U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

99–838 PDF 2016

THE REAL VICTIMS OF A RECKLESS AND 

LAWLESS IMMIGRATION POLICY: FAMILIES AND 

SURVIVORS SPEAK OUT ON THE REAL 

COST OF THIS ADMINISTRATION’S POLICIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 19, 2016 

Serial No. 114–64 

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 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

GARY MERSON, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 19, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1 

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 4 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 7 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 8 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Charles A. Jenkins, Sheriff, Frederick County, MD 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

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

Michelle Root, Mother of Sarah Root, Modale, IA 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

Laura Wilkerson, Mother of Joshua Wilkerson, Pearland, TX 

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

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

Minerva G. Carcan ̃ o, Bishop, The United Methodist Church 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) .............. 56 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress 

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

and Border Security. This material is available at the Subcommittee and can also 

be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803 

(1) 

THE REAL VICTIMS OF A RECKLESS AND 

LAWLESS IMMIGRATION POLICY: FAMILIES 

AND SURVIVORS SPEAK OUT ON THE REAL 

COST OF THIS ADMINISTRATION’S POLICIES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Labrador, Smith, 

King, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Lofgren, and Conyers. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Tracey Short, Counsel; Tanner Black, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Micah Bump, Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Committee will come to order. 

This is a Subcommittee hearing on immigration and border security. I want to welcome all of our witnesses and our guests. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

I also want to say this too, because I always say it: We’re delighted to have guests, but the witnesses deserve to be heard and 

the Members need to hear what the witnesses have to say. So this 

will be the one and only warning that anyone gets with respect to 

decorum. If there is a disturbance, you’ll be removed. 

With that, welcome again to our witnesses. The way that we will 

conduct it is we will give opening statements, and then I’ll recognize each of you individually for opening statements, and then the 

Members will be recognized for questioning. 

With that, I would recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I want to begin again by thanking the witnesses for being here 

today. I cannot imagine the pain that you have endured, and still 

endure, or the courage it takes to talk about the loss of a child. 

Well-meaning people can talk about closure, but when it comes to 

the loss of a child or loved ones to an act of violence or recklessness, there is no closure and there is no moving on. There is an 

omnipresent void and a daily reminder that impacts every facet of 

life. Losing a child is a life sentence in and of itself. 
2 

The loved ones of those killed by acts of violence or recklessness 

have to reconcile the finality of death with the certainty of separation and, in some instances, the reality that many of these tragedies could have been avoided. And that’s what I want to talk about 

today, how imminently avoidable some of these tragedies are. 

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. Either the current 

state of the law or the refusal to enforce certain aspects of our law 

allow for the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens into 

American communities. This has and will continue to have real and 

tragic consequences. So it’s imperative that we understand this, regardless of your political ideation and, frankly, regardless of your 

views on immigration reform. Surely, we can all agree that protecting the public from violence and lawlessness is the preeminent 

function of government. 

Whatever else you may think government can or should be doing, 

national security and public safety have to make the list somewhere. For me, they make the top of the list, and I think that’s 

true for most people, which is why it is unconscionable that between October of 2011 and December of 2014, ICE released criminal aliens over 100,000 times. 

According to ICE, those released have been convicted of more 

than 10,000 assaults, more than 800 sexual assaults, more than 

400 homicide-related offenses, and more than 300 kidnappings. 

Today, there are over 350,000 known criminal aliens in the United 

States who are not detained by ICE, 350,000. 

That number may not get your attention. Statistics rarely do. So 

I want you to think about it this way: The number of criminal 

aliens living in the United States, not in custody, not separated 

from society, is larger than the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 

larger than the city of Lexington, Kentucky; larger than the city of 

Anaheim, California. 

Can you imagine a city the size of Pittsburgh comprised solely 

of people who are here unlawfully, who have also committed another crime? You would be outraged. You would not stand for it. 

You would demand immediate action. So why do we allow that 

same city to be dispersed among the broader country? 

These are not merely statistics. These are tragic, real stories of 

human suffering. Fathers and mothers, and sisters and brothers, 

and friends and neighbors across the United States have lost loved 

ones at the hands of criminal aliens. Some of them are sitting in 

the very room today. 

In May of 2010, Hermilo Moralez was arrested for stalking his 

girlfriend. He was in the United States illegally. But he wasn’t deported. He wasn’t detained. Six months later, Hermilo Moralez got 

a ride from Joshua Wilkerson, an 18-year-old high school senior 

from Pearland, Texas. Joshua thought he and Moralez were 

friends. Joshua wound up beaten, strangled, tortured, and ultimately killed. He was bound and his body burned and dumped in 

a field. Moralez was in the country illegally then too. After his arrest, Moralez was leading investigators to Joshua’s dead body when 

he attempted to take possession of a detective’s gun. 

So I’ve met the so-called DREAMers and valedictorians. I’ve listened to witnesses, some of whom sat in this very room, and argued for full, unmitigated citizenship for all 12 million aspiring 
3 

U.S. citizens. That was what we were asked to do: a path to citizenship for all 12 million. And when those witnesses were pressed 

on background checks on whether all 12 million really were aspiring citizens, the silence was deafening. 

It is just as inaccurate to categorize all 12 million as DREAMers 

and valedictorians as it is to characterize all 12 million as criminals. But once this government is on notice that, in addition to 

breaking immigration laws, some insist on breaking other laws, 

there is no justification for inaction. 

Sarah Root was a 21-year-old with a beautiful, full life ahead of 

her. She graduated college with a 4.0. She aspired to work in 

forensics. That caught my attention. She wanted to dedicate her 

life to solving crimes so victims could have justice, so perpetrators 

would be punished, and to clear the innocent. That is the purpose 

of our justice system. It’s a shame she never got a chance to work 

in it. 

She was struck from behind and killed by Edwin Mejia. Edwin 

Mejia was a Honduran national who illegally entered the United 

States as an unaccompanied minor in 2013. He was then placed in 

the custody of his brother, who is also an illegal alien. Mr. Mejia 

is accused of drag racing in Omaha, Nebraska, with a blood alcohol 

level more than three times the legal limit when he killed Sarah. 

After being charged with felony motor vehicle homicide, he was given a $50,000 bond by a State judge. This allowed him to be released after posting just 10 percent, $5,000. The purpose of bond 

is to protect the public and to ensure the defendant appears at 

scheduled court appearances. Risk of flight is really one of only two 

factors the judge has to be bothered with considering, risk of flight 

and danger to the community. Check and check. 

But a paltry bond was set nonetheless. State authorities say they 

contacted ICE numerous times to notify the agency of Mejia’s elevated flight risk. In fact, State authorities say they requested ICE 

take custody of Mr. Mejia, but ICE denied the request and he 

walked right out of jail. 

Now, ICE spokesman claimed Mr. Mejia would not be detained 

because his arrest did not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities. How 

in the hell somebody here illegally who operates a vehicle at a high 

rate of speed and three times the legal rate of impairment and kills 

a 21-year-old girl doesn’t meet priorities of ICE is precisely why so 

little people have confidence in this Administration’s policies and 

priorities, and precisely why so many people are angry and fed up 

with the current state of immigration enforcement. If killing a 

young woman while racing in an impaired state and being here illegally in the first place does not meet priorities, then perhaps your 

priorities are wrong. 

This Administration loves to talk about families being separated. 

Politicians love to talk about families being separated. Preachers 

love to talk about families being separated. That’s the common 

mantra when discussing immigration and why they refuse to enforce current law. 

But I want to make sure my fellow citizens are clear about this: 

This Administration and the politicians and the preachers are not 

talking about the families sitting at the table this morning. They’re 

not talking about the separation that comes from burying your 
4 

child. They’re not talking about the separation of whatever you told 

your daughter being the last thing you will ever tell your daughter 

because she was shot walking beside you, walking on a pier in San 

Francisco, or because she was killed by somebody driving three 

times the legal rate of impairment. 

Separation is a mother living with the reality that her son left 

for school in the morning and was killed with his body set on fire 

before nightfall. That is separation. That is permanent. I wish this 

Administration talked a little more about it, but mainly I wish they 

did a little more about it. 

Just yesterday, the lawyer for the President was at it again, this 

time at the United States Supreme Court, arguing for the nonenforcement of the law, arguing for the wholesale failure to enforce 

the law. And he said this: ‘‘The damage that would be reaped by 

tearing apart families.’’ 

If you want to see that damage, Mr. Solicitor General, if you 

want to see what tearing apart looks like, I hope you’re watching 

this morning. 

With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I welcome today’s witnesses. 

And I want to extend my condolences to the Root and Wilkerson 

families. As a mother and a grandmother, I shudder to think of the 

anguish that a parent experiences when they lose a child. While 

there may be sharp disagreements among Members of Congress on 

immigration policy, all of our thoughts and prayers are with you. 

Now, public safety is critically important, and there are important questions about criminal justice reform that this Committee is 

addressing with bipartisan legislation. Similar issues, including detention policy and release standards, also come up in the context 

of immigration law. 

Hearings should offer Members of the Committee and the public 

the opportunity to learn more about an issue so that we can work, 

hopefully, together to address problems that we were sent to Washington to solve. However, today’s hearing comes amidst a political 

season in which the Republican frontrunner for President has essentially called all Mexican immigrants rapists. These vile comments vilify an entire community. They’re inaccurate and unfair 

and lead to bad policy proposals that would make us less safe. 

Now, I’ve been an immigration attorney and an elected official 

working on immigration issues for a long time. I have the privilege 

of representing a socially and economically vibrant district in the 

heart of Silicon Valley. I know firsthand that immigrants enrich 

our culture and are engines for growth and innovation in science, 

technology, and the arts. Stereotyping and profiling are wrong 

when it comes to race, religion, and national origin. We should not 

let the bad acts of some define or malign an entire community. 

The vast majority of immigrants are hardworking, law-abiding 

members of society. We know that natives commit crimes at a higher rate than immigrants. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 

July of 2015, numerous studies going back more than a century 

have shown that immigrants, regardless of nationality or legal status, are less likely than the native population to commit violent 

crimes or to be incarcerated. 
5 

Now, while the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew 

from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent between 1990 and 2013, FBI data 

indicate that the violent crime rate during this same period declined 48 percent, which included fallen rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Similarly, the property crime rate 

fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny, robbery, and burglary. Immigrants between the ages of 18 

and 39 are incarcerated at half the rate of native-born populations. 

And as the late, great New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, ‘‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his 

own facts.’’ Vilifying entire communities undermines public safety 

and makes law enforcement’s jobs harder. 

I’m particularly concerned that one of our witnesses today, Sheriff Jenkins, was found by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to 

have engaged in racial profiling. In a 2013 decision, the court unequivocally held that Sheriff Jenkins’ deputies had no legal authority to arrest or even briefly detain a woman of Hispanic origin, who 

was simply eating her lunch in a public area outside her workplace, on the basis of a suspected civil immigration status violation. 

Racial profiling raises fundamental constitutional concerns. It 

has no place in law enforcement and certainly not in the Judiciary 

Committee. Smart, effective community policing that engenders 

trust in immigrant communities leads to crimes being reported, victims getting the assistance they need, and this in turn makes us 

all safer. 

As Richard Biehl, the police chief of Dayton, Ohio, who testified 

before this Committee last year, wrote, ‘‘These policies allows us to 

focus on limited resources, on our primary mission, crime solving, 

and community safety. They also send a message that victims of 

violent crime, human trafficking, and other crimes should never be 

afraid to reach out for help due to fear of immigration consequences.’’ 

Today’s hearing also comes 1 day after the Supreme Court heard 

oral arguments in U.S. v. Texas. Under DAPA and expanded 

DACA, the Secretary of Homeland Security proposed to establish a 

process that would allow Federal officials to consider, on a case-bycase basis, whether to defer deportation of certain unauthorized 

immigrants who live in the United States for 5 years and either 

came here as children or who have children who are U.S. citizens. 

These policies create a mechanism and an incentive for low-priority immigrants to come forward and submit to a background 

check. This promotes public safety and national security, while 

strengthening communities. Yet the Republicans just last month 

passed a resolution against these policies. What is not in dispute, 

thankfully, in this case is the authority of the executive to set immigration enforcement priorities. 

Every year, Congress appropriates enough money to remove less 

than 4 percent of the unauthorized immigrants now in the country. 

Should we use these resources on women and children fleeing violence, or should we use it to apprehend and deport those who commit violent crimes? This is a matter of common sense that we 

should all agree on and should not be the subject of bitter partisan 

dispute. 
6 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee. Also, see Lofgren submissions for the record at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803. 

I also want to address one specific point made by the Chairman 

in his opening statement regarding the release from detention of 

foreign nationals. According to ICE, in 2015, two-thirds of all releases were mandatory, either based on the Supreme Court case 

that precludes indefinite detention or a determination made by an 

immigration judge. This is up from 40 percent in fiscal year 2013. 

I would note that the Zadvydas decision, which requires—the Supreme Court case that requires release of individuals who face indefinite detention relates to countries unwilling to take the return 

of their nationals. And with the reopening—most of those individuals are from Cuba. And with the opening of relations with Cuba, 

I fully expect that the number of mandatory releases under 

Zadvydas will fall substantially, which I think is a good thing. A 

determination has been made that they should be deported. 

Now, when ICE makes discretionary determination to release an 

individual from immigration detention, it’s based on risk evaluation. Consideration is given to special vulnerabilities, mental 

health, risk of harm to public safety, flight risk. And it’s just not 

correct that immigrants are routinely and recklessly released from 

custody. 

It’s also correct to say that sometimes mistakes are made. And 

in the case of the bond mentioned by the Chairman, it’s my understanding that bond was a local bond. But I would point out that 

DUI is an enforcement priority under the November 20th resolution. Domestic violence is an enforcement priority. So I’m not here 

to say that ICE has never made a mistake, but to say that the policy is not to deport people who—in the DUI area is simply inaccurate. 

And, of course, let’s not forget that our immigration system is 

broken and badly in need of reform. There are 11 million undocumented people in this country. Contrary to what Donald Trump 

may think, the majority of these people are not drug dealers and 

rapists; they are hardworking people, parents of U.S. citizens, 

DREAMers, small-business owners, who want an opportunity to 

come forward, submit to background checks, get into the system 

and onto the books. 

The bill passed in 2013 by a bipartisan group of 68 Senators 

would have not only grown our economy and helped shrink our 

budget deficit, but would have made our community safer. And the 

same is true for DAPA and DACA programs that were discussed 

in the Supreme Court yesterday. But DACA and DAPA are no replacement for comprehensive reform. That’s Congress’ job, and I 

hope we can get to it. 

And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to place into 

the record a news article entitled, ‘‘Court Finds Frederick County, 

Maryland, Sheriff Chuck Jenkins Illegally Detained Latina Immigrant.’’* 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 
7 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much 

appreciate your holding this hearing. 

And I want to especially thank our witnesses for appearing today 

and for your willingness to testify before this Subcommittee on this 

very important issue. 

I also want to express my deepest sympathy to the family members of Sarah Root and Joshua Wilkerson, who were tragically 

killed by criminal aliens illegally present in the United States. 

Their mothers, Michelle Root and Laura Wilkerson, are here to 

share their stories under heartbreaking circumstances that no parent could be prepared for or should have to bear. 

Sarah Root was killed by an unlawful alien drunk driver less 

than 3 months ago. Only hours before her death, she graduated 

from college with a 4.0 average and a degree in investigations. 

Tragically, the Department of Homeland Security did not consider 

her killer an enforcement priority and did not issue a detainer for 

his arrest. As a result, he posted a State bail bond and fled. 

Joshua Wilkerson was tortured and murdered in 2010 by an 

alien who had overstayed his visa for 8 years. The killer was arrested on a harassment charge only months before, but ICE did not 

seek to take custody of him. The district attorney who prosecuted 

the murder case couldn’t explain why ICE did not have an interest 

in him, despite the fact that ICE regularly reviewed the county jail 

roster. 

Though these two young victims had unique life stories, their 

tragic deaths are linked by a common thread: They are two of the 

many innocent victims of the irresponsible policies of the Obama 

administration that promote the presence of dangerous criminal 

aliens in American communities. 

The American public has been misled by the enforcement priorities, deferred action, and executive action policies of this Administration which categorize only certain, quote/unquote, serious criminal aliens as worthy of immigration enforcement. However, this 

Administration’s actions demonstrate that it finds it acceptable to 

permit even serious criminal aliens to prey on our communities. 

The fact remains that illegal immigration has consequences. It is 

not a victimless crime. And for the families and friends of victims 

killed, maimed, or otherwise hurt by aliens, especially those who 

are illegally present, the consequence can be devastating. 

The White House website proclaims the President’s highest priority is to keep the American people safe. The President echoed 

that sentiment in his recent State of the Union Address. Americans 

wonder how that reassuring statement can be true if this Administration’s current policies require criminal aliens apprehended at 

the border and in our neighborhoods to simply be released to victimize others. 

Americans deserve to know why this Administration would release thousands upon thousands of criminal aliens from DHS custody despite convictions that included a total of 473 homicide-related offenses, 375 kidnappings, 890 sexual assaults, and 10,731 

assaults before their release. And after their release from DHS custody, criminal aliens went on to commit 124 homicide-related offenses between 2010 and 2014. Those released in 2014 alone committed 1,423 additional crimes after their release from custody, in-
8 

cluding vehicular homicide, sexual assault, domestic violence, child 

abuse, and driving under the influence of alcohol. 

At least 95 percent of convicted criminal aliens known to DHS 

are not detained. How does that policy protect the American people? The harm is real and the risk is great, yet the consequences 

are largely avoidable if this Administration were to simply enforce 

the law. 

That is why last year, the Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 

1148, the Michael Davis, Jr., and Danny Oliver in Honor of State 

and Local Law Enforcement Act, legislation introduced by Chairman Gowdy, which provides much-needed enforcement tools for 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law and protect the public from criminal aliens. 

The Administration’s irresponsible policies have led to an increase in organized crime by aliens. Violent crime by Central 

American street gangs, such as MS-13, has become endemic in our 

communities. Sheriff Charles Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland, will testify today. He is all too familiar with the increase in 

alien gang violence. His rural county, just 50 miles from this building, has seen a significant increase in major crimes by MS-13 gang 

members. 

Alien gang crime in Frederick County increased sharply beginning in 2014, and nearly three-quarters of the offenses were for violent felonies. It is no coincidence that the spike in gang crime occurred during the same time that thousands of Central American 

minors were illegally entering at the southwest border. 

Sixty-four percent of validated gang members arrested in Frederick County in 2015 entered illegally through the southwest border as unaccompanied minors. By releasing known criminal aliens 

and refusing to secure our border, the Administration has sent a 

clear message to the American people that their safety and security 

are far less important than ensuring that illegally present and 

criminal aliens will remain here. 

Today, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses whose compelling and insightful testimony will provide this Subcommittee 

with a greater understanding of the public safety threat posed by 

criminal aliens and the tragic consequences of refusing to enforce 

our immigration laws. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Virginia and 

now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member 

of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Members of the 

Committee and our distinguished witnesses that are with us today. 

I want to begin by also offering sincere condolences to Ms. Root 

and Ms. Wilkerson. Ms. Root, I know your daughter’s death is recent, and the wounds have probably not even begun to heal yet. 

And to both of you, I’m sorry of your loss, and I thank you for your 

testimony that will be coming up. 

Hearings offer this Committee the opportunity to consider solutions, real solutions to our Nation’s problems. And I think we can 

all agree that our immigration system is sorely in need of reform. 

Comprehensive immigration reform would allow law-abiding immigrants to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. It 
9 

would help address the concerns raised by some on this Subcommittee by requiring immigrants to undergo background checks. 

And it would enable Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 

focus its resources on deporting the worst elements. 

An immigration reform bill, such as the measure that passed the 

Senate in 2013 or the bill that had 201 House cosponsors in the 

last Congress, would enhance public safety and ensure that our entire community, citizens and immigrants alike, are protected from 

harm. Comprehensive reform is a concrete solution to a real but 

not an intractable problem. 

It’s important to emphasize that the efforts the President has 

and is undertaking to enforce immigration laws in a rational, tailored, and effective way. And in November of 2014, the Secretary 

of Homeland Security announced new enforcement priorities. The 

President said at the time that Immigration and Customs Enforcement should focus on felons, not families; on criminals, not children; gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for 

her kids. This is a commonsense approach that prioritizes limited 

enforcement resources, and it should be a policy that most of us 

can agree on. 

I’d also note that Congress has funded immigration enforcement at just under $20 billion for this fiscal year, an unprecedented 

level. And under this Administration, more than 2.5 million individuals have been removed from the United States. Many in the 

immigration advocacy community believe that this is too many and 

have been critical of the Administration. 

On the other hand, some of my more conservative colleagues 

make it seem as if there’s no immigration enforcement, but the 

facts plainly do not bear this out. I believe we should expend far 

fewer resources incarcerating people and instead focus on efforts 

that actually make our community safer. 

As I mentioned at the outset, two of today’s witnesses have suffered terrible tragedies. But we must not let the tragic acts of a few 

result in all immigrants being treated as criminals. The Republican 

Presidential frontrunner labeled entire communities of people as 

rapists, criminals, and drug dealers, and calls for a ban on all Muslims from America. 

Some Governors have tried unsuccessfully to bar resettlement of 

Syrians fleeing the civil war, which largely consists of women and 

children caught between the barbarism of ISIS on the one hand 

and Assad’s brutal attacks on his own people on the other. I say 

to my colleagues, nothing could be more un-American. Immigration 

makes us stronger as a country. Pluralism will help us defeat ISIS. 

Exploiting fear and scapegoating an entire community based on 

race or ethnicity are the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not America. 

And so I thank you all for being here and look forward to hearing 

from you and your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Michigan yields back. 

Again, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today. 

And I want to begin by swearing you in, as we swear in all witnesses. So if I could please ask you all to rise. 

Do you swear the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? 
10 

May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You may sit down. I will introduce you en banc and then recognize you individually for your opening statement. 

We are pleased to have Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, who is currently 

in his third term as sheriff of Frederick County, Maryland, and 

served in law enforcement for 26 years with the office of the sheriff. 

Prior to becoming a sheriff, he was a very successful and a wellknown criminal investigator specializing in crimes against persons, 

including homicide death investigations, rape and sex crimes, child 

sex abuse, and other violent crimes. He currently serves the National Sheriffs’ Association, is an active member on both homeland 

security and immigration/border security committees. 

After Sheriff Jenkins, we will hear from Ms. Michelle Root. She 

is the mother of Sarah Root, her only daughter. On January 31st, 

2016, Sarah was killed by a vehicle driven by an alien unlawfully 

present in this country who rear ended her vehicle, while accused 

of not only racing but also being three times the legal rate of impairment. 

Then we are pleased to have Ms. Laura Wilkerson, who resides 

with her family in Texas. She is the mother of Joshua Wilkerson, 

who was her youngest son. He was tortured and murdered by 

someone not lawfully present in this country in November of 2010. 

And then lastly, we will be pleased to hear from Bishop Minerva 

Carcan ̃ o. 

And if I mispronounced your name, I apologize. 

In 2004, the bishop was the first Hispanic woman to be elected 

to the episcopacy of the United Methodist Church. She serves as 

the official spokesperson for the United Methodist Council of 

Bishops and was assigned to the Western Jurisdictional Conference 

in 2012 to be the resident bishop to the California Pacific Annual 

Conference, which includes southern California, Hawaii, and other 

Pacific islands. 

Welcome to you all. 

Sheriff, I will recognize you for your 5-minute opening statement. 

The lights mean what they traditionally mean in light. Green is go; 

yellow, begin to wind up; and red, if you could draw that thought 

to a conclusion. With that, Sheriff. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. JENKINS, 

SHERIFF, FREDERICK COUNTY, MD 

Sheriff JENKINS. Good morning, Chairman Gowdy and distinguished Committee Members. My name is Charles Jenkins, sheriff 

of Frederick County, Maryland. Thank you for allowing me to be 

here today to talk about alien crime and criminal alien gangs in 

America, including my county. 

We all know that open border policies and failure to enforce the 

laws have impacted public safety in every community in America 

and cities are becoming war zones. Every single day more and 

more Americans are becoming victims of avoidable crimes. 

The Frederick County Sheriff’s Office has partnered in the ICE 

287(g) program since 2008 to ensure public safety. This program 

has been very effective in the identification, detention, and removal 
11 

of criminal aliens. Through our partnership with ICE, we’ve effectively built an enforcement wall around Frederick County. 

The criminal alien gang members are growing across the Nation, 

and the serious crimes are increasing. There is also a direct nexus 

between the action on unaccompanied minors of 2 years ago and 

the increases we are seeing now in gang crimes. Local stats offer 

what will definitely show the impact on public safety. There are 

now over 75 active, validated transnational criminal gang members 

in Frederick County, many more suspected. We also know that MS13 and 18th Street alien gangs are recruiting. 

Of the 52 validated gang members identified since inception of 

the program, 48 percent have been identified since 2014. Seventytwo percent of the gang members encountered since 2014 have 

been charged with felonies. Sixty-four percent of the gang members 

encountered in 2015 were unaccompanied juveniles when they entered the U.S. They’re now adults committing more serious crimes. 

Those crimes include attempted murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, home invasion, armed carjacking, kidnapping, and 

use of firearms in felonies. 

In 2014, eight criminal aliens were charged with rape and sexual 

assault of children between the ages of 5 and 14. One of my deputies was a victim of an unprovoked attack by an MS-13 member 

while simply doing a report in his car. Recently, a known alien 

gang member was indicted in a 2013 MS-13 murder-for-hire. The 

victim fled El Salvador to Frederick. The hit carried over to a local 

set in Frederick. The victim was lowered to a wooded area where 

he was shot in the head and stabbed to death. The growing alien 

gang problem has spread into our area high schools, where fights 

in one particular school has become almost a daily occurrence between rival gangs. 

Since 2008, this Administration has weakened immigration enforcement by dismissing deportation cases, rescinding 287(g) agreements, encouraging sanctuary policies, and weakening detainer 

policies. ICE directives have limited enforcement priorities, suspended many thousands of removals, granted deferred actions, and 

suspended removals for aliens who falsely claim to be victims. 

A 2014 DHS OIG report actually points out the problems and 

failures within ICE. The enforcement and removal operations, they 

have to be allowed to do their jobs to keep the criminals off the 

streets. ICE executive leadership does not communicate effectively 

with the ERO, creating systemic breakdowns. 

ERO in the field offices and on the street want to do their jobs 

but simply aren’t allowed to do their jobs. ICE is broken, but it’s 

not on the street; it’s a couple blocks down here in Washington, 

D.C. It’s actually at its highest levels. I think it’s almost incapable 

of doing the job and carrying out the mission. 

Case-by-case amnesty, backdoor amnesty, DACA programs, and 

the DREAM Act by Executive order were pushed through. Policy 

shifts by this President weakened and ended secure communities 

and did not allow action to be taken with police departments and 

sheriffs who did not honor detainers. This allowed criminals to be 

released back on the streets. In effect, criminal aliens that should 

have been deported have been allowed to remain and commit more 

heinous crimes to our citizens. 
12 

The effectiveness and value of local enforcement by simply cooperating with ICE is invaluable. Failure to cooperate and detain 

known criminal aliens for ICE has led American citizens, such as 

are sitting here today, to be victimized in every conceivable way. 

It is my belief that this Congress—if this Congress and the next 

President do not take an action to secure this border with Mexico 

and enforce immigration laws, every county in America will become 

a border county. 

In Frederick, Maryland, our partnership with ICE is effective, 

having placed 1,400 criminal aliens into removal proceedings since 

2008. We honor ICE detainers so that criminals are not released 

back on the streets, assuring the safety of my citizens in Frederick 

County. Criminal aliens are deported. It’s imperative that local law 

enforcement cooperate and honor ICE detainers and is allowed, if 

not mandated, to work with ICE as an enforcement tool. 

As stated, this Committee passed the Michael Davis, Jr., and 

Danny Oliver In Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act. 

I certainly hope Congress passes that bill. That act is going to 

strengthen local and State law enforcement. Every sheriff and police chief in this country ought to embrace that law, ought to embrace that mission, and help with ICE as a force multiplier. 

In 2009, I testified before Congress, ‘‘The cost of doing nothing 

is enormous.’’ Now in 2016, I’m back here to say we’ve seen doing 

nothing has jeopardized every American in this country. The Americans that you and I represent deserve our best. And you’re absolutely right, this is all avoidable. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Jenkins follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Ms. Root. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE ROOT, MOTHER OF SARAH ROOT, 

MODALE, IA 

Ms. ROOT. Thank you. I would just like to thank Chairman 

Gowdy, Chairman Goodlatte, and the respected Members of this 

Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak of Sarah. 

On behalf of my family and myself, we’d also like to thank the 

Omaha Police Department for doing the job that they did in catching Sarah’s murderer; but, unfortunately, they were unable to detain him. 

Sarah was my only daughter. She was 21. She had just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0. She inspired to go on 

to get her master’s in criminal investigations; however, that was 

cut short for her. 

The night of January 31st, 2016, as she was coming home, she 

was rear ended by Edwin Mejia, who was 19 years old, here illegally, drunk driving, street racing. My daughter died instantly. 

However, she was an organ donor, so she was kept alive until February—I believe it was the 4th. Days run together. 

My daughter was a productive child. She did not deserve to end 

this tragically. I’m sorry. It’s just devastating that the laws that we 

have in place weren’t carried out. The local law enforcement did 

their job. They detained him, went to ICE, tried to get a hold on 

him. ICE refused. I don’t know why that was, with everything that 

happened, but he is on the loose now. So our family does not have 

closure. We probably never will have closure, even if he is found. 

I just hope that he will be some day found to pay for the crime that 

he did against my daughter. 

We are not against immigration. Sarah’s grandmother was an 

immigrant from Vienna, Austria. She did it legally. She did it the 

right way. That’s all we’re asking. It’s the illegal immigrants that 

are already breaking the law once they come over here, and they 

continue to break our laws in not following them. This is not isolated incidents; this is happening all the time. 

Since we’ve been in D.C., we have gotten a report that another 

Honduran illegal immigrant has hit and killed somebody else in 

Omaha, Nebraska. Her stories, there are thousands of our stories 

out there. Something needs to be done. 

The arrest and conviction of Edwin will not bring Sarah back, 

but it will give our family some closure and knowledge that justice 

has prevailed. Despite all the tragedy, Sarah still is the hero in 

this story. She was, again, an organ donor. 

We are a Nation of legal immigrants. My family, like many other 

Americans, hold no ill will to people who desire the American 

Dream. Sarah, an American citizen, desired that same dream, but 

it was taken from her. 

We urge the Members of Congress to support meaningful immigration reform through the support and passing of legislation such 

as Kate’s Law, the Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act, and 

the Davis-Oliver Act that empowers local governments and law enforcement and forces ICE to take an illegal immigrant into custody 

when requested by local law enforcement. 
18 

Edwin spent 4 days in jail and is believed to have fled the country. He posted $5,000 bond, which was less than the cost it was to 

bury my daughter Sarah. Because of the lack of controls, the police, 

immigration, U.S. Marshals, and law enforcement have little or no 

information on his whereabouts or on him or his families has been 

found. 

Edwin was not a stranger to the law enforcement and failed to 

honor his legal obligation for minor traffic infractions prior to killing my daughter. Now a failed local judicial system that set his 

bond too low, coupled with the flawed Obama administration policies, have rewarded the illegal and punished my family and hampered law enforcement in their investigations. 

I just want to thank you again for letting me speak on my 

daughter’s behalf and let Sarah’s voice be heard. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Root follows:] 
19 
20 
21 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Ms. Wilkerson. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURA WILKERSON, MOTHER OF 

JOSHUA WILKERSON, PEARLAND, TX 

Ms. WILKERSON. Thank you for allowing me to share my story 

today. Thank you for everyone that invited me here. 

My name is Laura Wilkerson, and my family became a victim of 

illegal alien crime on November 16th, 2010. This was our family’s 

attack by a foreign invader, whom is in this country illegally. At 

best guess, his family are still enjoying the fruits of America at the 

hands of taxpayers. I don’t know this as fact because the United 

States Government does not know as fact. You don’t know. 

My youngest son, Joshua, was a senior in high school and had 

his whole life ahead of him. He went to school and never returned. 

As Josh walked up to the doors of the school that morning, Hermilo 

Moralez walked up as well. There’s a video that I saw in trial. This 

is the last picture of Josh alive. 

This killer asked Josh for a ride home, and in the video you can 

see Josh shaking his head, yeah. And then Josh went inside the 

building, turned around and held the door open for Mr. Moralez to 

walk in. He said something to Josh, and Josh went—which we 

later found out, he wasn’t going to school. So Josh just closed the 

door, allowed the door to close, and walks out of the frame headed 

to class. Last time I’ll ever see my son walk, talk, anything about 

him. 

At trial, the killer testified on his behalf and gave exact testimony on how he systematically killed Joshua. He first—and this is 

from the killer on the witness stand. He first threw a punch in the 

face so that Joshua’s vision was messed up and he could not fight 

back. He next kneed Joshua in the abdomen so that he would go 

to the ground. Josh went to the ground as his spleen was sliced in 

half. 

The killer was aggravated that it was not over yet. He was a 

black-belt mixed martial arts and thought he could do this without 

any blood. He was aggravated it was not over. He said he grew 

tired of watching bloody bubbles come from Joshua’s nose as he 

was trying to breathe. 

Next, he took a closet rod and beat Josh over the head again and 

again until the rod broke in four pieces. Joshua still breathing. 

Next he strangled him, let him go to see if it was over. No, it’s not 

over, so he continued until there were no more bloody bubbles. He 

must have said it six times from the stand. As a mom, I realize 

that my kid was grasping for air. He waited and he watched him 

die. 

He tied Josh’s body up, stuffed him in the backseat of our truck, 

bought gas, dumped Josh in a field, and set his body on fire. The 

killer went home, took a shower, and went to see a movie, had popcorn and Coke. 

I testified before the Senate last July in 2015 and told this story. 

Nothing has been done about it. We can have hearing after hearing 

after hearing. Until there is action, we’re just talking. 

The 11 million figure that you spoke about a while ago, it just 

saddens me, because that figure was thrown around from the very 
22 

beginning of Joshua. Well, I know that her child has died so that’s 

one more. Kate Steinle has died. There were two this weekend that 

died from street racing from an illegal in Houston this weekend, a 

pastor and his wife, married 30 years. 

So you need to keep that number—you don’t know that number. 

Nobody knows that number. I’ve been to the border. I’ve watched 

them walk across, and you’re not counting them. So that number 

is from maybe people who are seeking welfare or who are getting 

benefits from the government. Otherwise, you don’t know how 

many people are here. That number just, it aggravates me. 

Because this government has no clue who is here or what their 

intent is in being here, I see this American Government scrambling 

over themselves to pretend to care about American families. And 

instead, you give away every bit of America to people whom have 

broken our laws on how to enter this country, then on to break 

other laws, now to having sanctuary cities, teaching them how to 

grab a piece of America unlawfully, and at the expense of American 

families. 

I’m stunned, I’m shocked, I’m saddened that we’re even having 

this discussion. When are you going to act on it? When are you 

going to do something about it, rather than let’s just talk about it 

and put a video up on your next election—on your Web site as if 

you’re doing something about it? It’s time to move. Her kid 

wouldn’t be gone if we had moved last year when I testified before 

the Senate. Sarah would still be here. You have to enforce the 

laws. 

I watched the Sunday morning news this weekend. And over and 

over and over, follow the rules, follow the rules. And we’re talking 

about the election and some of the way it went in Colorado. Follow 

the rules. Follow the laws. You know, as this sweet lady who is an 

immigration attorney, I would think she would have to follow the 

laws legally. This has nothing to do with people in this country 

that came here through the front door. This has everything to do 

with people who snuck in this country and continue to take from 

America, including our children. 

You know, when they mentioned the bad acts of some, the bad 

acts of some, if they took your child, you would think of it totally 

different. I realize you don’t hear this every day, but it happens 

every day, whether you want to know it or not, and the media 

doesn’t report it. I know it. You know it. Everybody in this room 

knows it. They report what they want to report. 

And you talked about fear, you know, that illegals are afraid to 

come out of the shadows. You know, do you want to know what 

fear is? You know, when somebody reaches in your house and grabs 

your littlest kid and tortures them, you’re afraid of everything for 

a long time. 

I could care less about the fear that they put themselves in here. 

I didn’t bring my kid across a border. If I would have told my 

daughter, I’m going to Mexico, and had a man, you know, he’ll 

bring you over here in a year or 2, I would be charged with neglect, 

as well as I should be. 

I did not put my kid in harm’s way when he went to school that 

day; you did. Every one of you is elected by an American, and it 

is time for you to stand in the gap for Americans. I’m so tired of 
23 

being up here and going over the same thing. You’re elected by 

Americans. Do something. It is your job. Every one of you are in 

a position to do something that we are not. If you’ve been in bed 

with somebody who is giving you too much money and you think 

their own way, get out of the way and let someone get in here that 

can care about Americans and their families. 

This is not about love. I do not have any hate. Two days after 

Christmas, after he killed Josh, I went and forgave this kid at the 

jail. Totally forgiven. He’s off my mind. It is now—they asked me 

at the trial, you know, what did I want to give him, and all I could 

say was it’s not my call to decide his life. It’s not. They couldn’t 

believe I said it. The jury, you know, it’s the jury’s call. I didn’t 

want to be anything like him and hurt another person. 

It is time to do something. I did not—we did not put our kids 

in jeopardy. We did not decide to, you know, traipse them across 

the desert. There is no—there are no minors that came here by 

themselves. I know it and you know it. There are no minors, unless 

they’re 16-year-old guys or girls that come here. The minors can’t 

come here by themselves. I have seen the border. People die every 

day trying to get here. 

America has invited them, and you’ve got to do something. It is 

just time to do something about this. The thing that you can do is 

enforce laws. How do you pick and choose a law? I don’t understand it, how you pick and choose a law. You know, the laws are 

here to be enforced by who? By you. And they’re not being enforced. 

And my kid suffered terribly for it. 

Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkerson follows:] 
24 
25 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Wilkerson. 

Bishop Carcan ̃ o. 

TESTIMONY OF MINERVA G. CARCAN ̃ O, BISHOP, 

THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

other distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I want to 

thank you for the privilege of serving on this panel. 

To Ms. Root and Ms. Wilkerson, I want to say that I am praying 

for you and that United Methodists across this country and around 

the world, many of them immigrant families, are also praying for 

you. No parent should ever have to endure the death of a child, and 

certainly not because of the irresponsible actions of an individual 

or the violent actions of an individual. We know that Sarah and 

Joshua are now in the eternal care of God, and I pray that that 

would bring you some comfort. 

Today, as we discuss these devastating tragedies, it appears that 

they will be utilized as an argument for deporting more immigrants 

and forcing local police to serve as immigration enforcement officers. I would strongly suggest that most tragedies cannot be solved 

by offering simplistic solutions that cast blame on entire communities and fail to take into account the intersection of multiple 

issues and the complexities of both individual and societal challenges. 

It is unjust, totally unjust, to take isolated, certainly very tragic 

incidents, and implicate millions of our undocumented community 

members. To implicate innocent men, women, and children in actions they did not commit is not justice and goes against our best 

values as Americans. I implore you to reject blind vengeance, which 

is never restorative and it’s not practical. We must not allow our 

grief to divide our communities and engender hate and fear against 

immigrant brothers and sisters. 

Immigrants have built this country, and they continue to sustain 

it. They work for the benefit of us all, whether by picking our 

crops, putting food on our tables, building our roads and homes, 

tending to the needs of our children and elderly parents, and inspiring our many congregations. 

However, every day, hundreds of our immigrant brothers and sisters are deported. Children live in the constant fear that at the end 

of the school day they’re going to come home and their parents will 

be gone, having been deported. Immigrants are daily subject to arbitrary detention. They are denied due process and they’re spit out 

on the other side of our southern border as if they were trash. 

It is critical that we work toward community wholeness. We hold 

true that God loves all of us, including the immigrant. We should 

care deeply for each and every child of God, no matter where they 

are from or what language they speak. The Obama administration 

has deported more than 2.5 million immigrants, more than any 

other President. Despite memorandums attempting to reform deportation priorities, longstanding community members and leaders, 

even pastors, parents of children, elderly persons, and victims of 

crime continue to be deported. 

In 2013 alone, this country spent more than $18 billion on immigration enforcement, more than all other Federal law enforcement 
26 

agencies combined. Workplace and home invasion raids and the 

failure to legislate true—true immigration reform have only served 

to exacerbate the damage caused by enforcement-only policies. 

Policies that strengthen trust and cooperation between local law 

enforcement and all community members are essential for public 

safety. On the other hand, policies that would force local police to 

serve as immigration enforcement officers have very drastic consequences of reducing communities’ safety as immigrants, family 

members of immigrants, and individuals perceived to be immigrants fear interacting with police. In these situations, community 

members become reluctant to report a crime that they have witnessed or even been a victim of because they fear police officers 

will inquire about their immigration status, the immigration status 

of their family, of their friends, of their neighbors. 

Local policies that foster safe and welcoming communities are in 

no way a free pass. For any immigrant who violates the law, everyone, including immigrants, remain accountable to our legal system. 

However, policies that build trust between local law enforcement 

officials and community members are essential to the public safety. 

When all individuals can report dangerous situations and seek protection from violence without the fear of being deported and separated from their families, police can best protect everyone in the 

communities they serve. 

As this Committee considers policy proposals, it is critical to not 

end up hurting intentional community-based policing efforts that 

are vital to communities across this country. Trust policies and 

sanctuary policies promote the safety of all community members 

and encourage all victims and witnesses to report crimes. I urge 

members of this Committee to recognize the beneficial reasons behind these policies and the values that inspired them. 

We know firsthand that immigrants contribute economically to 

this country and are interwoven into the fabric of our communities. 

They are our friends. They are our family, our congregation, our 

neighbors, our doctors, our librarians, cashiers at the stores where 

we shop, friendly faces, helping hands. Current deportation policies 

have destroyed many of their lives. 

Why would our political leaders seek to separate more families, 

deport more of these community members, and make more people 

afraid to interact with the police? I know that such proposals are 

not worthy of the spirit of welcome of this country and the American people, the resilience of the immigrant community, the wisdom 

of our political leaders. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

and all the Members of this Subcommittee for your time and your 

attention. 

[The prepared statement of Bishop Carcan ̃ o follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Bishop. 

Ms. Root, I want to let you know that Senator Sasse is here in 

support of you and your family. 

With that, I would recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, for his—all right. Well, then, 

I will go to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

I am deeply concerned and disheartened that immigration enforcement has been relegated to almost nonenforcement, that the 

Obama administration has on numerous occasions taken unilateral 

action to strip Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the authority and discretion needed for it to serve its critical mission. 

I was shocked, frankly, today by the contrast between Ms. 

Wilkerson’s testimony—thank you for being here today—and 

Bishop Carcan ̃ o’s testimony. 

I can’t even put into words the pain that you must be going 

through. And to hear the testimony, with all due respect, of Bishop 

Carcan ̃ o that just really took no consideration of the pain and suffering that you are going through and to put the needs and benefit 

of people that are here illegally ahead of people that are born in 

the United States, that are U.S. citizens, that have suffered like 

you have suffered, I can’t even put into words how disgusting it 

was, in my opinion. 

And I say that with all due respect, but I just—if you saw the 

contrast that I saw, I think you would revise your remarks before 

this Committee. 

I truly appreciate you both for being here today and applaud 

your courage for sharing your stories. 

Sheriff Jenkins, thank you for being here today. The numbers 

you presented on criminal gang activity are pretty staggering. I 

have been reading recently about MS-13 and some of the things 

that they are going through, and it is horrible what is happening 

to our Nation. 

What is the current status of gang activity in Frederick County 

schools today? 

Sheriff JENKINS. Well, actually, it is growing. Some of the problems that have started in the communities with the gang presence 

has now spread into our high schools, some of it into our middle 

schools. And, again, one of the local high schools, routinely fights 

between rival gangs. So that problem is bleeding into our school 

system. 

Mr. LABRADOR. In your opinion, is the 287(g) program in Frederick County making a positive impact in your community? 

Sheriff JENKINS. Sir, absolutely. I can’t tell you—again, looking 

back—it is not about the numbers. Forget the numbers, although 

we have placed 1,400 individuals who are in this country illegally 

and committed crimes in our county have been placed into removal 

proceedings. 

It is a solid program. It works. There is no status of immigration 

checks on the street. Everything is done within our detention center. It has been a wonderful program. 
35 

And I can’t say enough about the oversight of the ICE field office 

and the agents that work with us day to day, and we basically 

serve them as a force multiplier. So it has been a great program. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Your testimony alluded to other jurisdictions not 

being as cooperative with Federal immigration authorities. What 

do you believe is the impact in these counties and communities 

when no relationship exists between ICE and the local police or 

sheriff’s department? 

Sheriff JENKINS. I truly believe and I know for a fact—again, I 

have regular conversations with the ICE field offices and ICE 

agents who oversee our program. And by the very virtue, I know 

that the counties that surround us—and I won’t name the counties—but that alien criminal presence is increasing, the gang presence is increasing. 

And, listen, the word is out. They are in neighboring counties, 

but they will not come to Frederick County for the fact they know 

if they commit a crime there is a very good chance that if they are 

caught they are going to be removed. So, in effect, it has built a 

virtual wall. But the gang problem is growing in surrounding counties. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Bishop Carcan ̃ o, is immigration enforcement a part of our legal 

system? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Yes, it is. 

Mr. LABRADOR. You state that everyone, including immigrants, 

remain accountable to our legal system, yet you oppose deportation 

policies, detainer policies, and local cooperation with the Federal 

immigration officials. So you don’t actually believe that everyone 

should be accountable to our legal system, do you? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I believe everyone should be accountable to our 

legal system. Local police departments are there for the safety of 

communities, and that should be their focus. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I believe that Mr. Jenkins is making his community safer. Do you believe that ICE serves any legitimate public 

safety purposes at all? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I believe that they have a specific responsibility 

to inform immigration policies in ways that are just and fair, not 

arbitrary. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you decide what ‘‘just and fair’’ means; is 

that what you are saying? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. No, the law does. The law does. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I think it wasn’t just when Ms. Root and Ms. 

Wilkerson lost their children because of our poor immigration policies. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I agree that it was not just. It was violent and 

it was terrible. But we cannot scapegoat a whole community because of the actions of individuals. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you know what? I keep hearing that, and the 

problem is that law-abiding immigrants do not need to come out of 

the shadows. If you come here legally to the United States, you 

don’t need to be in the shadows. We have the best immigration system in the world. We welcome more immigrants than any country 

in the world. And, frankly, because of you and people like you, we 
36 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee. Also, see Lofgren submissions for the record at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803. 

are not fixing this problem and we are allowing this to happen, and 

I think it is shameful. 

And I think if you really care about your community you are 

going to help us fix this immigration system, not try to use excuses 

and call people who are trying to do this racists and scapegoating. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Across this country—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. And, with that, I yield back my time. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Across this country and around the world, it is 

clear that our immigration policies are broken. I agree with you. 

We need to cooperate on fixing those broken immigration policies. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Idaho yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before my questions, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record statements from the National 

Immigration Forum, the American Immigration Council, Church 

World Services, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 

the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, the National Task Force 

to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, and the 

American Civil Liberties Union.* 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It was impossible to listen to the mothers talk 

about their lost children and not just feel the anguish here. I mean, 

it is just heartbreaking to listen to your stories. And what happened was wrong, it was unjust, and there is no way to make it 

un-happen. I am very moved by your comments. 

I am also struck by what I believe is an unfortunate statement 

by the gentleman from Idaho expressing disgust at a Methodist 

bishop. I think that your prayers for these two mothers and their 

families and your straightforward statement was very helpful. 

Because in law school they teach us bad cases make bad law. 

And to have a tragedy but then assume that the policy answers 

flow is sometimes a mistake. 

And, you know, I was going to put in the record a newspaper article about a high school senior who came—fled from El Salvador 

when he was a little boy, who was just admitted to Stanford, Yale, 

and Harvard in science. I mean, he was a little kid. 

I remember when the children fled from Honduras, El Salvador, 

and Guatemala, I went down with along with other Members of the 

Committee to visit the border and to see what was going on firsthand. And I will never forget going to the border stations one 

evening, and the oldest child there was about 14. Most of the kids 

were 7, 8, 9 years old—little kids. And to listen to them—you 

know, there was a 3-year-old there, who—the only thing the 3-yearold could say was ‘‘Miami.’’ No one knew where her mother was. 

And she, I think, ended up in a foster family. 

So, obviously, our hearts go out to those little kids. You know, 

they haven’t suffered the way these mothers have, obviously, but 

those little kids had nothing to do with the murderers who devastated these families. 
37 

And so I think it is important that we get the policy prescriptions 

right, informed by these very important stories. And I do not kid 

myself that it is easy to come in front of a Congressional Committee and open your heart about what has happened to you and 

your family. 

Nevertheless, we’ve got to figure out what to do. We’re still appropriating about 4 percent of the amount that would be required 

to remove every person without their documents in the U.S. And 

there are plenty of people who are here who are not harmful to 

anyone. The question is we need to sort out the bad guys from the 

good and make sure that our country’s interests are well-served. 

And I am wondering, Bishop, if you have taken a look at some 

of the policy prescriptions that have come out of this Committee. 

I think it might have been the Chairman of the Committee who 

mentioned H.R. 1148, the Michael Davis-Danny Oliver law, or H.R. 

3009, the Sanctuary Cities Act—whether you’ve taken a look at 

those bills and whether you think that they would make our communities safer. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I have taken a look at them. 

In fact, H.R. 1148 came out of some of the work from the office 

of Congressman Goodlatte. And I sat with a staff member of yours, 

Congressman Goodlatte, who described the work, some of the 

foundational work. And having at that point been, and still, in Arizona, serving as the bishop in Arizona, I was suddenly struck by 

the similarities with S.B. 1070. And I said to him, ‘‘It sounds just 

like S.B. 1070,’’ and he said to me, ‘‘It is. We’ve just closed all the 

loopholes.’’ 

Well, S.B. 1070 and now H.R. 1148 is just—it’s just a nationalization of 1070. It does racial profiling on megawatts. It gets police 

officers and local communities doing the work of ICE. It undermines the safety of communities in a national and big way. 

H.R. 3009, to keep State and Federal funding from communities 

that are trying to live together in peace, that are trying to provide 

safety for everyone, just does not help. It is a perpetuation of those 

kinds of things that have been happening for decades. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Bishop, I see my time has expired, so I thank all 

the witnesses. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Bishop, this is a perfect segue for me to pick up where you 

just left off. So, in your testimony, you talked about the irresponsible actions that led to the deaths of the son and daughter of Ms. 

Wilkerson and Ms. Root, right? Irresponsible actions. 

But isn’t the violation of the law by illegally entering the United 

States or overstaying the amount of time that the United States 

Government has granted permission to an individual to stay in the 

United States an irresponsible action as well? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I wish it were that simple, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is a yes-or-no question. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. No, it’s not. I’m sorry that it’s not. People who 

flee—— 
38 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, then tell me why it’s not an irresponsible 

action—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. People who—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. To violate the law and cross the 

border into this country illegally, or knowing in your passport you 

have a document that allows you to stay here for a specified period 

of time and overstay that, why that is not an irresponsible action? 

Can’t you at least concede that? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. It’s a difference between moral and just laws. 

When families are having—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. To flee their places of residence 

because they can’t—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So do people get to choose which law they get 

to abide by? Is that what your philosophy is? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. That’s not my philosophy, but it is my philosophy that—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, then please tell me why it’s not an irresponsible action to violate the law. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Because a parent has a responsibility to feed 

his or her children so that they don’t die, as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But they can do that anywhere in the world 

that they’re lawfully allowed to be, can they not? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I’ve looked at Germany and the wonderful 

things that they’ve done to allow immigrants to come there who are 

fleeing from persecution and—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Then that’s just fine for the people of Germany, 

but the people of the United States have a set of laws on the books, 

and it’s irresponsible for people to not abide by those laws. 

And the consequence of that irresponsibility is the death of people. And it is not possible for anyone in this country to know which 

unaccompanied minor or which individual who comes across that 

border illegally or overstays their visa is going to be the person 

who results in the death of people who are simply going about their 

lives. They’re in the wrong place at the wrong time. And it’s irresponsible for them to not abide by our laws. 

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. It is irresponsible to allow children to die. It 

is irresponsible to have—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Of course it’s irresponsible to allow children to 

die. That’s why it’s irresponsible to allow them to come accompanied by gang members, accompanied by drug smugglers, accompanied by organized criminals, to bring them all the way from Central America through Mexico through our border. That’s irresponsible. 

Do you believe that those who knowingly enter the U.S. unlawfully and commit crimes—never mind that it’s a crime itself to 

cross the border illegally. But if they knowingly commit crimes, 

should they be removed? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Criminal elements should be removed, but 

that’s not what’s happening here. Families, hardworking families, 

who are contributing to this society are—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There are over 250,000 people who have been 

convicted—convicted—of crimes in the United States who were al-
39 

ready unlawfully present in the United States. Should they be removed? 250,000 who have been convicted of crimes, should they be 

removed by this Administration? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. This Administration needs to continue to focus 

on reforming broken immigration laws that do not allow ICE 

and—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, a great place to start would be to—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Do not allow local police officers to 

do their jobs. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Enforce the other laws of this country. Because the crimes against murder, the crimes against rape, 

the crimes against armed robbery, the crimes against child abuse, 

those are not crimes that are written on our books that depend 

upon whether somebody is here illegally or legally or whether they 

are a citizen of the United States or not a citizen of the United 

States. 

And all I am asking you is, if you are not supposed to be here 

in the first place and you commit one of those crimes, why should 

you not be removed from the United States? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I would say address the law with the criminals, 

but don’t undermine the fabric of families who are simply working, 

helping this country—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What are you doing—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. To do all that it needs to do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask you this. What is your church doing 

to discourage people from coming to the United States illegally and 

staying in the United States illegally? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Well, first of all, we are working to welcome everyone. We are working—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, that is very concerning to me. So you’re 

essentially aiding and abetting people who are violating the laws 

of our country? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. We do not ask people their immigration status 

when we—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Why not? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Feed the hungry. Because that’s 

not our—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You could help them in Central America, you 

could help them in whatever country they’re from just as easily as 

you can help them here. But your philosophy goes beyond that, 

doesn’t it? You think that they should be welcomed in the United 

States regardless of their status. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Immigrants want to stay home. They’re not 

able to stay home because we’ve undermined their economies. We 

have raped their land—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The population of the United States is about 5 

percent of the world population. Ninety-five percent of the people 

in the world do not live in the United States and do not have a 

legal right to be in the United States. 

Are you suggesting that because the United States is one of the 

more successful economies in the world that we should welcome all 

of those people to the United States because they can’t take care 

of themselves at home? 
40 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I would restate that most immigrants want to 

stay home, but they can’t feed their families. We’re talking about 

Central Americans. Central Americans have come here because 

we’ve been involved in their economies in disastrous ways. We’ve 

been involved in their politics in ways that have undermined their 

countries and left their societies in shambles and in poverty. 

You asked me—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And so we should bring them here? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. If our church is doing anything. 

We are indeed working very hard in Honduras particularly to set 

up job training, to provide counsel for—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. While you’re there, are you telling people, don’t 

make the dangerous, arduous journey to the United States because 

it’s the wrong thing to do and you could harm yourself or your children? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. We tell them how cruel the road is and how 

cruel immigration policies in the United States are as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Virginia yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. 

This has been a deeply painful hearing for others in addition to 

our two mothers that are here before us. 

And what I want to get to directly, Bishop Carcan ̃ o, is, what kind 

of immigration policies would you like to see changed in this country? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I believe that we need laws that reunify families. We’ve got families that are divided and separated because of 

our present immigration policies. Documented and undocumented 

families are separated. 

Secondly, we do need to address giving some status to the 12 million who are here already working hard in our communities, contributing to this country. 

I believe that we also need to bring to bear labor laws so that 

immigrants, documented and undocumented, are also treated with 

justice, with dignity, and with respect. 

We need to look at laws that consider the economic needs of this 

country. Many of these immigrants are here because they’ve been 

drawn and recruited by companies who need them—planters in 

Yuma who are growing cabbage and need the workers to come and 

help them, the tourist industry in Nevada, the crops in California, 

the dairies in Wisconsin. They are recruiting these workers because 

they don’t have enough workers. 

Policies, laws that take into consideration our economic needs 

and fairly treats workers that are brought here or encouraged to 

come here as immigrants, those are the kinds of things that are 

needed. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, the Committee recognizes the complexity of 

this issue before us, and we are going to have a hearing continuing 

this subject where the Director of ICE will be present. So if anybody thinks that this is just a little passage that will be ended 

after this hearing, I want to make it clear that there is agreement 
41 

on both sides of the aisle on this Committee that we have Director 

Saldana come before the Committee, and we are going to go into 

many of the questions. I’m sure they’re getting ready for them now. 

And so I want to ask everybody else on the Committee the same 

question: Is there anything in particular we want to see? Because 

my impression now is that we’ve got—the laws are—there isn’t 

anything wrong with the laws, but they’re not being enforced properly. Is that your impression, as well? 

Ms. ROOT. That’s my impression. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Mine, as well. 

Does everybody—— 

Sheriff JENKINS. Well, my opinion is it’s not really that complex. 

The very simple laws are on the book. The funding is there for the 

laws to be enforced. I think to the extent that local law enforcement can support and cooperate with ICE, again, I think it would 

be helpful to every community out there. 

Again, when you look at the alien crimes from coast to coast, you 

look at the increasing criminal gang activity in this country, absolutely, it’s not a very complex problem. It’s enforce the laws that 

are on the books. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. I appreciate that. 

Would you care to comment? 

Ms. WILKERSON. I would agree, enforce the laws that are here. 

We talk about making new ones. It’s regardless, if you’re not going 

to enforce them, why do we have them? 

If I can expand just a little bit, you know, or respond to you just 

a little bit. If this is about God, you know, God’s the creator of 

boundaries. And when you have no boundaries in your own families, in your own city, in your own State, in your own country, you 

have chaos. It’s mass chaos. 

You know, close the border, assess what’s here, and then decide 

what to do. What I’m hearing from you is that we have messed up 

other country’s laws and we owe them something so we’re allowing 

them to come here. That’s what I hear from you, and I just couldn’t 

disagree more. 

I don’t know why I was born here and someone else, you know— 

but if you’re going to include God in this, you know, bloom where 

you’re planted. Put the energy into where you are. I just have such 

a disagreement with you about that. 

This is not about loving or hating anyone. I don’t want to hurt 

anyone. I don’t want anyone to hurt. But, also, I’m not going to put 

my kid in harm’s way so that they can have more money. I’m sorry, 

I won’t do it. I would beg and borrow to feed my kids. I would not 

steal, cheat to feed my kids. That’s what I would do. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. My last question in a few seconds is this. Have we 

fallen into the feeling or viewpoint that the immigrant community 

is primarily comprised of criminals, rapists, and other undesirable 

elements? Because it’s very easy for that attitude to grow. 

Bishop, I’d like you to start off with that, and anybody else that 

would want to weigh in that, I’d love to hear—— 

Sheriff JENKINS. I would love to address that. That is a—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, wait a minute. I want to start off with the 

Bishop, and we’ll go down this way. 
42 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman is out of time, but I will allow you 

to answer the question. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. That kind of language just fosters racism, hatred, division in our communities. It’s not accurate. Immigrants 

aren’t any more of a criminal mind than native-born. And we divide our communities and undermine any possibility of being fruitful communities and safe communities. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, ma’am, would you care to respond? 

Ms. WILKERSON. I think the majority of people that are here are 

not rapists and murderers. I believe there’s a lot of good-meaning, 

hardworking people in this country. 

You cannot let go of the fact that if they have not come in the 

front door, they are illegal already, period. There is no discussion. 

Period. They need to adhere to the law about that. There’s just no 

discussion. You can’t pick and choose that. 

I agree there’s probably more hardworking people here than 

there are criminals. I don’t believe all immigrants are criminals by 

any means. I don’t believe it’s because of where they’re from, their 

race, or such. 

And I don’t even think that’s what Mr. Trump said. I know that’s 

what everybody wants to go to, but I do believe he was able to 

stand up and speak the truth about, you know, there are rapists 

here, there are criminals here, and they’re here illegally. 

So everyone that’s here that didn’t come in the front door has 

committed a crime. There’s no way around it. You can’t backtrack. 

If you want to change that law, change that law, but you can’t 

backtrack over it. I can’t teach my kids, well, you need to follow 

most of the rules, but these two are up for grabs. It doesn’t work 

like that. 

Mr. CONYERS. And we don’t want to change that law here, I can 

assure you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Michigan yields back. 

Before I go to the gentleman from Texas, I just can’t help but 

note to the former Chairman that the gentleman from Michigan 

just rebuked the use of generalities in discussing groups not 2 minutes after the Democrat witness just advocated for citizenship for 

all 12million, as if all 12 million are homogeneous and can all pass 

a background check. 

So, with all due respect, it works both ways. If you’re not going 

to overly characterize this group, then, for God’s sake, don’t overly 

characterize this group as all 12 million being worthy of citizenship. 

And, with that, I’ll go to the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to say that your earlier opening statement is one of 

the best I’ve heard, and I appreciate your comments. 

As I understand it, over a recent 3-year period, the Administration has released back into our communities over 100,000 criminal 

aliens. These are individuals who have been arrested and incarcerated for crimes. These individuals subsequently committed thousands of other crimes. Many individuals were murdered. Many individuals were injured. Other individuals lost their property. 
43 

In fact, when you look at the statistics, just looking at murders, 

for example, illegal immigrants comprise about 3 percent of our 

population but commit roughly 30 percent of the murders. So an 

illegal immigrant in our country is about 10 times more likely to 

commit that serious crime than other individuals who reside in the 

United States. 

And, quite frankly, all this makes me wonder if President Obama 

might be an accessory to the crimes committed by illegal immigrants, since he intentionally implemented policies that he knows 

are going to result in the murder and loss of life and injury to innocent Americans. 

And I would simply say—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? A parliamentary 

inquiry. It is against the Committee rules to—— 

Mr. SMITH. I specifically—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Charge the President with a crime. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, I specifically chose my language the way I did, 

and it was a rhetorical question. I said ‘‘I wonder,’’ and I said ‘‘if 

he might.’’ So I picked those words carefully. 

Let me resume my questioning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

I’d like to ask Ms. Root and Ms. Wilkerson what they would say 

to President Obama if he were in this room today at the table with 

them and said, what do you think about my immigration policies? 

What would you say to the President? 

Ms. Root first. 

Ms. ROOT. I would like to ask him, if this was one of his children—he only has two, as I do—if he would still agree with this 

law. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

And Ms. Wilkerson? 

Ms. WILKERSON. I would just have to tell him that what his 

agenda was he’s accomplished, by opening borders and leaving 

them wide open. I think that was his agenda, and it’s been accomplished by not following the laws. 

You see, the boundaries that I talked about just a minute ago, 

right here, we have boundaries around this meeting about what 

you can and cannot say. There are boundaries around everything. 

Do you lock your door at home? Do you lock your car? There are 

boundaries. 

To open the border like it is right now—and it is wide open—is 

chaos for this country. It’s chaos for it. We need to know who’s here 

for safety. We do. In this age of terrorism, we need to know who’s 

here. It’s not 50 years ago when people wandered across the border 

to work a hard day and then go back home. It’s a different time 

and period. 

Mr. SMITH. And, if you will, Sheriff Jenkins, what would you say 

to the President about the results of his policies? 

And let me thank you, too, for your testimony. It was forthright, 

it was honest and candid, and we appreciate that. 

Sheriff JENKINS. Thank you, sir. 

I would tell the President he is absolutely doing a disservice to 

Americans citizens. 

He is also doing a disservice to the immigrant community, because, I can tell you, a large part of the criminal acts that occur 
44 

by criminal aliens and gang members occur within those immigrant 

communities. So he is creating, if you will, a pool of victims out 

there by not enforcing the laws to the extent that we can. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Bishop Carcan ̃ o, a question for you, and that is: These criminal 

immigrants who have been apprehended, arrested, incarcerated, 

should they be released back into our communities or should they 

be deported? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I don’t know their individual cases. So the 

law—— 

Mr. SMITH. No, no. I’m just talking, as a general matter, should, 

again, criminal aliens be released back in our communities, where 

a certain percentage will commit additional crimes, or should they 

be sent home? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I believe that criminals should be treated 

under the fullness of the law, and—— 

Mr. SMITH. And so no distinction? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. This should determined according 

to the law. 

Mr. SMITH. And so they should be deported? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. It’s under the law. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I agree with you. The Administration disagrees 

with both of us, but I certainly agree with you, they should be deported. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been one of the more difficult—has been one of the more 

difficult hearings I have sat through. And it brings me back to 

some of the earlier hearings I heard in this room and my thoughts 

about the testimony that I would hear about those who perished 

in their attempt to get into America across the Arizona desert. And 

as I contemplated their banks of witnesses we heard testify to that 

human tragedy, it began to occur to me, how many Americans died 

at the hands of those who did make it across the desert? 

And, Bishop, sitting in your chair was a witness who was former 

INS named Mike Cutler. As I asked the witnesses that question, 

it came to him as the last of the four to answer the question, and 

he said, ‘‘I don’t know the answer to that, but I can tell you it will 

be in multiples of the victims of September 11th.’’ 

And that sparked something in me that brought about the request for—it turned into two—GAO studies. And to get apples to 

apples out of this Federal Government is a difficult thing to do, but 

we learned about the percentage of criminal aliens in our Federal 

prisons—27 to 28 percent, some numbers higher than that. We 

learned that Mike Cutler was right, that it is in the multiples of 

victims of September 11th. 

Here we are looking at the tragedy, the tragedy that we’re hearing from two mothers here today that have the strongest heart to 

be able to testify to the worst agony that a person could go through 

in a lifetime. And when I see these stories—and I regret we have 

not yet met, Ms. Root—that hit me very hard when it finally came 
45 

to me, there in my backyard was another tragedy that I’ve been 

struggling here in this Committee for years to try to prevent, right 

in the backyard. 

And you know that I’ve been across the river to help out in 

Omaha when we’ve had these kind of tragedies, and now I learn 

in your testimony that another one took place while you were here. 

And, Laura, this is at least your second time to testify before the 

Committee, and I know we did an event in Richmond, Virginia. I 

think that’s where I first met you. The depth of your faith, to go 

to jail and forgive the murderous perpetrator that killed your son, 

that’s equivalent to the nine families that stepped up to the pulpit 

in South Carolina and forgave the murderer there. 

And when you said that God is the creator of boundaries, I don’t 

know if anybody else in this room or panel knows what you’re referring to, but I believe it was St. Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in 

Acts, when he said, ‘‘And God made all the nations on earth, and 

He decided when and where each nation would be.’’ That’s some of 

the boundaries that you’re talking about that God lays out for us, 

and we’re obligated to follow them. 

I listened to the opening statement of the gentlelady from California. One of the first things she did was to criticize our witness, 

Sheriff Jenkins, for profiling. I grew up in a law enforcement family. If you’ve got gray hair and you’ve enforced the law, you have 

profiled. And you, by golly, better profile. There are lives saved by 

profiling, legitimately—not discriminating against people, but being 

wise enough to know there are certain people you pay attention to 

and other people that you don’t. 

And I’d put into the record, Sheriff Jenkins, you have likely 

saved many lives over your career because of good judgment. Included in that good judgment is profiling. Would that be correct? 

Sheriff JENKINS. I would say that’s probably accurate, yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. And I would thank you. 

And then I’d turn to Ms. Root. 

And I want to again express the sympathies of this panel. But 

each of you here will know that it takes the President of the United 

States to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And when 

he tells us he doesn’t have the authority to grant his administrative amnesty 22 times and he sets forth and does it anyway—and 

now the Supreme Court is hearing an argument that somehow the 

President can create vast groups of people that include millions of 

people and then grant them at least a temporary amnesty until we 

get a President who will take his oath of office, that this heartache 

that we live under—this Congress hasn’t had the will to shut off 

the funding to the President’s golf cart or Air Force One in order 

to ensure that he enforce immigration laws. And I don’t know that 

we can get this fixed at any time without a new President. 

But I’d just ask if there’s anything left that you’d like to say into 

this record, Ms. Root. I am so sympathetic to what you’re able to 

do here. 

And let the record show the witness declined. And I’d move to 

Ms. Wilkerson. 

And I’d ask if you could add any more to your testimony here 

today. 

Ms. WILKERSON. Thank you. 
46 

I just want to say that it’s not about loving or unloving people. 

It’s not about it at all. It’s about following the laws. We have to 

have the boundaries. Everyone knows that’s sitting here that if you 

don’t have boundaries it’s chaos. You don’t allow your children to 

run your household, or you’d have chaos. 

I don’t understand why people can’t understand a country with 

no borders is not a country. You might as well just call us the 

world. We’re the world. Because, you know, if we have no borders, 

we’re not the United States of America. Who are we? We don’t 

know. We really don’t know. 

Mr. KING. And I thank you. 

And I’d just ask a very quick question from Sheriff Jenkins. 

Fourteen hundred placed into removal proceedings in cooperation 

with ICE. How many were actually deported? 

Sheriff JENKINS. That, sir, I don’t have the number. We never 

really know the number because it’s on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. KING. That’s what I thought. Thank you. 

I thank the Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Iowa yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the 

former United States attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, specifically Ms. Wilkerson and Ms. Root. Thank you for being here. Your 

testimony really provides living proof that lawlessness with respect 

to our immigration laws in this country is having devastating consequences. 

You know, we all trust that we’re safe because we have brave 

law enforcement, men and women, patrolling our streets day and 

night to make sure that people obey the law. But then when our 

own government tells law enforcement that certain laws are not to 

be enforced, American families suffer—a point that is all too clearly 

and painfully illustrated by the heartbreaking losses that you have 

both experienced. 

Ms. Wilkerson, as I read your testimony last night and then 

heard it today, I was frankly embarrassed to be part of a legislative 

body that has done so little since 2010, since Joshua’s tragic death. 

And, you know, while I can tell you that your testimony today was 

compelling and motivating, I don’t want to offer you any hollow 

promises. But what I do hope that you’ll take away, and Ms. Root 

as well, is that your testimony and being here does make a difference, can make a difference. 

To that point, Ms. Root, I want you—you’d have no reason to 

know this, but Sarah’s death has been on my mind a lot recently, 

because it was a little over 2 weeks ago that a fire captain in my 

district, in Nevada, Texas, named Peter Hacking was driving a car, 

two children in the car, 4-year-old Ellie and 22-month-old Grayson, 

and they were killed. They were killed when an illegal alien, who 

had previously been deported, swerved from a northbound lane into 

a southbound lane where they were, struck Mr. Hacking’s car, and 

killed all three of them. 

Now, that individual, Margarito Quintero, had entered the 

United States illegally in 2006, had been arrested on criminal 

charges, and had been deported, only to return. 
47 

And so it was in the course of researching whether I could do 

anything to make sure that the Hacking family received justice I 

came across Sarah’s story. And her story is what prompted me to 

personally call the ICE Director, Sarah Saldana, and ask her to 

place an immigration detainer on Mr. Quintero. Her story is what 

prompted me to call the U.S. attorney and ask that the Department of Justice prosecute Mr. Quintero for illegal reentry. 

Now, you know, here’s someone that had entered the country illegally and been arrested on criminal charges, been deported, again 

entered the country illegally, and yet here I was begging ICE to intervene, begging it to do its job. 

But because of your family’s experience, I knew that there was 

a chance that ICE might refuse to act. But I also believed that, because of the attention that Sarah’s story has brought to this issue 

and the suffering that has been caused by this Administration’s 

lawless policies, I’m happy to report that ICE did intervene in Mr. 

Hacking’s case, and he is going to be prosecuted federally. 

You know, the fact that I had to ask ICE to do its job and the 

fact that that action, in and of itself, became a news story in my 

district really says a lot about the lowly state of affairs, as does the 

fact that yesterday our Supreme Court had to weigh in on this 

issue. I think it really speaks to the dysfunctional place where we 

find ourselves. 

You know, Ms. Wilkerson, Ms. Root, you’re both right; it 

shouldn’t take personal pleas from a Member of Congress to make 

this Administration enforce laws that are already on the books. As 

Chairman Gowdy said so well in his opening, when we talk about 

families being torn apart by illegal immigration in this country, it’s 

families like yours that we should be talking about. Families like 

yours shouldn’t have to endure the pain and suffering that you’re 

experiencing. It is unnecessary, and I’m sorry for it. 

The questions that I have for you have been asked by my colleagues up here already, and so I’d just thank you again for being 

here. And I hope, you know, that your testimony and Sarah and 

Joshua’s story are making a difference. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, 

the former district attorney, Mr. Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Bishop Jenkins, I spent 25 years as a Federal prosecutor and 

then a district attorney and wanted to talk to you about a disturbing trend that I’ve seen in the last 7 years in law enforcement. 

I have prosecuted aggravated reentry cases as a Federal prosecutor. I have also worked with the Feds in local law enforcement. 

And we had a program in northern Colorado where an ICE agent 

would ride along with a police officer assigned to the gang unit, 

and they would go to the scene of crimes and they would interview 

people. And the ICE agent would identify tattoos and other indicators of gang affiliation, and the Federal Government would intervene and prosecute individuals who were gang members accused of 

crimes. That program ended 7 years ago. 
48 

Have you had any similar experience with cooperation between 

the Feds and your county’s sheriff’s office or police departments 

that has also ended in the recent past? 

Sheriff JENKINS. Well, actually, the cooperation between ICE currently and our agency is excellent. I have no complaints, no criticisms. Actually, everything works out of our detention center. We 

also gain a lot of intelligence off the street about gang activity, 

gang affiliations. We don’t have a program where ICE actually 

rides along with us, but actual oversight, direct oversight of the 

program. So, again, the detention center is a chokepoint for everything. 

You know, we ask two simple questions on arrest. And everybody 

that’s arrested in Frederick County, regardless of the crime, the 

ethnicity, the race, the gender, whatever, everybody is asked two 

very simple questions: What country are you a citizen of, and 

where were you born? Any answer other than ‘‘the United States 

of America’’ kicks off an investigation into their immigration status. And we would ask the same of anybody in this room. 

So that’s where the program lies. That’s where the effectiveness 

is. And so you can’t say it’s unfair, you can’t say it’s profiling or 

discriminatory. 

Mr. BUCK. You took away my next question. I was going to ask 

you about profiling. Those are race-, ethnicity-neutral questions 

that are asked in every detention center, to my knowledge, in the 

country. 

Sheriff JENKINS. Correct. Very honestly, the argument for those 

who want nothing done is that we’re profiling. It doesn’t happen. 

I would even refute the Honorable Ms. Lofgren from California, 

when you brought up some supposed facts about the case of the 

young lady that was supposedly eating. That arrest had absolutely 

nothing to do with our program. Those were two police officers 

doing their job, and as they drove up to this woman, she got up 

for no apparent reason and just ran. Now, that throws up a red 

flag for law enforcement. These guys were police officers doing 

their job, simply thought there was a concern. You know, why are 

you getting up and running? What were you doing? 

They had the right to ask her name, identity, her date of birth. 

Once they did that, they determined there was a warrant for her 

arrest. They took her into custody the same as any other law enforcement officer—— 

Mr. BUCK. Sheriff, I’m going to redirect your attention to me as 

opposed to Ms. Lofgren. 

Sheriff JENKINS. Okay. I’m sorry, sir. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman allow me just to respond 

briefly—— 

Mr. BUCK. Sure. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Since my name was—I was just 

quoting the 2012 decision of the U.S. district court in Maryland. 

You know, it wasn’t my opinion. That’s what the court said. 

Sheriff JENKINS. No, I’m sorry. I’m sorry if I inferred that. 

Mr. BUCK. What happens—after you ask those two neutral questions that you identified, what happens then in your detention facility? 
49 

Sheriff JENKINS. If we determine that they’re in the country illegally and they have committed a crime—— 

Mr. BUCK. No, no, no, you haven’t determined that yet. You’ve 

just determined an answer. They’ve given you an answer. 

Sheriff JENKINS. Yeah, they’ve given us an answer. 

Mr. BUCK. ‘‘I was not born in this country,’’ for example. 

Sheriff JENKINS. That’s correct. 

Mr. BUCK. If that answer—if you get that answer or one of your 

deputies gets that answer, what do they do at that point? 

Sheriff JENKINS. We launch our check into their immigration status right there in the detention center. 

Mr. BUCK. So you notify ICE at that point. 

Sheriff JENKINS. We do. Actually, ICE is in our facility for the 

most part every day of the week during most day shifts. And, 

again, if they’re not there to answer the question, they have immediate direct contact. And I’ll tell you, we have access to all of the 

ICE databases. So we, in effect, do those checks, we prepare the 

detainers and the paperwork and do the holds for ICE. 

Mr. BUCK. So you’re not saying, based on the color of this person’s skin, we believe we should refer to ICE. You’re not saying, 

based on the language that this person speaks, that we should 

refer to ICE. You’re saying, based on an answer to a question that 

we ask everybody that is arrested and detained in our facility, 

based on that, we are referring this person to ICE. 

Sheriff JENKINS. If they’re in fact—we determine they’re in the 

country illegally, yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. Now, based on the identity theft that we’ve all seen 

in this country because of illegal immigration, does ICE go by the 

name that’s presented to them, or do they actually use some indicator like a thumbprint or some biometric measure? 

Sheriff JENKINS. They actually also use biometrics, yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And that identifies them for ICE’s database, 

and ICE can determine whether they’re in this country legally or 

illegally. You’re not the one making that determination. 

Sheriff JENKINS. No, we’re not. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Colorado yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for his questioning. 

Bishop, you decried the use of generalities in describing the immigrant population right before you then used a generality of 12 

million. You repeated the same talking points straight out of the 

DNC, 12 million aspiring citizens. 

I’m assuming that you are not counting the killer of Ms. 

Wilkerson’s son in that 12 million. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I’m not understanding your question. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, you said there’s 12 million aspiring Americans 

here. And my point is all 12 million aren’t aspiring, and all 12 million couldn’t pass any background check, even one by the ACLU or 

a criminal defense attorney. 

Surely you’re not including the person that killed her son in the 

12 million aspiring Americans. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I’m not sure that I used the term ‘‘aspiring.’’ 

I—— 
50 

Mr. GOWDY. You said 12 million. You spoke as if the entire population is deserving of citizenship. That’s precisely what you said. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I do believe that the 12 million who are here 

need to be considered for a pathway to citizenship. 

Mr. GOWDY. How about the one who killed her son? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. He’s a criminal. I hope he’s been dealt with as 

a criminal. But that’s not the—— 

Mr. GOWDY. So it’s 12 million minus 1. How about the one that 

killed—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. The whole community. 

Mr. GOWDY. It’s 12 million minus 1. How about the one that 

killed Ms. Root’s daughter? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. That’s a criminal case. And we’re talking 

about—— 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, so that’s 12 million minus 2. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Immigration policy. 

Mr. GOWDY. How about the gang members in Sheriff Jenkins’ jurisdiction? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. If we’re talking about safety in our communities, then let’s—— 

Mr. GOWDY. How about the—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Talk about safety in our communities. 

Mr. GOWDY [continuing]. Gang members in Sheriff Jenkins’ jurisdiction? Are those part of the 12 million with which you made reference? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I do not know. What I do know—— 

Mr. GOWDY. You don’t know whether or not a gang member 

should be included on a path to citizenship? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. What I do know is that our communities deserve greater safety. And it’s—— 

Mr. GOWDY. No, ma’am. I—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Not going to happen when we 

pit—— 

Mr. GOWDY [continuing]. Just respectfully—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Victims against victims. 

Mr. GOWDY [continuing]. Disagree with you, Bishop. Americans 

citizens should not be victimized by crime. I think we can agree 

with that. An American citizen should not have to wait until someone who is not here legally commits another crime before we decide 

to get serious about enforcing our immigration laws. 

So my question to you is this. Of the 12 million, if that number 

is right, minusing the 1 that killed Ms. Wilkerson’s son, minus the 

1 that killed Ms. Root’s daughter, minus the gang members, minus 

the 300,000 that have already been adjudicated who have committed another criminal offense, how would you go about identifying the goods ones from the bad ones? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. The way we identify good ones from the bad 

ones every single day, by looking at their character, by seeing how 

they’re—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, how are we supposed to do that if we don’t 

even know who they are, Bishop? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Well, we won’t know who they are if we continue to treat them the way we’re treating them now. 
51 

Mr. GOWDY. No, no, no, no. There’s a way to know, but you just 

said you don’t like the way that we’ve chosen to do it. You don’t 

want local law enforcement—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. No, I do not think that that is a helpful way. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, let me ask you this. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Immigrant communities want to help. 

Mr. GOWDY. Why don’t you—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. They want to keep their communities safe. But 

they won’t come forward if they think that they’re going to be 

picked up by ICE—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Oh, no. We—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. If it’s going to threaten their lives, 

if their—— 

Mr. GOWDY. No. We saw a perfect example—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. Children are going to be left behind. 

Mr. GOWDY. It’s going to be really tough for the court reporter 

if you continue to talk while I’m asking questions. She’s got a tough 

enough job. So how about we just agree to go one at a time, okay? 

How about Kate Steinle’s murder in San Francisco? That’s a 

sanctuary city. You wrote an op-ed on it. Do you remember that? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I did. 

Mr. GOWDY. And you advocated for policies that prevent gun violence. Do you remember writing that? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. We have some of those policies. In fact, we call them 

laws. There’s a law against shooting someone on a pier who’s walking beside her father. We already have that law. 

We already have a law where convicted felons can’t purchase or 

possess firearms. Do you know that Kate Steinle’s killer was a convicted felon? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. We also have a law that if you’re not here legally, 

either overstayed a visa or crossed the border without permission, 

that you cannot legally possess or purchase a firearm. Did you 

know that was already a law? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. So what policies are you advocating for that would 

have saved Kate Steinle’slife in addition to the ones we already 

have? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. That’s a very tragic situation, but you cannot 

blame all immigrants, documented and undocumented—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m not. I’m just blaming the one that shot her. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. For the action of one person. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, no, no, no. No. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. And that’s what you’re doing. 

Mr. GOWDY. Your approach is to wait until the murder and then 

do the deportation. And my approach is try to have as few body 

bags as we can possibly have, try to identify those that are not aspiring citizens before they kill somebody’s son or daughter or 

daughter in San Francisco. That’s my objective, to identify them 

before the crime. 

So my question to you is, how are you going to do that? 
52 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I would argue that we need trust policies, 

where immigrants, documented and undocumented, can come forth 

to report crimes and to report when they, too, have been victims 

of crimes without the fear of being deported. We need that kind of 

trust. Otherwise—— 

Mr. GOWDY. You know what? I—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O [continuing]. These families will not come forward. 

Immigrants do not want gangs in this country or in their communities. Many of them—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Listen, you don’t hear me talking in generalities, 

Bishop. That was you that did that. I made a point in my opening 

of saying that we shouldn’t be talking in generalities. 

I do find it bitterly ironic that you are talking about trust among 

the immigrant community and you don’t even trust local law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws. I find that richly ironic. 

Why don’t you trust local law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I do not trust the procedures and policies 

under which we are expecting governance and policing to happen 

in our communities. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, Bishop, you trust them in murder cases, you 

trust them in child sex abuse cases, you trust them in narcotics 

cases, you trust them in kidnapping cases, you trust them in traffic 

violation cases. You trust them in every category of crime except 

you just don’t want the sheriff enforcing immigration laws. 

And yet you want to talk about building trust with the law enforcement community? And you don’t trust him to enforce immigration laws even though you trust him to enforce every other category? And you want to talk about trust? Did I hear you right? 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. I want to talk about trust policies, yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I want to talk about the law. I want to talk 

about the law. You said we are a Nation of immigrants. That may 

be true. We are also a Nation of laws. And the ability to pick and 

choose the ones that you want based on political expediency or your 

view of is theology is going to undermine this republic very quickly. 

And, as a result, we’ll have more panels with more moms. 

With that—— 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. The laws of this country change when we realize that they’re immoral or unjust. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, then you can run for Congress and change the 

law. But as it stands right now, we’re going to enforce it. If you 

don’t like the law, you can change it. But what you can’t do is just 

selectively decide which ones you want to enforce and which ones 

you don’t. Because that’s called anarchy. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. Congressman, we have broken immigration 

policies. That is what needs to be addressed. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. But you just sat there and listed all the laws 

that we passed to try to address it and you didn’t like a single one 

of them. You didn’t like the law empowering local law enforcement. 

You don’t like the fact that we would deny Federal funding to sanctuary cities that harbor people like the man who killed Kate 

Steinle. 
53 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee. Also, see Lofgren submissions for the record at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104803. 

So it’s not a question of passing laws, Bishop, with all due respect. It’s a question of passing laws you like. 

Bishop CARCAN ̃ O. It’s a question of passing laws that are just and 

humane. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. And if there’s anything more relative in 

the world than the word ‘‘just,’’ I don’t know what it is. So, rather 

than aspire to justice, I’m just going to aspire that we actually enforce the law, because that is the community’s manifestation of justice. We take what we think about justice and mercy and then we 

codify it in something we call the law. 

And, by the way, Bishop, these aspiring citizens that you talk 

about, the 12 million minus 1, 2, God knows how many, in their 

oath of citizenship, there are a half-dozen references to the law— 

a half-dozen references to the law in the oath that we expect new 

citizens to take. I think it would be a really neat idea if we actually 

enforced the law so that citizenship oath actually had a little bit 

of meaning, because right now it doesn’t seem to. 

With that, I don’t see—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous—speaking of the law, I 

would like unanimous consent to place in the record the case of 

Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners from the 

Fourth Circuit outlining the violation of law committed by the 

Frederick County sheriff, Charles Jenkins. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I’m happy to grant unanimous consent. Does 

the opinion say that Sheriff Jenkins violated the law, or does it cite 

some decision made by an officer in his department? 

Ms. LOFGREN. It actually, I believe, is the sheriff. But it’s 38 

pages long, and you can read it yourself. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I’m a slow reader, and I don’t know if I can 

do it. But I just want to be fair, and I know the gentlelady from 

California is always fair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I’m always trying to be fair. 

Mr. GOWDY. I know you are. And people can read the opinion for 

what it says. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me retract my words and ask unanimous consent to place the decision in the record.* 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

With that, I want to thank the Members and our witnesses. I appreciate the perspective that each of you have loaned to the Committee. Again, not singling out any witnesses, but special condolences on behalf of everyone, no matter where they sit on this dais, 

for the two mothers in the loss of their children. 

With that, any Members who have additional statements or 

questions are welcome to make them part of the record, and we 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
56 
57 

Æ