—and then you 

let them cop a plea for the lesser of the two charges? 

Ms. RHODES. Right. I believe the charges were with both, and 

then the greater charge was dismissed. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And then the greater charge was dismissed. 

So let me ask you, if I am a detainee, do I have a right to bail? 

Any one of the 300 detainees, was there a right to bail? 

Could I have a reasonable right to bail in getting out of jail while 

my—— 

Ms. RHODES. On—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. If I say no? 

Ms. RHODES. Well, there is a—you might have a criminal right 

to bail, but the fact of the matter is you are going to be detained 

by ICE for being here illegally. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Very good. So there is no right to bail. I mean, 

they are basically in jail regardless. I can’t get out of jail. 

So if I have children I have to attend to and a spouse I have to 

attend to—things that I am sure your prosecutors were knowledgeable of—that these people had—I mean, the attorneys must have 

communicated the guy has a—if he didn’t, then the attorney did a 

terrible job. The guy has a wife, the woman has children, spouse, 

people who rely on them. I mean, these are immigrants that are 

coming to the United States. 

Ms. RHODES. Yes. That was the basis of the humanitarian relief 

used. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That was the basis for the humanitarian. But 

yet you did have someone who might have had relief who didn’t 

take relief because his wife is an American citizen and he has 

American citizen children, and yet he took the plea agreement also. 

So—— 

Ms. RHODES. Some of those were also allowed relief on some of 

the terms. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, some of them but not all of them. Not all 

of them. 

Ms. RHODES. It was made on a case-by-case—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because the way you paint the picture is, ‘‘Oh, 

we did this for the good of the detainees. We offered them an opportunity to kind of walk away.’’ When indeed, most of the time 

that is not what happened. Most of the time what happens is they 

are detained and they are deported. Those are the statistics that 

we get from ICE. They detain people; they deport them. 

74 

This was a very different situation and the manner in which it 

was conducted at Postville because the statistics don’t lie. You basically said to them—and I know you want to tell us that you were 

offering them a deal of a lifetime, but it really wasn’t much of a 

deal. You charged them with a felony that had a 2-year minimum. 

You thereby tied the hands of the judge. He had to sentence them 

to 2 years if they were found guilty. They had to stay in jail. They 

were afforded an opportunity to stay in jail for 6 to 8 months, wait 

for a trial, when indeed you said to them, ‘‘Well, we will give you 

5 months.’’ 

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because from my point of view—and I will wrap 

it up—it is just—if you are going to charge somebody with something, charge them knowingly and with the intent. You did not 

have one complaint of identity theft against any of the people at 

this Agriprocessors plant, not one complaint of identity theft. 

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

I recognize the gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to 

again thank you and the Ranking Member for, I think, what is a 

very important hearing. 

Let me thank Ms. Rhodes and Ms. Forman for their service as 

well, and allow me to again reemphasize the respect I have for law 

enforcement and ICE agents, in particular the station in Houston, 

that has made as best an effort as they could to be as communicative and as sensitive to our concerns—our humanitarian concerns 

and also the concerns our office has expressed what we think are 

ineffective approaches to our situation. 

To that end, I would like to ask Ms. Forman to bring this back 

in writing—my colleague mentioned it for Postville, but I want a 

report on the Shipley Do-Nuts arrests and U.S. Rags—or Rags USA 

as relates to the number of people arrested, the number of people 

released, the number of people in detention as we speak, the status 

of the investigation and the status of the prosecution and the cost. 

And I also want to know the—any efforts to increase the staffing 

in the Houston office for ICE agents. 

Ms. Rhodes, let me—and I know you might not have that at your 

fingertips so if I can have that in writing. If you have it, you might 

want to comment. 

But let me—Ms. Rhodes, are you aware of the pending legislation—have you had a chance to at least have summaries of the 

kinds of legislative initiatives, like comprehensive immigration reform or some aspects of the legislation that has to do with felonies? 

Ms. RHODES. I am sorry. I am not familiar with the details of the 

legislation that is pending. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have a sense that the thrust of the legislation is that people who are convicted of felon are deported, in 

essence, permanently? Are you familiar with that approach that 

someone who is a convicted felon would not be able to access what 

has been called access to citizenship? 

Ms. RHODES. I know that typically those convicted of felonies are 

deported. 

75 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. So what we have here in Postville, for 

example, what is typically a civil or a pathway for someone to be 

deported and possibly stay out of the country for 10 years, the psychic may have been by those lawyers on the ground that, if these 

individuals are convicted of felony charges, then whatever approach 

we may take in moving forward on immigration reform, they would 

be forever barred from coming back to the United Sates? 

Ms. RHODES. I don’t know whether or not they would be forever 

barred. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But they certainly would have a far more difficult time. I think they would be forever barred. I don’t think there 

is a pathway for felons to come back in the United States. 

Ms. RHODES. They are permanently barred. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They are permanently barred. So do you have 

any indication that that was the approach that these lawyers were 

taking? 

Ms. RHODES. No, I don’t. I know that felonies are graded. Some 

you can apply for readmission after 10 years, some after 15 years, 

some are—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But if you have a young child and a spouse 

here, certainly it would be a far more difficult hurdle to overcome; 

is that not correct? 

Ms. RHODES. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And to your knowledge—I know that they 

were charged with identity theft—and I abhor identity theft—but 

to your knowledge, short of that creative thinking at that time— 

to your knowledge—or at least these individuals were at first approached by the law because they were undocumented? 

Ms. RHODES. No, that is not correct. It is because of the widespread identity theft. What had happened was Agriprocessors is 

the largest employer in this town. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you looked—— 

Ms. RHODES. They had over 70 percent that were illegal, and as 

the investigation progressed, it became clear that they were also 

over 70 percent having Social Security numbers belonging to somebody else. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And was that contributed to by the employers? Were they part—was the allegation that they were part of the 

conspiracy? 

Ms. RHODES. I would say this: It was a large percentage of 

the—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. So, therefore, the culprits were involved 

were also the employers as well, and these individuals received, in 

essence, a benefit, but they were there to work. Is that my understanding? 

Ms. RHODES. They were there to work, and two of the supervisors who helped them get the false documents have been indicted. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

Let me move quickly to Ms. Forman. 

The scene for Houston was this: 200 people surrounding U.S. Air 

Rags—I will get the name—Air Rags USA, guns drawn, doors 

kicked in, a little 4-foot, 5-foot female bammed against the wall 

who happens to be a citizen, the woman falling from 20 feet, the 

76 

original then an arrest that went forward—and I am going to finish 

in just a moment Ms. Chairwoman if you would indulge me—then 

the arrest was in the morning at their residence, surrounded by 

ICE officers. They arrested, and it was a commitment that they 

would be released on bond by 12 noon of that day. They didn’t accede to that. They were then taken from the detention center with 

cameras blasting, neck chains, leg chains and all kinds of 

chains—— 

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Could she just answer and say was that purposeful? Does that help you to intimidate by performing in that 

manner? 

Ms. FORMAN. In all due respect, I have spoken to the special 

agent in charge, and that did not occur. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. With all due respect, it did occur, and I would 

like a full report from that special agent in charge as to what occurred because it did occur. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, the Committee will ask for a written report 

on the subject. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I would just like to note that the Committee hearing will remain 

open for 5 days. We may have additional questions, which we will 

submit to you in writing. We would ask that you promptly respond 

if that occurs. And I would say, to the extent that the questions are 

specifically about what happened in Waterloo, we would ask that 

you have Mr. Dummermuth submit the information he has personal knowledge of because we want direct information. 

And as part of the question to be answered in writing, the warrant request mentions methamphetamine at the plant, which is inconsistent with the testimony you have just given, and I would just 

like an explanation. I mean, I realize you probably didn’t prepare 

this affidavit, and if you could explain that in writing, that would 

be very helpful. 

And we thank you both for your testimony. 

We will now call the third and final panel to the table. 

As the panel is coming forward, I will begin by introducing them. 

I am pleased to welcome Erik Camayd-Freixas. Dr. Camayd 

holds master’s and doctoral degrees in language and literature 

from Harvard University and a bachelor’s degree in psychology 

from Tufts University. He is professor of legal interpreting and director of translation studies at Florida International University 

and the former director of training for the State of Florida Interpreter Services program. 

Dr. Camayd is the author of numerous books and articles and 

has lectured widely around the world on linguistic and cultural 

studies. Dr. Camayd has been a federally certified interpreter since 

1985, and he frequently serves in Federal and state courts as an 

expert witness in semantic and linguistic analysis. 

The next witness is David Leopold. Mr. Leopold is the principal 

in the David Wolfe Leopold & Associates in Cleveland, Ohio. He 

has practiced immigration and criminal law for nearly 20 years. 

For nearly 10 years, Mr. Leopold has also served as a criminal 

justice—CJA—plan defense attorney for the U.S. District Court for 

77 

the Northern District of Ohio, representing criminal defendants in 

Federal criminal matters upon court appointment. 

In addition to his practice, he directs the immigration law curriculum and teaches immigration law at the Case Western Reserve 

University School of Law and serves as an adjunct professor of immigration law at the Cleveland-Marshall School of Law at Cleveland State University. 

Mr. Leopold is also a frequent speaker on immigration consequences of criminal convictions at Federal, State and local bar 

continuing legal education seminars. 

He is testifying today on behalf of the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association. He currently serves as AILA’s first vice president. 

I am also pleased to welcome Professor Robert Rigg. Mr. Rigg is 

an associate professor of law at Drake University Law School in 

Des Moines, Iowa. He is the president and founding member of the 

Iowa Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and currently sits 

on the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bar. He previously sat on the Iowa Supreme Court Advisory Committee for 

Rules of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

He has been published in the Boston University Public Interest 

Journal, the American Journal of Criminal Law, the T. M. Cooley 

J. Practice in Criminal Law and West Law’s Iowa Practice of 

Criminal Law. 

He has been quoted on NPR by the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Newsday, USA Today, and, finally and not 

unimportantly, the Des Moines Register. 

Our final witness is Ms. Lora Costner. Mrs. Costner is a resident 

of Newport, Tennessee. She is married and the mother of two children, Molly and Mason. She and her husband were victims of identity theft, and her congressman was here this morning to stick up 

for her, and we appreciate your willingness to be here as well. 

So if we may begin with Dr. Camayd. We have five—your full 

written testimony—and that of all of you—will be made part of the 

official record and—but we do ask that your testimony consume 

about 5 minutes. 

And we will begin with you, Doctor. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIK CAMAYD-FREIXAS, PROFESSOR OF 

MODERN LANGUAGES, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We need the microphone on, though. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking 

Member King, honorable Members of the Subcommittee. 

I was 1 of 16 interpreters who served both weeks of the Postville 

hearing. Unlike judges, prosecutors or attorney, I was present at 

every step of the process. It is my duty as an impartial expert witness, an officer of the court, to ensure that the court is not misled 

and to bring to its attention any impediments to due process. I 

have done so in the best interest of the Federal court I am proud 

to serve and with the conviction that, if our honorable judges had 

known how this judicial experiment would turn out, they would 

have never allowed it. 

78 

In my statement submitted for congressional record, I document 

the flaws. Detainees’ quarters were not certified. The court failed 

to maintain physical and operational independence from ICE prosecution and a level playing field for the defense. 

There was inadequate access to counsel, no meaningful presumption of innocence. Defendants appear not to understand their rights 

and charges. Bail hearings and other due process rights were denied. The charge of identity theft used to force a plea lacked foundation and was never tested for probable cause. 

Defendant did not know what a Social Security number was and 

were not guilty of intent crime. Guilty pleas were obtained under 

duress. Judges had no sentencing discretion pursuant to a binding 

plea agreement. Sole providers whose families are in jeopardy now 

endure a cruel and unusual psychological punishment, the foreseeable effect of a prison time on common—— 

Abridgement of process produced wholesaling justice at the other 

end. Parents begging to be deported put in jail at public expense. 

Proud working mothers branded like cattle with the scarlet letter 

of an ankle monitor dehumanized and reduced to begging at the 

doors of the church as they were released on humanitarian 

grounds. 

The town of Postville devastated. The kinship ties are noble people are quick to forge with all newcomers painfully severed. Families and friends separated. 

I saw the Bill of Rights denied and democratic values threatened 

by the breakdown of checks and balances, and it all appeared to 

be within the framework of the law pursuant to a broken immigration system. 

Postville lays bare a grave distortion in the legal structure of 

government. Post 9-11, ICE was granted power to wage the war on 

terror, but since 2006, it has diverted resources even from disaster 

relief to an escalating and unauthorized war on immigration. 

Yet the men and women of ICE are not to be faulted for doing 

their duty. It is unrealistic in our adversarial system to ask prosecutors to exercise restraint and not use all legal mean to win convictions. The fact is our laws have not kept up with this growth in 

enforcement. 

Congress failed to pass immigration reform, and ICE has filled 

the legal void with its own version of it. Now we have a serious 

contradiction, the growth of authoritarian rule inside a democratic 

government. This entity can simultaneously wield immigration and 

criminal codes plus issue administrative rules, leaving no room for 

constitutional guarantees. 

It co-ops other branches of government—Social Security, U.S. Attorney, Federal court—and uses appropriations to recruit local police for immigration enforcement, setting neighbor against neighbor 

and dangerously dividing the Nation. 

With the help of local sheriffs, Postville repeats itself daily while 

the harshness of border enforcement is reenacted in the American 

Heartland with great collateral damage to our citizens and community. It is a rush to raid as much as possible before Congress regains the vision and courage to restore the law of the land. 

Part of immigration reform is redefining jurisdiction over—ICE 

jurisdiction over immigration and criminal matters without impairVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
79 

ing the agency’s ability to defend us from terrorist threats. Since 

2006, families have been separated on a scale unseen in the Americas since the Spanish Conquest, when it led to the extinction of 

Ameri-Indian nations. In Postville, we have the added moral burden posed by the presence of ethnic Mayan, testimonial people who 

constitute and endanger patrimony of humanity. 

I bring to this forum three requests from the people of Postville. 

First, our government has left a humanitarian crisis for Sister 

Mary McCauley and her good neighbors to cure. I call on all to contribute to St. Bridget’s Church and on the Federal Government to 

respond with aid that guarantees survival for their schools, businesses and institutions. It is time for America to adopt Postville. 

Second, with regard to the imprisoned aliens, government says 

they have 300 criminals. The people say, ‘‘Show us one victim of 

their crime or send them home.’’ 

Third, our national unity requires that Congress pass not only 

comprehensive but compassionate immigration reform as would 

befit the dignity of this great country built upon the shoulders of 

immigrants by their children. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camayd-Freixas follows:] 

80 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIK CAMAYD-FREIXAS


Camayd-1.eps
81 


Camayd-2.eps
82 


Camayd-3.eps
83 


Camayd-4.eps
84 


Camayd-5.eps
85 


Camayd-6.eps
86 


Camayd-7.eps
87 


Camayd-8.eps
88 


Camayd-9.eps
89 


Camayd-10.eps
90 


Camayd-11.eps
91 


Camayd-12.eps
92 


Camayd-13.eps
93 


Camayd-14.eps
94 


Camayd-15.eps
95 


Camayd-16.eps
96 


Camayd-17.eps
97 


Camayd-18.eps
98 


Camayd-19.eps
99 


Camayd-20.eps
100 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Leopold, we would be pleased to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID LEOPOLD, DAVID WOLFE LEOPOLD 

AND ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN IMMIGRATION 

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think the microphone went off again. There you 

go. 

Mr. LEOPOLD. My name is David Leopold, and I am the national 

vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. I 

am honored to testify this afternoon before you about the conviction 

and prosecution of nearly 400 undocumented workers in Postville, 

Iowa. 

A prosecutor’s duty is to do justice, not merely to convict. This 

cardinal principle was ignored by the government in its deal to 

criminalized undocumented workers in Postville, Iowa. The workers were denied access to counsel familiar with both immigration 

and criminal law. The defense counsel were put in at the untenable 

position of advising on plea deals without ability to assess the immigration consequences of the plea and the possibility that the clients might have full relief from deportation. 

The workers impacted by the raid were essentially coerced into 

giving up their rights under the immigration law, such as the right 

to a hearing before an immigration judge and a chance to apply for 

relief from deportation. 

The fast-tracking system concocted by the government amounted 

to a conviction and deportation assembly line, which exulted efficiency over fundamental rights. These poor, uneducated Guatemalan farmers were treated like the livestock prepared for slaughter at Agriprocessors. Shackled in groups of 10, they were efficiently packaged, convicted and ordered deported and sentenced to 

jail time. 

This scheme was predicated on overcharging the workers and 

threatening them with 2-year mandatory minimum sentences. 

Faced with the choice of 5 months in prison and deportation or 6 

months in prison waiting for a trial which could lead to a mandatory minimum 2 years in prison and then deportation, these workers faced an impossible choice. 

In most cases, the defendants faced this choice without the advice of immigration counsel. This was a travesty of justice. Effective assistance of counsel to an immigrant in a criminal matter, including advice about whether or not to accept the terms of a plea 

agreement necessarily includes a thorough analysis of whether a 

defendant has acclaimed his citizenship, the immigration consequence of a plea or conviction at trial and the availability of relief 

from removal. Under the immigration law, a noncitizen may be eligible for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal and, of 

course, asylum. 

Dr. Camayd’s essay recounts the compelling the story of a man 

from Mexico who worked at Agriprocessors for 10 years. He had 

two young U.S. citizen daughters, a 2-year-old and a newborn. On 

the facts, this man was clearly eligible to apply for cancellation of 

101 

removal and legal permanent resident status because he was the 

sole support for these two young U.S. citizen girls. 

But the plea agreement deprived him of any opportunity for a 

life in the U.S. with his girls. He faced the impossible choice of— 

between fighting his case or succumbing to the plea deal, which 

forced him to waive his rights to a hearing. And he faced this lifealtering dilemma without the advice of an immigration attorney. 

His case underscores the fundamental injustice that occurs where 

defendants don’t have access to immigration counsel when evaluating a plea. 

To guarantee due process, Congress should do the following: 

Congress should enact legislation to protect the right to protect 

the right to immigration counsel in ICE enforcement actions. 

Most importantly, ICE should direct its enforcement resources 

for an investigations of high-level threats to national security and 

employers that deliberately violate the law, not workers who are 

merely trying to feed their families and to contribute to the U.S. 

economy and to our social fabric. 

The chilling spectacle that unfolded at the Cattle Congress is a 

stain on our judicial system and an affront to the core principles 

for which so many Americans have made and are making the ultimate sacrifice. Congress should act now to ensure that the Administration enforcement actions respect the core American ideals of 

due process and fairness. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leopold follows:] 

102 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID WOLFE LEOPOLD


Leopold-1.eps
103 


Leopold-2.eps
104 


Leopold-3.eps
105 


Leopold-4.eps
106 


Leopold-5.eps
107 


Leopold-6.eps
108 


Leopold-7.eps
109 


Leopold-8.eps
110 


Leopold-9.eps
111 


Leopold-10.eps
112 


Leopold-11.eps
113 


Leopold-12.eps
114 


Leopold-13.eps
115 

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

Mr. Rigg, we would be pleased to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT R. RIGG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

LAW AND DIRECTOR OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM, 

DRAKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. RIGG. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I intend to address a specific concern of mine—and I think of the 

Criminal Defense Bar—in the process that was used at the 

Postville raids and, subsequent to those raids, implemented in Waterloo. 

The biggest problem that I have identified—or at least I feel this 

Committee should address—is the compression of time that was 

imposed on defense counsel in this particular case. That caused a 

cascade of other errors that could have occurred and may have affected these guilty pleas. Whether or not they will down the road, 

we don’t know, and that is subject to judicial scrutiny, and that is 

subject to review by the courts, obviously. 

When the process was designed, this compression factor essentially put lawyers—competent lawyers—in a situation where they 

had very limited time to make very difficult decisions with very 

limited resources. They simply didn’t have the time or the resources to do what they probably needed to do. 

What that does is you can take the most competent lawyer in 

this country, and if you put them in a timeframe like that and you 

aggravate it by appointing them to 10 clients at a time and say, 

‘‘You have got a week to make these decisions,’’ that process is inviting those lawyers to make mistakes, not intentionally, not purposely, but you have created a situation where essentially giving 

somebody a lawyer but you have tied their hands behind their 

back. That is not consistent with due process, in my view. 

The other issues that tend to come up would be the individual 

representation by attorneys. Who came up with the number 10? 

Why 10? Why not 2? How come more lawyers weren’t contacted 

prior to this raid by either the judge, evidently, or by someone with 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office and brought into this so you would have 

more lawyers available? 

So you have a number of questions posed initially that I don’t believe have been answered. I am not sure that they can be answered. The one thing I am sure of, the people that don’t know the 

answers is the Criminal Defense Bar. 

Prior to the adoption of these proceedings, to my knowledge, no 

one from the Criminal Defense Association—the national or otherwise—was consulted prior to the enactment of these fast-track 

rules. The normal course that we would use on the Committees I 

have served on with the Iowa Supreme Court is that you would 

bring in opposing counsel and try to address pertinent issues prior 

to their occurrence so you can avoid situations where you are having 10 clients being represented by one lawyer, who also maybe not 

have immigration experience. 

The other problem, I guess, I have is the transparency of this 

process. This was an ambush essentially. There seems to be some 

security concerns by the folks from ICE about the Department of 

Labor being brought in on this. Well, obviously, you know, if there 

116 

is concerns about that, you are not going to talk to anybody about 

this regarding the criminal defense side of it. 

And lawyers, from my understanding, were told not to discuss 

the invitation they received to the Federal courthouse in the Northern District of Iowa. That request was honored by those lawyers, 

they did not know, from what I understand, why they were being 

asked in, they didn’t know until after the raids occurred and were 

essentially brought in and given a ‘‘ how to practice law in Federal 

court’’ manual. 

Those—those lawyers who refused to participate, that manual 

was taken away from them. I don’t understand that. I don’t see 

why that manual would not be public record and should be made 

available to the Members of this Committee and to other Members 

for its critique and criticism. It may be the best manual in—on the 

world, but unless somebody critiques it and looks at it and reviews 

it from the other side, well, we don’t know. 

The other thing that troubled me about this is the access to immigration attorneys. The reports that I received—and just as soon 

as 2 days ago—from a lawyer who actually went up to Postville 

who was contacted by family to go in and interview a client was 

essentially turned away by the ICE officials. 

So you have a series of issues, but they all start to cascade with 

the compression of the time, the number of clients that were being 

asked to handle, and eventually I would criticize the lack of input 

by the Criminal Defense Bar. 

Thank you. That is all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rigg follows:] 

117 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. RIGG


Rigg-1.eps
118 


Rigg-2.eps
119 


Rigg-3.eps
120 


Rigg-4.eps
121 


Rigg-5.eps
122 


Rigg-6.eps
123 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

All those bells and whistles mean we have votes. I am hoping we 

can get your testimony, Mrs. Costner, and then we will come back 

for our questions. So if you could give your 5 minutes of testimony, 

and then we will recess till about 3:15. 

TESTIMONY OF LORA COSTNER 

Mrs. COSTNER. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

share my experience with you. 

In April of 2004, my husband and I acquired custody of my biological niece, and her biological mother—my now estranged sister— 

was in a relationship with an illegal immigrant. It is our understanding that our personal identification was stolen from the adoption paperwork. 

In April of 2005, we received a letter stating that my husband’s 

driver’s license would be suspended and there was a warrant for 

his arrest. At 3:30 a.m. in February of 2005, in a nearby town an 

impersonator—excuse me—who had no proof of insurance and a 

fake Social Security card with my husband’s name on it got a 

speeding ticket. He signed his name—he printed actually—Jamey 

Dee Costner. He could not speak English. 

When the ticket wasn’t paid, they obviously sent us a letter stating we had 7 days. We had to hire an attorney, who explained to 

the Department of Transportation that we were victims of identity 

theft. 

After that, they did not catch the gentleman that had done it. 

The detective who handled the case called us and advised that this 

same gentleman had worked at least two jobs in my husband’s 

name, but the company that he worked for told us they would handle it with IRS. 

So later in that year, we thought everything was okay, and the 

immigrant was located, and despite being charged, we took time off 

from work and went to the court date, the D.A. told us it was the 

gentleman’s third charge of taking the identity of American citizens 

and he would be deported back to Mexico and would not be allowed 

back into our country. 

Less than 30 days later, we received a phone call at 3 a.m., and 

it was the same illegal immigrant. He was laughing, and in broken 

English he said, ‘‘They do nothing to me.’’ He went on to describe 

the make and model of the vehicles my husband and I drove and 

what time I left work, and then he mentioned the name of our 

daughter. He just laughed and—I was also pregnant at the time. 

And I called the police, and they told us that we need to get our 

phone number changed and there was nothing else they could do. 

So we just went on—you know, we had to. 

Then in 2007—and I had been off work due to an injury. In February of 2007, I called the Tennessee Department of Labor, and 

they told me that I should not—that I had two workers’ compensation claims out—I had gotten hurt at work—and they said that, on 

January 22, 2007, that I had fell off a line deboning chicken and 

that they—I knew that it was another identity theft. They told me 

the name of the hospital that I allegedly went to. 

I went to Cook Foods, which is chicken-processing plant, and 

they argued with me and told me they had no way to believe I was 

124 

who I said I was. So I took my marriage certificate because she was 

working in my maiden name. They arrested her that afternoon 

after the H.R. manager had told me that they didn’t want the police involved, but I went to the police. 

The next month we went to a court date, and the lady couldn’t 

speak English. She admitted through an interpreter that she 

worked there using my name and Social Security number for almost 2 years. She was charged with a misdemeanor and let go the 

same day. 

Two weeks after that, I received a letter from the IRS, and for 

the year of 2005 alone we owe $7,854 in back taxes. We have sent 

letters, statements. Finally, David Davis got involved and they—we 

had to pay for an appeal so they wouldn’t garnish our wages even 

though we had proof that these people admitted they did it, and 

we had to end up paying another $100, but they have released us 

from 2005, but they said that we would have 2006 and 2007. 

She took FMLA leave in my name. She had a baby at—not in 

my name, but she signed in the doctor’s office in my name, but she 

went to the hospital in her Hispanic name. 

And I guess to sum up very quickly, I had the life that I always 

wanted, and now, because of this, I believe there is an argument 

that illegal immigrants have a right to come here, make a living, 

have a better life, but at what expense? I mean, I have worked 

hard my whole life to have what I wanted, and by adopting a little 

girl and trying to do the right thing, my husband and I have had 

to seek counseling, and, I mean, we are the—we are not who we 

were. 

I have to fight every day to prove who I am. I wonder how many 

of you are willing to give up all you have worked for. That option 

was not given to us. Our identity was taken. After extensive research, we now know we can never fully regain who we rightfully 

are. Every day is a constant fight for the rest of our lives to defend 

who we are. This is a fight that should never have begun, a tedious, day-to-day worry that has taken many joys, happy times and 

life, a life that we did all the correct things and we earned that is 

no longer ours. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Costner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORA COSTNER

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my experience with you. 

In April of 2004 I had the life I always wanted. My husband and I, by no means 

wealthy, were comfortable. In one afternoon this was taken. Not at once, but a slow 

beginning to what is now a life filled with a day to day struggle trying to get back 

what we had. 

On April 12, 2004 we acquired custody of my biological niece. My now estranged 

sister was in a relationship with an illegal immigrant. It is our understanding that 

our personal identification was stolen from the adoption paperwork. 

After a family vacation in April of 2005 we received a letter stating that my husband’s drivers license would be suspended, and there was a warrant for his arrest. 

We assumed there was an error. After investigating we found that someone was 

stopped at 3:30 AM in a nearby town speeding in Feb. 05’. 

The impersonator had no proof of insurance, and only a fake Social Security card 

with my husband’s name and SS# on it. The speeding ticket had Jamey Dee Costner 

printed by the imposter. We were also told he could not speak English. Despite this 

he was allowed to go. 

When no one paid the ticket or appeared for the court date a letter was sent to 

inform us of the punishment we would face. The car he was driving was registered 

125 

to my sister. However we had to pay an attorney to write the TN Department of 

Transportation advising we were the victims of identity theft. 

The Detective handling the case, Mr. Bob Ellis, contacted us and advised that the 

same illegal immigrant had worked at least two jobs in my husband’s name. We 

were in shock, but foolishly believed these companies when they stated that they 

would inform the IRS. Despite our anger we managed to move on. Things were quiet 

for a while. 

Later in 2005 the illegal immigrant was jailed on a completely different charge. 

He had broken the window of my sisters car. My Mother informed me and I contacted the county he was arrested in. Taking more time off work my husband and 

I went to his court date to provide the info of the ID theft for the jobs and speeding 

ticket. The DA assured us this man would be deported and also we saw where he 

had been previously charged two separate times using the identity of other American Citizens. The entire process was unimaginable to me, how could this happen? 

If I am caught without proof of insurance my car would be towed, and the thought 

of using another persons identity for my own personal gain, well the thought alone 

baffles me. Yet we left finally feeling vindicated. 

Less than 30 days later we received a phone call around 3 AM. It was the illegal 

immigrant, Douglas Valdez. Laughing and in broken English he said ‘‘They do nothing to me.’’ He went on to tell my husband the make and model of our vehicles, 

named where we worked and our departure time. 

He then mentioned the name of Molly, our little girl. He rotated from Spanish 

to broken English, yet the threats were clear. We had told on him, and the Government had set him free. We would hang up, he would call back. I called the local 

police department and was advised to have our phone # changed. Never have I felt 

so betrayed. If only the phone # was the issue, we were being threatened, yet he 

was able to live by a different standard of rules than us. We kept our #. Periodically 

for the next few months he would call and we would take our phone off the hook. 

Every contact we made at any level of authority had seemed to feel compassion, but 

had no answers or help. We had to live our life and do the best to protect our family, 

the stress was the last thing needed, I was pregnant expecting in April of 2006. 

March 29, 2006 we had Mason. I took maternity leave and for a while everything 

was back on track. A couple of months after I returned to my job I began to clean 

up some of the reports that had piled up. I worked in sales in the lumber division 

of a wholesale hardware company. I’d been bitten on my head by a Brown Recluse 

spider. I was hospitalized for 10 days with encephalitis and a severe MRSA infection. This was in October of 2006. I was released to return to work in February of 

2007. On Valentine’s Day I made a call to the TN Department of Labor I had some 

questions before I returned to work. The lady I spoke with took my SS# and from 

the beginning of our conversation it was obvious we were not on the same page. She 

finally asked me why I was receiving benefits from Worker’s Compensation when 

she had a record of me filing another claim on Jan. 22, 2007. At first I thought the 

system had transposed some #’s. However someone had filed a claim using my maiden name Lora Elizabeth Hale on Jan. 22, 2007. The customer service rep asked me 

if I had quote, ‘‘Fell off the line and hurt my elbow de-boning chickens at Koch 

Foods’’—my heart sank, I knew what we had believed was taken care of a year before had just grown. I imagine the distress in my voice made the lady believe me. 

She gave me the workers comp claim #, date, and the ER info where ‘‘I’d’’ gone to 

be treated. Still being naive I immediately called Koch Foods. I thought they would 

be as outraged as I was, however that is not what I received. After being transferred 

to several different people I spoke with Tim Steffin, the HR Director. He told me 

that he had no way of knowing if I was Lora Hale or if the person working there 

was Lora Hale. He did advise that she could not speak English and suggested I 

meet there and she and I could come in the office at the same time and try to get 

this straightened out. To say I was irate would take away from my anger. Realizing 

all of my identification had the name Lora Costner, I took my marriage certificate 

off the wall in the frame and went to Koch Foods. The HR Manager advised me 

that the lady using my identity would be there at 4 PM and he would discuss this 

with her then. He also advised that he did not usually get the police involved in 

these matters. I realized this was not normal, however I told him, that was fine and 

left. I went straight to the police and filled out a report. 

A court date was set for the next month. My husband and I took more time off 

work, went to the court date. The lady, Elizabeth Bautista Velasco, could speak no 

English. Through an interpreter she admitted working there using the name Lora 

Elizabeth Hale for almost two years. She was charged with a misdemeanor, the DA 

told us he could try for more, but could not guarantee she would receive any more 

time. Our faith in the system was already depleted, and we were tired. So we 

agreed with the recommendation. 

126 

Less than two weeks later we received a letter from the IRS. For the tax year 

of 2005 alone we owed $7,854.00. I sent letters to the IRS with copies of court 

records, letters from our place of employment (we had worked for the same company, I had been there for 12 years and Jamey for 8 years, both full time) Detective 

Bob Ellis from the Hamblen County Police Department wrote a letter on our behalf. 

For the IRS this was not enough. Everything we sent only made them ask for more. 

The taxes were also adding to the owed amount. In late September of 2007 we received a letter stating that we needed to send a money order to stop our wages from 

being garnished. We had fifteen days to send this money to place the garnishment 

on hold while an independent counsel would decide if we would be granted an appeal. During this time I faxed a letter to State Rep. Mr. Eddie Yokley and State 

Senator Bob Corker. Mr. Yokley called and spoke with my husband and said he had 

never dealt with a situation like this and would be glad to help but did not know 

what to do. Mr. Corker’s office sent us a letter with a brochure on legal aide. I contacted legal aide and was advised we made too much money for assistance. We sent 

the money and were planning to hire an attorney when the IRS advised if our appeal request was granted. 

While waiting on the response to our appeal a local newspaper wrote an article 

in December of 2007. The article stated that a lady who lived in Maine was about 

to lose her disability due to wages she had not earned, yet the IRS claimed she had. 

The place of employment was Koch Foods in Morristown, TN. She had traveled thru 

the area two years prior and had her wallet stolen. I decided to call the reporter. 

I truly just wanted to advise this had happened to us. Mr. Robert Moore wrote an 

article about our situation. He also told me that Rep. David Davis was known for 

helping in this battle. The same day Mr. Davis’ office faxed me a release form giving 

permission for him to speak to the IRS on our behalf. 

Mr. Davis’ office was in contact with us, however we were still receiving letters 

from the IRS. Finally in March of 2008 we had to send $99.00 and received a release for the 2005 tax year. 

The IRS rep that I spoke with said that we should expect delinquent notices for 

2006 & 2007. To date we have not, but it was 2 years before we received the notice 

for 2005. 

A local station did a report on our situation that appeared on the 5PM channel 

6 news. A reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel then picked up the story and 

wrote an article. I have found that people are in shock that this can happen. Since 

the articles we have had calls with offers to help, but no one knows what to do. 

One of the most disturbing options was for us to change our names and SS#’s. 

The workers comp claim the illegal immigrant had in my name was paid by the 

insurance carrier for Koch Foods, however there is no record of anyone using my 

name or SS# at the local hospitals. I also have faxes from a local physicians office 

where a Hispanic lady checked into the office using the name Lora Hale and my 

DOB and SS#, yet the next day when she checked in the hospital for a procedure 

she had no SS# and used her Hispanic name. This was in March of 2006. The physician was on OBGYN, his office provided me with a fax that was sent to the HR 

department of Koch Foods stating the discrepancies. However she continued working there until I caught her. It is my belief she filed my name at the OBGYN to 

receive FMLA leave, and her Hispanic name at the hospital for free medical. And 

the same with the Comp claim. It will forever be on my record, but how did the 

insurance carrier pay a claim that was reported in one name and treated in another? 

I understand there is an argument that illegal immigrants are here only to make 

a living, a better life for their families. But I question at what expense? We have 

always worked hard. We were doing the right thing and taking in a little girl. The 

guilt I have since this was my biological sister has been devastating. My husband 

and I have sought counseling yet the damage has been done. We are a shell of the 

happy couple we once were. 

I will close by telling you that I think anyone who goes thru the proper channels 

to achieve the ‘‘American Dream’’ should be allowed. No matter what your dream 

is this Country has always given the opportunity to work hard and achieve it. I 

know this because at one time I was living my dream, however ‘‘small,’’ it was all 

I’d wished for. 

Now I have to fight every day to prove I am who I say. I wonder how many of 

you are willing to give up all you have worked for? That option was not given to 

us, our identity was taken. After extensive research we now know we can never 

fully regain who we rightfully are. 

Every day is a constant fight for the rest of our lives to defend who we are. This 

is a fight that should have never begun. A tedious day to day worry that has taken 

127 

many joys, happy times, and life. A life that we did all the correct things, and we 

earned. But is no longer ours. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mrs. Costner, thank you for your testimony. 

We are going to recess this hearing now. We have a series of 

votes, and we will not be back before 3:15. So go get a cup of coffee, 

and we will ask some questions when we return. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee will reconvene. Hopefully, the 

Ranking Member will be here shortly. 

First, apologies. We thought that we would be back at—by 3:15, 

but we had more votes than we had anticipated, and we appreciate 

your patience and your willingness to stick with us on this. 

We have just a couple of questions that we will be able to pose 

to all of you. 

But before I do, let me just say to you, Mrs. Costner, what happened to you was really terrible and outrageous, and I don’t think 

there is a person in the Congress who would defend what happened 

to you, and I appreciate that you were willing to come here and 

share your story. The individual that did that to you should have 

been prosecuted, and I think it is—you know, I don’t see U.S. Attorneys are here now. I don’t understand why they didn’t do their 

job to protect you and your family, and I just wanted to say that 

before getting into the legal questions for the others. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Camayd, you have been a translator for a 

long time, and I read the statement that you made that was available publicly after this raid, and I was struck by, in your statement, how shocked you seemed to be by the procedures that you 

encountered here and that it was your judgment that these individuals had no idea what was going on. 

And you are, of course, the interpreter so you were in kind of the 

catbird seat to understand what people knew perhaps even better 

the lawyers because they couldn’t actually talk directly to the defendants. 

Have you ever seen anything like this before in your 23 years as 

a interpreter? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Never. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is quite revealing. 

In your judgment, did these defendants understand the nature of 

these proceedings and the pleas that were—there was a lot of representation that the defense counsel had advised them and they 

knew all the immigration issues. Did you observe that? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, there were almost 300 individuals, 

and the level of understanding was different from one to the other. 

My determination is that the majority of them did not understand 

the charges or the rights that they were waiving. And I base that 

on several factors. 

First, it is unclear to what extent the numerous ethnic Mayans 

understood Spanish as a second language. Then there are vast cultural differences between Mexicans and Guatemalan rural cultures 

on the one hand and American legal culture on the other. 

And the most important factor is that, in my expert opinion as 

an educator, due to their lack of schooling and low rate of literacy, 

most of the defendants had a level of conceptual or abstract understanding equivalent to that of a third grader or less. So they clearly 

128 

needed a lot more time, a lot more educating on a one-to-one basis 

on the part of the defense attorney to even come closer to understand what these things meant. 

In addition to that, they really were tuning it all out because the 

only thing—particularly the parents—the only thing that they 

cared about is how to get back to their families to look after their 

families so they were just listening to the time factor. ‘‘Okay. If I 

do this, do I get home quicker,’’ or ‘‘If I do that.’’ 

Particularly troubling was the waiver of the right to be indicted 

by a grand jury on felony charges. These were all felony charges. 

They basically at that point had no knowledge of the plea agreement or the plea offer that the government was going to make so 

they basically were given false hopes that, if they waived the right 

to a grand jury indictment, they would go home faster. So they did. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. We had testimony that there 

were—the defense lawyers had been completely schooled on immigration law—and that there were immigration lawyers in the facility. Did you observe that? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I am sorry. I didn’t—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. That the defense counsel had been instructed in 

immigration law and that there were immigration lawyers there at 

every stage helping the defendants understand. Did you see that? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. No. I didn’t see any immigration attorneys 

there. There were actually very few attorneys each day because, 

even though 18 defense attorneys participated, they would come in 

3, 4, 5 each day. And I didn’t see any immigration attorney. 

I also understood that the official policy was that these were 

criminal cases, not immigration cases.. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. Therefore—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. But they had implications once you plead guilty to 

this crime. Even if you had another benefit available to you under 

existing immigration law, that would then be foreclosed. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, I did observe that some attorneys 

were able to call on immigration law colleagues—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. But the issues were so complicated that sometimes they had to consult with two and three—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. Different lawyers, and they 

would get different indications. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask the two law professors, and I am going 

to read from the affidavit that was filed in support of the application for the search warrant, and it is point 85. I will summarize. 

The first part isn’t really that material. 

‘‘A search was conducted by ICE agents in the Accurate Database’’—which, as we know, is the private-sector database—it is 

highly accurate—‘‘for the individuals’ Social Security numbers listed in second quarter 2007 payroll reports. This search revealed 

that approximately 878 out of 1,116, or 78.6 percent, of the Social 

Security numbers input into Accurate either did not appear to be 

associated with the person assigned to that Social Security number, 

or the number did not reveal any person associated with the number.’’ 

129 

What were hearing here from the government’s own affidavit is 

that 78—well, let us say almost 79 percent of the individuals didn’t 

have somebody else’s Social Security number, they had a made-up 

number. 

How is that consistent, in your judgment, with the necessity to 

base a prosecution on evidence that the prosecutor’s burden to have 

the elements of the crime known and present before proceeding 

with a prosecution. Could you comment briefly on that? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, that statistic, Madam Chairwoman, is very 

troubling. Eighty percent of these people apparently did not have— 

the Social Security number didn’t correspond to a real person. That 

draws into the real question, the whole use of the identity theft as 

a charge and really brings into question the Social Security 

charges. 

I tell you, I have sat on the CJA panel Northern District of Ohio 

now for 10 years that handles criminal cases in addition to my immigration practice. I would love an opportunity to cross-examine 

the affiant here about that because what he seems to say in this 

paragraph at the end is, ‘‘Well, this evidence didn’t really add up, 

but so what. I am an expert. Believe me.’’ So it is very troubling. 

Mr. RIGG. I concur with Mr. Leopold’s analysis there. The two 

parts of that paragraph seem to be inconsistent, but, again, that 

is something that would have been submitted to a judge. But that 

is the type of information you would want a preliminary hearing 

on. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I may time is running out, but it just 

seems to me that the prosecutor’s obligation is first to do justice, 

not to just to get convictions. It is to, as an officer of the court, to 

make sure that justice is done. That is the whole system. And if 

the elements of the crime, by the government’s own attestation 

under oath, aren’t there, how can the prosecutors, consistent with 

their ethical obligations, proceed? I just—I have a concern about 

that. 

My time has expired so I am going to turn to the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am going to turn first to Dr. Camayd, and I don’t see it in your 

written testimony, but what I think I heard you say was that the 

subjects of this raid endured cruel and unusual punishment. Did 

I hear that correctly? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. And I just can’t help but reflect that the Supreme 

Court has conferred habeas rights on enemy combatants and also 

conferred Geneva Convention status to enemy combatants, and I 

have—I am looking at this as being precisely language from the 

Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment. Were you advocating that those defendants then would bring 

a case to have their constitutional rights protected? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. No, sir. I don’t have an opinion about that. 

As an interpreter, part of my job is to interpret the meaning of 

what people are saying, not just the words. In order to do that, I 

have to put myself in the position of the individuals I am interpreting for, whether they are attorneys or witnesses or defendants. 

And when—I did that for 14 hours during the jail interviews on a 

130 

Friday and Sunday, and I was able to put myself in each individual 

situation, and I was talking specifically about the parents who 

were worried sick about their children—— 

Mr. KING. Okay. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. And their families and having 

to basically spend the next 5 months at every moment of their waking hours just consumed with this worry. 

Mr. KING. And—and I understand that was part of your earlier 

testimony, and I agree with you that a good interpreter interprets 

not just the words, but voice inflection, words unsaid, body language—all those things together. And I read the words in your testimony too and some of them are—they are inflammatory to me. 

And so I will just leave that there rather than belabor that point. 

And I would turn then—first, I wanted to make a little comment 

about Mr. Rigg’s testimony. 

First, I think it is the most reasonable of the majority’s witnesses 

here. And you made two points: One, that the compression of time 

imposed limits on attorneys that may have put the defendants’ 

rights at risk. I think that is a valid point, and I don’t know if it 

is—I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with it. I just think it is 

a good point to have raised. Then the—you referred to as an ambush—I think a surprise—to the attorneys who were drawn into 

this process. That is how I interpreted it. 

I just wanted to say to you that, being on the Iowa Supreme 

Court Advisory Committee, I have a certain amount of envy that 

I am not on that advisory committee. 

So instead of asking you a question, I would just take a little license here, and in the time that is remaining, I really want to turn 

to Mrs. Costner and say I recognize how difficult this was for you 

to be here today. I appreciate the Chairman’s cooperation in that, 

and I know that you had to overcome a fair amount of intimidation 

just from the very fact of this being Congress to come here and testify, and I think the way that you went through your testimony 

and got to the end of it and actually compressed it within the 5 

minutes, I want to thank you. And I know there are Members on 

both sides—the Democrats and Republicans—that know how difficult this was. And that is the way citizens serve this country. You 

have done that. 

But I would ask you, are you finished? Do you know that the 

identity theft is over, and how would you know if it was? 

Mrs. COSTNER. I was told that we would never know, that, unless 

we changed our names and Social Security numbers, that they 

would always be out there. And the IRS told me that we would get 

tax notices for 2006 and 2007. I just don’t know when they will be 

here. 

Mr. KING. Do you know the initial perpetrator—do you know 

where he is now in the—in the legal process? 

Mrs. COSTNER. They let him go. They said that it was not illegal 

to use someone’s name to obtain employment. 

Mr. KING. But he was he never ordered deported from the United 

States? 

Mrs. COSTNER. That is what the D.A. told us was going to happen when we left court, but then they—— 

131 

Mr. KING. But it didn’t happen. And we are very—we are very 

familiar with those circumstances by which we are short of law enforcement personnel in a lot of ways, and I just say as a matter 

of—statistically—two of my staff people have been hit by drivers 

who were illegal, and in each case law enforcement took the information, took the Matricular Consular card number, they knew very 

well it wouldn’t hit a positive hit on the database, turned them 

loose. And even though, when I send my chief of staff to town to 

try to get enforcement, we can’t get it even in my own staff. 

So I just—I thank all the witnesses—I know we have strong emotional feelings, and as emotions come out in your testimony, Dr. 

Camayd, and I actually think some of that was plenty. And I appreciate the professionalism that comes here when it arrives, and 

I know how it was most difficult for Mrs. Costner, and, again, I 

thank you for your testimony especially. 

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

I would turn now to the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

Let me share with Mrs. Costner thank you for coming and bringing your testimony before this Committee. I think it is very valuable information and testimony for us. We need to do more about 

identity theft, and I thank you for your testimony. I think it will 

help us here. At least I am very hopeful it will help us here. 

Let me go to Mr. Camayd. We heard Ms. Costner’s testimony 

about identity theft. It sounds to me like the gentleman who stole 

her identity committed aggravated identity theft. Would that be 

your opinion? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Absolutely. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I just want to see how that relates to your 

experience in being an interpreter and what the people were 

charged. Was there any evidence of this kind of critical criminal intent—as using someone’s identity, Social Security number—and 

causing the kind of harm that was caused to Mrs. Costner and her 

husband? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, I expressed to Mrs. Costner how 

sorry I was for what happened to her during the break. And I want 

her to know, for her peace of mind, that the individuals that I saw 

in this case in Iowa were just hard-working people and, in fact, 

only 5 out of 389—had any kind of criminal record. 

One of the issues that bothered me about the case in Iowa is that 

individual circumstances of each case were not considered. And I 

think that, when we look at the very unfortunate case of Mrs. 

Costner, as well as issues as to whether illegal workers are good 

or bad for the country, I think it—I keep going back to that situation and saying, ‘‘Well, how can we apply these broad issues to the 

individual cases if we don’t know the facts of each case?’’ 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And so of the people that you helped interpret 

for, there was no evidence—in your testimony you seem to really 

stress the difference between the aggravated identity theft and the 

use—the improper use of a Social Security card. Would you—what 

is the difference? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, aggravated identity theft was a 

charge created by an act of Congress in 1998. For almost 10 years, 

it had been used for its proper purpose and meaning. And it was 

132 

only until the middle of 2007 that it began to be used in immigration cases, basically in presenting false documents to obtain employment. So it seemed like it was a way of testing the waters until 

in Postville it was applied on a large scale. 

But the Department of Justice Web site has a very good page on 

identity theft. It explains what it is. It gives several examples. The 

examples it gives pertain to people who have stolen identity to 

charge sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars under somebody else’s name, that type of—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. That is to use somebody’s identity 

to commit a crime? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. That is correct. 

And also it remits you to the actual statute, and the language 

of the statute is that identity theft is using somebody else’s identity 

to commit a crime under the false pretense of being another person. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me just follow up because I would like to ask 

Mr. Leopold. 

So when I read, ‘‘If you plead guilty to the charge of knowingly 

using a false Social Security number, the government will withdraw the heavier charge of aggravated identity theft’’—and this is 

from the interpreted—this was the plea agreement, which the assistant general attorney had a little bit of problem but not much 

problem with. I mean, this is basically what the interpreters are 

saying, that the defense counsel was giving to their client. 

What is wrong with that? What in essence is there anything 

wrong with an attorney—with a U.S. attorney or the Federal Government accusing somebody of something and then offering them 

a lesser plea? What is wrong in this case? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, what is wrong with it is is apparently there 

was very little evidence to convict them even on the lesser plea. 

And what they did was they compressed this whole situation by 

use of what is otherwise known as an exploding plea agreement, 

which was 7 days long or it ended. So that compressed timeframe, 

coupled with the fact that most of these people—or all of them— 

their real intent was really to get out and work and feed their families again, and their real—this whole situation banked on the fact 

that the workers really didn’t understand the nature of the charges 

against them. 

What was wrong was to use that kind of leverage in this particular case and to try to criminalize—successfully criminalize as 

many undocumented workers as they did when, in fact, all they 

were trying to do was feed their families. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And one last question. If it is an immigration 

case, would you take any lawyer for a—is there a particular reason 

you want an immigration lawyer to deal with an immigration case? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, look, absolutely, Congressman. The travesty 

here is that these pleas that were given could not possibly have 

been given knowingly because there was not adequate advice of immigration counsel. And in a criminal case involving a noncitizen, 

part and parcel of the defense is an analysis of the immigration 

consequences. 

In Dr. Camayd’s essay, there was a discussion of a man from 

Guatemala, and as the Chairwoman mentioned, Guatemala has a 

133 

rather checkered history with human rights violations. Many of 

these farmers were from Guatemala. There were probably asylum 

claims in there. There were probably people that needed protection. 

All they needed to do—all the U.S. Attorney’s Office needed to do 

and should have done and failed to do was ensure that immigration 

advice—competent, thorough immigration advice was available to 

all of these detainees. 

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

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is recognized. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I am sorry I missed a good portion of this 

while I was tending to other things, but I guess I have been here 

long enough to see what the hearing is all about. ICE screwed up. 

Labor Department screwed up. U.S. Attorney’s screwed up. Court 

screwed up. There is no criminality here. People like Mrs. Costner, 

who have their identity stolen and suffer the consequences, we 

apologize to you, but, you know, no one really did anything wrong 

here. They just took your identity. 

I have been in this place 14 out of the last 30 years working on 

immigration issues. I thought that we solved this problem in 1986 

when we had the largest, most generous legalization in the history 

of this country, which, by the way, was not very particularized. 

There wasn’t much you had to prove to them and we managed to 

legalize millions of people, but we did not enforce the law. 

And people think the comments here about the Federal employees who worked on this are not going to deter them from doing 

their job, I think they are sadly mistaken. We have been told that 

they were cowboys, that they were rogues, that they had no consideration for the rights of anybody. Now, maybe that is true. Maybe 

this was wholesale. Maybe every single ICE officer disrespected the 

rights of everybody else. Maybe the U.S. Attorney’s Office did it 

completely. Maybe the Labor Department was involved in some 

sort of grand conspiracy with Department of Homeland Security. 

But, frankly, I find that a whole lot hard to swallow. 

Ms. Costner, when your identity was lost and taken by somebody 

else, were you concerned whether the person was doing it for a reason they considered to be good? Would that have made a difference 

in terms of the implications with you, the impact on you? 

Mrs. COSTNER. No. When I went to court with the lady, I actually 

was in a position to where I felt sorry for her, but I still owed 

$8,000 and had lost a big part of my life. 

Mr. LUNGREN. This upside—— 

Mrs. COSTNER. I mean, I am still—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Did this turn your life upside down? 

Mrs. COSTNER. Yes. And—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So it is not a victimless crime? I mean, you were 

a victim in this? 

Mrs. COSTNER. And will be the rest of my life. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But what we hear in Congress mostly is to blame 

the Social Security system because they didn’t do a good enough job 

in it and because we don’t check well enough. I mean, at some 

point in time, I hope people understand folks have to take responsibilities for their action. And it is illegal to come into this country 

when you don’t have a basis for coming to this country. It is illegal 

to take a job when you don’t have a right to have a job. 

134 

And I will continue to talk about this until something is changed. 

We have an unbelievable crisis in this country, a scandal in this 

country with the unemployment among young African-Americans 

age 17 to 35. I dealt with it when I was attorney general. We were 

dealing with the high rate of incarceration of that group, and one 

of the concerns was where are the jobs? And I hope we will not forget about that. But I hear very little about that. 

And, you know, when you are trying to balance the scales of justice, we ought to treat people fairly, they ought to have the right 

to have a fair hearing, they ought to have the right to have lawyers, but let us also remember the other side of the balance here. 

There is people like Ms. Costner who—— 

Mrs. COSTNER. Had to pay for my lawyers. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And your life has been turned upside down. 

Mrs. COSTNER. Yes. I mean, it is—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now, maybe no one intended that, but that is 

what happens when people steal identity here, and it is almost as 

if we are saying—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. It is not that big a deal. 

I will be happy to yield, but, I mean, I have sat here and heard 

questions while I was here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t think you had arrived yet when all of us 

expressed concern about—— 

Mrs. COSTNER. Correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Mrs. Costner’s—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Oh, I understand that. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Situation and also expressed the view 

that the perpetrator should have been prosecuted and deported. 

But here is—and I thank the gentleman for yielding—the affidavit filed by the government based on their search says that 80 

percent of the individuals didn’t take somebody’s Social Security— 

it was a number that—it wasn’t somebody’s Social Security number. It was a made-up number not attached to any real person. And 

I think that is one of the issues that at least is of concern here is 

there was no victim because there was nobody who had the number. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that. 

You know, we have a schizophrenic country. On the one hand, 

we want to deal with illegal immigration and enforce the law. On 

the other hand, we want to have people here to take jobs that 

‘‘Americans won’t take.’’ And I think there is an area in which that 

applies, and that is why I have been working for 30 years to get 

a temporary worker program and to get some legal means to do it. 

It is my observation the American people will not allow us to do 

that until they believe we have the enforcement side in control. 

And when they see the impact of phony Social Security cards or 

stolen identity, that does not give them great confidence that we 

have this under control. And my fear is that we will never get to 

the point of having that temporary worker program, having those 

means by which we can determine how many people should come 

here, take them out of the shadows of illegality so they have the 

protections of the law unless we take enforcement seriously. 

135 

And my bottom-line concern is that the hearing seemed to be directed at an agency that screwed up. And I suppose we might find 

a raid where they actually did things right. And maybe we—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will keep looking. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I know. We will keep looking, but that is 

very encouraging to the people at ICE as we have been told that 

we have great respect for them and the work they do and then we 

just constantly tell them they have done a terrible job. 

If I sound frustrated, I am frustrated because I have worked for 

30 years to try and get a solution here, and one of the results of 

not having a solution is Ms. Costner, is what you had to go 

through, and unless we get a grip on this, many others are going 

to go through that. And we are all going to invite you here, and 

we are all going to apologize to you, say we are sorry it happened 

to you—— 

Mrs. COSTNER. Pass around the hat. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes, we will pass around the hat. But we won’t 

do anything about it. So I will add my apology too, but the best 

apology we could make to you is when we actually pass a law that 

deals with this and puts it on the right track. 

Thank you very much. 

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

I recognize the gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, again. 

I associate myself with the latter words of my good friend from 

California. We do have to pass a law, Ms. Costner, and I would 

start with you simply to say that I am outraged about what happened to you. As I looked over your very eloquent statement, this 

is, I think, the thrust of my comments. I want the bad guys, the 

ones who are stalking you, who are criminally calling you up on the 

phone and ridiculing you. I want the guy who speeded and got a 

speeding ticket to be deported. And the outrage is where was—why 

was there a disconnect? The local law enforcement could have 

taken the gentleman in and called the Federal law enforcement 

right there. That is the kind of criminal bad guy that you want to 

be gone. Obviously, we would like a lot of these incidences to not 

occur. 

So my question, I know that you are not an expert in Federal 

law—and I see this other individual who you felt sympathy for— 

but there was a purposeful use of your identification, and I don’t 

want to stereotype a profile, but I would think your name is slightly different. Maybe they perceived you to be—this individual to certainly have the ability to have maybe a name as yours. But it 

might have been an indicator to ask a few more questions. 

And so I think obviously and conspicuously on the face of your 

facts we could have helped you. And I apologize for the lack of coordination. We have advocated that there should be coordination. 

We don’t think local law enforcement or Federal law enforcement. 

But if this person was poised to be deported for conspicuous, reckless criminal actions—I am talking about the first individual, who 

seemingly began to stalk you—that should have occurred. 

And I just simply ask you the question would you like to see, as 

we look to try to fix this immigration system, that our law enforcement goes after those who are poised or are already in the act of 

136 

criminal acts that already violate the criminal laws? If you were 

doing this, that would be against the law. Should we be putting resources there to get those kind of people? 

Mrs. COSTNER. Yes. But I would like to see them here going 

through the channels to be here legally so it is not a question and 

they don’t have to steal an identity to work to feed their families. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, you are very gracious, and I just want 

to apologize to you and thank you for your testimony—— 

Mrs. COSTNER. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. And for being here, and we will 

certainly look at some of the fractures in the system that caused 

this individual—the first individual that took your husband’s ID, of 

course—to treat you in that manner, and I thank you for your testimony. 

Let me go to Mr. Leopold. I went down this line of reasoning 

with the representative for the DOJ and the ICE, which is to suggest that there may have been some thinking as relates to putting 

forward these criminal charges knowing that criminal charges 

placed on individuals who, as you had indicated, come from places 

like Guatemala may have been simply farmers who were trying to 

come here for economic opportunity, albeit that they were undocumented, that placing them in this criminal predicament—in this 

criminal charge predicament would have then cast them as felons 

and made their journey back home more difficult or their journey 

and their ability to return more difficult. 

What do you think about that kind of thinking? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, the criminalization of undocumented farmers 

really goes nowhere. Yes, it does brand them as felons. And you are 

correct, once somebody is branded as a felon, it creates all kinds 

of problems later on with respect to admissibility to the United 

States. Not everybody who is deportable who is a felon, but many 

are. Many people who are felons, it is impossible to be admitted. 

There is no 10-year bar. I think I heard the representative from the 

Department of Justice talk about a 10-year limit. I don’t know of 

any 10-year limit. It is a lifetime limit. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is a lifetime. 

Mr. LEOPOLD. It is a lifetime limit. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is right. 

Mr. LEOPOLD. You are correct. And absent a waiver—and even 

then, you have to show a qualifying relative—it becomes extremely, 

extremely complicated. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I don’t want to cut you off, but my time, and 

I would like the other three gentlemen. 

I don’t want us to get tainted as unpatriotic because we are arguing for a sense of balance, but I need some help. I know that you 

have been engaged in this. The use of resources used like this raid, 

help me find a more effective pathway. I have looked at the numbers: 104 raid teams and we look to get 4,000 in 2008, immigration 

lawyers being utilized, other resources. Is this an effective tool for 

enforcing immigration laws or putting the system right-side up? 

You want to start Mr. Rigg? 

Mr. RIGG. Thank you. I don’t think it is the most effective tool. 

You can make an argument that, yes, we achieved what we set out 

to do if you are ICE if we removed individuals who were undocuVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
137 

mented, we are getting them out of the country, we have now prosecuted them, and you can claim some success with that. 

Was the overall process a fair one? That is where I have real 

problems. And the purpose of the criminal justice system is to 

make sure that we get at the truth and that justice is in fact done. 

And critical resources have to be devoted, not only to ICE and to 

the Department of Justice, and they also have to be devoted to the 

Judiciary and the Criminal Defense Bar, and everybody seems to 

overlook the Criminal Defense Bar and give them, I think, the opportunity to have some input into this and maybe make suggestions that might actually serve ICE’s purpose better. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Leopold, could you quickly just answer 

the effective use of resources? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. The most effective use of resources, Congresswoman, would be to fix the broken immigration system. As Congressman Lungren pointed out, it is broken, and it does need to be 

fixed. And this is a symptom, the terrible story that we hear from 

Mrs. Costner, other stories. This is the symptom of a broken— 

badly broken immigration system. And, frankly, Congress needs to 

roll up its sleeves, get down to the nitty gritty of fixing the system. 

It is not going to happen overnight, and it is going to take a lot 

of hard work. And, frankly, I implore Congress to do this about it. 

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairwoman, and I 

will just say, Chairwoman, in closing my sentence, I think we need 

to ask the president of the United States, which has to be a partner in signing a bill, and I personally ask him if he would take in 

these waning months leadership on helping turn this system rightside up. 

I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California Ms. Sa ́nchez is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you to the Chairwoman for holding this 

hearing because I think, although it has been a long day, it highlights several issues that I think speak to the fundamental nature 

of what are we as a democracy. 

And while I don’t want to diminish the terrible circumstances 

that Ms. Costner’s gone through, in listening to—in reading 

through some of the testimony, it is clear that the workers who 

were using Social Security numbers that were not assigned to another individual, their intent was not to wipe out somebody’s bank 

account, charge up thousands of dollars on their credit cards or 

steal their pension, it was simply to work. 

And I think in all the panels we have heard at some point or another people say we need to fix a broken immigration system; otherwise, these types of things are going to continue to occur. And 

there will be criminals, like the criminal who stole Ms. Costner’s 

identification, who will go unpunished. But there will also be hardworking people who are just trying to feed their families or trying 

to make a better life for themselves or escape repressive regimes 

in their home countries of origin who are also going to get caught 

138 

up in unfortunate circumstances because I consider some of their 

circumstances very unfortunate as well. 

What particularly concerns me about this raid is the question of 

due process rights, and much has been made about the fact that 

the taxpayers pay for it. Well, you now what? It is a constitutional 

guarantee that, if you cannot afford an attorney and you are being 

charged with a crime in this country, one is provided for you. And 

yet, you know, people seem to make light of the fact that, hey, as 

long as you are given an attorney, what are you complaining 

about? Well, if you don’t have a reasonable way to participate in 

your own defense, if you don’t have a understanding, a basic grasp 

of what you are being charged with, how can you really make informed decisions in a criminal process? And the compressed timeframe, I think, only underscores the egregiousness of the due process that was not afforded to many of these—many of these workers. 

In my Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, we 

have heard testimony under Operation Streamline and in Postville 

defense lawyers were being assigned up to a dozen clients at once 

and given less 30 minutes to, number one, meet and educate the 

client themselves; number two, decide whether the client was competent to stand trial; number three, determine whether there is a 

defense of citizenship or duress, a lack of intent or a need for pretrial motions to suppress evidence or statements due to constitutional violations; and, number four, learn personal information 

which might mitigate a sentence and a whole host of other things. 

Thirty minutes was granted to each of these people. 

I want to ask Mr. Leopold and Mr. Rigg, in your professional 

opinion, can any defense attorney adequately and ethically execute 

their duties in less than 30 minutes to a client, and especially in 

a case where they have to interpret with somebody who doesn’t 

speak the language? Does 30 minutes seem like a sufficient amount 

of time? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, you know, I can speak from experience as a 

CJA panel attorney myself that 30 minutes is enough time to 

shake the client’s hand and get to know their name. Of course, not, 

Congresswoman. Of course, not. 

You know, and couple that with this compressed plea agreement—and by the way, I don’t know—nobody has ever explained 

the representative from the Department of Justice or the U.S. attorney—nobody has ever explained why did they have to impose 

this 7-day deadline on the plea agreement? Why? 

There was absolutely no reason to do that other than to pressurize, not only the panel attorneys—the CJA panel attorneys— 

who, by the way, did a valiant job out there in Iowa—but to pressurize the clients into taking these pleas. I know of no situation in 

my experience—and I have asked other attorneys—where this type 

of plea agreement was used. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Rigg? 

Mr. RIGG. I am also the director of the Criminal Defense Program, and one of the things I do is I supervise students in criminal 

cases. I would fail any student who took 30 minutes to advise a client on a misdemeanor charge to plead or not to plead, much less 

do the analysis that you have described. Essentially what you have 

139 

described is a violation of every standard of the ABA standards of 

a prosecution function and defense function. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I appreciate your honest answers to 

that. 

Mr. Camayd—did I pronounce that correctly? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Camayd. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Camayd. 

To the best of your knowledge, did any individual who you interpreted for refuse to answer questions during ICE’s processing? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I was not present during that questioning 

session so I wouldn’t be able to answer that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. So you don’t know if any during processing 

asked for an attorney at that point either? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I am sorry? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If any individual during the processing asked for 

an attorney? 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I do not know that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. 

I just want to ask one final question, and I would beg the Chair’s 

indulgence as I did not get a chance to question any of the previous 

panels. 

Clearly, there seems to be a problem with this particular instance in terms of whether people had a knowing and a full understanding of what they were doing before they entered their plea 

agreements. 

I want to know from our panelists—Mr. Leopold and Mr. Rigg— 

what is the potential harm to the American system of justice when 

we allow criminal prosecutions to go forward in this manner? I 

mean, if it can happen here, can there not be other instances in 

which it can happen? And then what does that do fundamentally 

to the American system of justice? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, Congresswoman Sa ́nchez, if you could imagine for a second how we would react if we heard of a group of 

Americans overseas in a foreign country being rounded up into a 

cattle pen and prosecuted in 7 days. I mean, the whole spectacle 

itself demeans our system of justice and stands as a stain upon this 

system which we all—we all cherish. 

These types of precedents in terms of the type of prosecution as 

it was done out there is a terrible precedent, a terrible way to handle justice, and I would respectfully submit that it shouldn’t ever 

happen again. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Rigg? 

Mr. RIGG. I think anytime you value high turnover and economy 

of justice, that is exactly what you get, that you don’t get justice, 

and you probably are going to violate due process in doing so. And 

anytime the American system—and every day the American system 

is put on trial, and are we getting it right, and it is rightfully tested by the careful arguments between defense counsel and prosecutors with a neutral and detached judge. And when you take any 

part of that component away, you are guaranteeing at some level 

you are going to create a problem. 

140 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. All right. One final question, and I can’t resist asking this because Mr. Leopold said, ‘‘If you could imagine this happening to Americans overseas.’’ 

What if U.S. citizens here in the United States—here in the 

United States were rounded up and arraigned 10 at a time and 

processed and given plea agreements? What can you imagine would 

happen here if American citizens were treated like that under our 

system of justice? 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Because it seems to me that there is an inherent 

bias if they say, ‘‘Well, it is fine because, you know what? These 

people don’t matter anyway. They don’t really count.’’ 

Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, I think that is an astute point. I think that 

we wouldn’t see that kind of roundup of U.S. citizens. 

You know, in the panel cases that I have done in the Northern 

District of Ohio involving big cases with a lot of defendants, it is 

always one lawyer to one client. I have never seen 17 clients to one 

lawyer, 15 minutes or 30 minutes to speak to the client. 

You know, in this case—this is the immigration law, this huge 

book. I don’t know how you can explain this in 30 minutes to somebody, let alone the enormous consequences of taking a plea. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Any further comment from any other panelists on 

that? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady is granted one additional minute 

for an answer—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And then we will be—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I will yield—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Adjourning the hearing. 

Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Yes. I want to make clear that I believe 

everybody here is in favor of enforcement but done the right way. 

The consequences of not doing it the right way, we don’t have to 

look too far to find them, and Mrs. Costner’s case is a case in point. 

Related to this case, I heard of situations in which the authorities were called about an individual similar to in the case of Ms. 

Costner’s, and they are response was, ‘‘You have only one guy?’’ 

They said, ‘‘No. We can’t take care of it.’’ In this case, obviously, 

there were 700 warrants so this is what attracted the attention of 

law enforcement. 

I also wanted to point out that I want to dispel the myth that 

the target was the employer. As a matter of fact, one of the three 

charges, which was very much related to the Social Security fraud 

charge, was use or possession of false identity document with intent to deceive. Now, that phrase ‘‘with intent to deceive’’ isn’t really with intent to deceive the employer. So that held the employer 

harmless. Not only that, but that made it a crime of moral turpitude, which renders the convict ineligible to even apply for immigration relief. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

I will just—before I yield back my time—will make one last comment, and that is I find it interesting that, when we talk tough 

about getting tough on illegal immigration, we always talk about 

criminalizing the immigrant. We never talk about criminalizing the 

employer. And I think that, if we made it a criminal penalty to 

141 

knowingly hire somebody who was undocumented, I think a large 

part of our immigration problem might be solved. But the employers are typically only let off with a slap on the wrist or a fine, if 

that. 

And with that I will yield back the balance of my time. 

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

The Ranking Member has asked to be recognized for a brief comment. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This Committee is poised to adjourn with a misconception hanging in the air, and I would direct the attention to page 10 of Ms. 

Rhodes’s testimony—the U.S. attorney from Alabama—who in her 

testimony says, ‘‘Nearly all of the defendants sentenced to time 

served had admitted using identification information that belonged 

to other people.’’ 

And the specific of it are this: 233 are false use of identification 

after admitting the use of an actual person’s identity, 30 for false 

use of Social Security number after admitting the use of an actual 

person’s identity and 2 for false identification to obtain employment 

after admitting an actual person’s identity. 

So the idea that it was a minority, rather than majority, almost 

all—nearly all defendants used somebody else’s identity, somebody 

like Mrs. Costner. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman yields back. 

I will just note that this—the Ranking Member’s comment really 

proved the point of the lack of due process because there was an 

admission to something that was not true. The evidence, which is 

found on page—on point 85 of the application for the search warrant, shows that the evidence is that 80 percent of these people had 

a number that didn’t belong to anybody, and so really it does got 

to the due process question of whether these individuals were— 

pled guilty to something that there was no factual basis for. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Would the Chairlady yield on that? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I certainly would. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I believe that affidavit deals with the over 700 

people that they were talking about in the first instance, about half 

of which, I believe, were not at the site at the time that the exercise by ICE took place, and the number that the Ranking Member 

was talking about was the number that actually pled, which is a 

much smaller number than the overall 700. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I concede the gentleman’s point. The further point 

being that, since there was no trial, there was no facts gathering, 

the only evidence we had was this, and there was no way to sort 

the individuals who, in ignorance, pled guilty from those who—the 

80 percent that did not have a number. 

I am not going to belabor this point because we have been here 

all day. I do want to thank all of the witnesses. People don’t realize 

that the witnesses are volunteers for our country come here of their 

own free will to share information, to inform the Congress, hopefully, to improve our country. 

I will say that I personally find the processes used in the criminal proceedings to be unusual and provocative and do have quesVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682
142 

tions about whether they meet the requirements of due process 

that is guaranteed in our constitution. 

Looking at you, Mrs. Costner, I am so disappointed. I mean, the 

law, really, required ICE to do something they didn’t do. They were 

busy doing things with people who weren’t doing people harm, and 

they wouldn’t take the time to deal with your situation when harm 

was done, and that is really just so maddening to me and, I think, 

to all of us. 

So we will be adjourning now. Our hearing is open for 5 days. 

We may have additional questions in writing for you, and if so, we 

would ask that you respond as promptly as you can. 

And, again, many, many thanks to all of you for being here and 

for helping to shed some light on this situation. 

Before adjourning, I will just note that Mr. Gutierrez will be— 

and several other Members of Congress—will be going to 

Postville—at their own expense, not as a part of—official part of 

this Committee—to investigate matters further this weekend, and 

we look forward to getting their feedback after that trip is concluded. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(143) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILDA L. SOLIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I would like to applaud Chairwoman Lofgren and the members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration for holding this hearing about the detrimental 

impact of immigration raids. Since 2006, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has engaged in unprecedented workplace raids. The Bush Administration and its allies have chosen an enforcement only immigration strategy. 

These punitive enforcement initiatives ignore the hardworking contributions of immigrants and are affecting the well-being of immigrant communities. 

From the Swift raids in 2006 to the raid in Postville, Iowa, ICE’s actions have 

left children and other vulnerable populations without proper care and supervision 

and limited legal representation. Nearly 400 immigrants were arrested at the workplace raid on the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa. This ICE raid was the 

largest workplace raid conducted by the Bush administration on a single site. The 

day following the raid approximately half of the school system’s 600 students were 

absent, including 90 percent of Latino children, because their parents were arrested 

or in hiding. 

Today, the families in Postville continue to struggle to cope with the aftermath 

of the raid with family members awaiting deportations or living under house arrest. 

A recent New York Times article highlighted the detrimental impacts of the 

Postville raid, the largest in the nation, on the lives in the local community. The 

raid has been described as ripping ‘‘the heart out of the community.’’ As a nation 

built on family values, these enforcement only tactics are not only damaging children, families and communities, but ripping at the fabric upon which our nation was 

built. 

Separating families puts children at risk of economic hardship and psychological 

trauma. We must ensure that as immigration laws are being enforced that our nation’s children are not at risk. That is why I have introduced the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act (H.R. 3908), which would ensure that immigrant raids 

are humane and children are protected. This legislation would protect immigrant 

detainees and their families from mistreatment and unnecessary separation from 

minor children, and encourages the release of detainees on humanitarian grounds. 

We cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices that workplace raids are having on 

our children and families. As the sponsor of the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act (H.R. 3980), I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and 

across the country to find a solution on how immigration enforcement could be improved to protect the children and families involved. 

f 

144 


B-1.eps
145 


B-2.eps
146 

f 


B-3.eps
147 


C-1.eps
148 


C-2.eps
149 


C-3.eps
150 


C-4.eps
151 


C-5.eps
152 


C-6.eps
153 


C-7.eps
154 

f 


C-8.eps
155 


D-1.eps
156 


D-2.eps
157 


D-3.eps
158 


D-4.eps
159 


D-5.eps
160 


D-6.eps
161 


D-7.eps
162 


D-8.eps
163 


D-9.eps
164 


D-10.eps
165 


D-11.eps
166 


D-12.eps
167 


D-13.eps
168 

f 


D-14.eps
169 


E-1.eps
170 

f 


E-2.eps
171 


F-1.eps
172 

f 


F-2.eps
173 


G-1.eps
174 


G-2.eps
175 


G-3.eps
176 


G-4.eps
177 


G-5.eps
178 


G-6.eps
179 


G-7.eps
180 

f 


G-8.eps
181 


H-1.eps
182 


H-2.eps
183 


H-3.eps
184 

f 


H-4.eps
185 


I-1.eps
186 


I-2.eps
187 


I-3.eps
188 


I-4.eps
189 

f 


I-5.eps
190 


J-1.eps
191 


J-2.eps
192 


J-3.eps
193 


J-4.eps
194 


J-5.eps
195 


J-6.eps
196 


J-7.eps
197 


J-8.eps
198 


J-9.eps
199 


J-10.eps
200 


J-11.eps
201 


J-12.eps
202 


J-13.eps
203 


J-14.eps
204 


J-15.eps
205 


J-16.eps
206 


J-18.eps
207 


J-19.eps
208 


J-20.eps
209 


J-21.eps
210 


J-22.eps
211 


J-23.eps
212 


J-24.eps
213 


J-25.eps
214 


J-26.eps
215 


J-27.eps
216 


J-28.eps
217 


J-29.eps
218 


J-30.eps
219 


J-31.eps
220 


J-32.eps
221 


J-33.eps
222 


J-34.eps
223 


J-35.eps
224 


J-36.eps
225 


J-37.eps
226 


J-38.eps
227 


J-39.eps
228 


J-40.eps
229 


J-41.eps
230 


J-42.eps
231 


J-43.eps
232 


J-44.eps
233 


J-45.eps
234 


J-46.eps
235 


J-47.eps
236 


J-48.eps
237 


J-49.eps
238 


J-50.eps
239 


J-51.eps
240 


J-52.eps
241 


J-53.eps
242 


J-54.eps
243 


J-55.eps
244 


J-56.eps
245 


J-57.eps
246 


J-58.eps
247 


J-59.eps
248 


J-60.eps
249 


J-61.eps
250 


J-62.eps
251 


J-63.eps
252 


J-64.eps
253 


J-66.eps
254 


J-65.eps
255 


J-67.eps
256 


J-68.eps
257 


J-69.eps
258 


J-70.eps
259 


J-71.eps
260 


J-72.eps
261 


J-73.eps
262 


J-74.eps
263 


J-76.eps
264 


J-77.eps
265 


J-78.eps
266 


J-79.eps
267 


J-80.eps
268 


J-81.eps
269 


J-82.eps
270 


J-83.eps
271 


J-84.eps
272 


J-85.eps
273 


J-86.eps
274 


J-87.eps
275 


J-88.eps
276 


J-89.eps
277 


J-90.eps
278 


J-91.eps
279 


J-92.eps
280 


J-93.eps
281 


J-94.eps
282 


J-95.eps
283 


J-96.eps
284 


J-97.eps
285 


J-98.eps
286 


J-99.eps
287 


J-100.eps
288 


J-101.eps
289 


J-102.eps
290 


J-103.eps
291 


J-104.eps
292 


J-105.eps
293 


J-106.eps
294 


J-107.eps
295 


J-108.eps
296 

Æ 


J-109.eps