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

95–632 PDF 2015

SANCTUARY CITIES: 

A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 23, 2015 

Serial No. 114–36 

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 

TOM JAWETZ, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 23, 2015 

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 ................................. 28 

WITNESSES 

Jim Steinle, father of Kathryn Steinle, Pleasanton, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

The Honorable Scott Jones, Sheriff, Sacramento County, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 42 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 44 

Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

Richard Biehl, Chief of Police, Dayton Police Department, Dayton, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 59 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 62 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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 ................................................................. 6 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 31 

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 ................................................................. 72 

Additional 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 ............................................... 92 

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. See ‘‘Rep. Lofgren Submissions for the Record’’ at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=103781. 

(1) 

SANCTUARY CITIES: 

A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY 

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Smith, King, Labrador, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, and Gutierrez. 

Staff present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel; Andrea 

Loving, Deputy Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; and (Minority) 

Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. GOWDY. We will now begin by welcoming everyone to this 

morning’s hearing on ‘‘Sanctuary Cities: a Threat To Public Safety.’’ And I will recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and I 

want to express, Mr. Steinle, to you my profound sympathy to you 

and to Kate’s mother, to her brother, and all of your family, and 

those who cherished her, for the tragic loss of your beautiful 

daughter. 

The preeminent function of government is to provide for the safety and security of the law-abiding public. It is among the chief reasons we consent to be governed and bound by a collection of laws. 

We want those that we love to be protected, so we abide by the law 

in the hopes that others will feel similarly bound. 

What makes this Nation different is our respect for and adherence to the law because the law is the greatest unifying force in 

our culture, and it is the great equalizing force in our culture. In 

fact, we think so highly of the law that we make aspiring citizens 

take an oath that contains six separate references to the law. 

This system of laws failed Kate Steinle as it has failed others 

like her, and this is more than an academic discussion about prosecutorial discretion. It is more than political pandering to certain 

voting constituencies. It is more than the supremacy clause or the 

commandeering clause. It is quite literally life and death. 

And this is the real world where everyone is not a DREAMer, 

and everyone is not a valedictorian. There are criminals motivated 

by malice and a conscious disregard for the lives of others, and 
2 

there are cities more interested in providing a sanctuary for those 

criminals than they are providing a sanctuary for their own lawabiding citizens. 

I have been on this Committee, Mr. Chairman, for almost 5 years 

now, and I have listened closely to the debate over immigration. 

You do not hear many witnesses called by our colleagues on the 

other side to talk about law enforcement or background checks or 

enforcement mechanisms. You do hear certain phrases repeated 

with catatonic frequency as if rote repetition will somehow make 

it true. 

You hear phrases like ‘‘functional control over the board’’ uttered 

by witnesses who are uniquely well-positioned to know better. You 

hear citizenship for 11 million undocumented aspiring Americans 

as if 11 million of any category could pass a background check. You 

hear arguments against empowering State and local law enforcement to assist Federal authorities, and those are the most illogical 

arguments of all. 

We trust State and local law enforcement to investigate all manner of crime from murder, to sexual assault, to kidnapping, to narcotics trafficking, but God forbid they help us enforce immigration 

laws. State and local law enforcement are good enough to provide 

protection for Members of Congress in this city and when they are 

back home, but somehow, some way, all that changes when it 

comes to the issue of immigration. They are no longer smart 

enough to enforce Federal immigration law. 

And even though some do not trust State and local law enforcement to enforce Federal law, they are more than happy to allow 

State and local officials to openly ignore that same Federal immigration law, which brings us to that benign-sounding phrase, ‘‘sanctuary cities.’’ The definition of ‘‘sanctuary’’ is a place of refuge or 

safety. It almost sounds utopian, a place of refuge, a place of safety. 

Refuge for whom? Safety for whom? For a young woman walking 

on a pier with her father, or for a career recidivist like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who had a quarter century’s worth of lawlessness dating all the way back to 1991. He committed local, State, 

and Federal crimes in at least 5 separate States. He was deported 

5 times, and each time had so little regard for the law that he reentered that border that we are supposed to have functional control 

over. 

His procedural history is every bit as disturbing. In May of 2011, 

this defendant was convicted and sentenced to 46 months imprisonment for illegal reentry again. At the conclusion of that sentence, 

he was released from the Bureau of Prisons to a known sanctuary 

jurisdiction for the ostensible prosecution of an old drug case. And, 

of course, San Francisco did not prosecute that old drug case. They 

dismissed it, which surprises exactly no one. 

And then they released this defendant. They did not return him 

to the Bureau of Prisons or to Federal probation. They did not 

honor the detainer placed on him by ICE. They released someone 

they knew was not legally in this country and that had a criminal 

history dating back to the early 1990’s. 

And we are given a litany of excuses for policies like this. We are 

told that we need policies like the one in San Francisco so people 

will cooperate with law enforcement. And I want you to consider 
3 

how utterly illogical that is. We are releasing known criminals back 

into society so society will help us catch known criminals. And, of 

course, some of our friends on the other side say all of this is necessary so folks will, to use the President’s word, ‘‘come forward’’ or 

‘‘get on the books,’’ or ‘‘get right with the law.’’ 

I want you to ask yourself, what in this defendant’s background 

leads you to believe that he would ever come forward or get on the 

books or get right with the law? He was already on the books. Better than that, he was in jail, and he was there because he had not 

complied with a single damn thing we had asked him to do. 

So are we supposed to catch him again after San Francisco releases him? Do we wait on another victim? Is that the strategy behind sanctuary cities; release them and then wait until they victimize someone else? Is that what we mean by coming forward? 

The President and others constantly talk about comprehensive 

immigration reform, but they are very light on the details when it 

comes to enforcement and background checks. They just fundamentally fail to understand that border security, both borders by the 

way—both of them—and internal security are fundamental conditions precedent to fixing our broken immigration system. 

Mr. Steinle, about a year ago there was a precious little girl 

waiting on the steps of the Capitol for me after votes, and I knew 

what was coming, so I could not walk past her. I knew or suspected 

that she would repeat those phrases that so-called advocates teach 

children to repeat to Members of Congress. But I had to stop as 

any father of a daughter would, and I stopped and the little girl 

said, I want to pray for you, one of the stuff that the advocates tell 

the children to say. She just said, I want to pray for you. 

So I picked her up, and in a mixture of Spanish and English she 

told God that she was not here legally, but she wanted to stay. And 

everyone that I know would want to help that little girl. But everyone also should have wanted to help your little girl, Mr. Steinle. 

She was not 5, but she is still your daughter, and this country 

should have protected her. 

And I hope you are given answers. I hope the politicians in San 

Francisco will explain to you why they thought it was more important to provide a sanctuary to Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez than 

they did to provide a sanctuary for your daughter. And I hope this 

Administration will tell you why a Bureau of Prisons released a 

five-time illegal entrant to a known sanctuary city for a piddling 

damn drug charge that wound up being dismissed. And I hope San 

Francisco will tell you why they released a convicted felon rather 

than honor the detainer in place, or just simply return him to ICE. 

You deserve those answers, and you deserve to know that your 

daughter’s sacrifice had meaning and purpose, and that her death 

will serve to save the lives of other people. 

When Trayvon Martin was shot and even before our criminal justice system had acted, the President said that could have been his 

son. For those of us that have daughters, which includes the President, your daughter could have been our daughter. 

I used to have a quote on the wall of my old office at the courthouse, and it was given to me by a victim advocate. It is from a 

Greek philosopher named Solon. I will paraphrase it, but this is 

pretty close. He was asked what city was the best one to live in, 
4 

and he answered that city where those who are not injured by 

crime. Take up the cause of those who are as if it had been them. 

That is the kind of country we should want, too, one where we 

do not have to lose our daughters, to feel the pain that you feel. 

And we should not have to lose daughters to know that no one else 

should have to feel like you feel this morning. 

With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. First, I would like to welcome all of the witnesses 

to the hearing today, but I especially want to welcome members of 

the Steinle family and to extend my heartfelt condolences to you. 

As a parent, I can only imagine what you are going through, and 

any time an innocent person is lost to violence, I think it is important that we all stop and consider what steps could we take, what 

policies and processes, procedures, and rules, and laws could be altered so that we would have a safer community, so that that tragedy would not occur. 

And so, it is important the process that we are going through at 

this time. A hearing like this offers Members and the public an opportunity to learn more about the issue, and I hope that we can 

work together collaboratively to address some of the problems we 

were sent here to Washington to solve. 

Now, I am eager to hear what each witness has to say. I must 

note that last night Chairman Goodlatte and I testified before the 

Rules Committee on H.R. 3009, a bill that has already been decided is the answer apparently to this. And I would note that if 

3009 had been enacted into law, it would not have had any impact 

on these circumstances that resulted in the death of your daughter. 

In addition to that, major law enforcement associations, like the 

Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Counties Sheriffs Association, 

and others are telling us that that bill would actually make us less 

safe, and they all oppose that bill. 

I do think that the testimony of the police chief of Dayton, Ohio 

I hope will be instructive because I have not heard a single person 

who suggests that it was wise, appropriate, or even legal for the 

sheriff in San Francisco to have released the individual who is 

charged with killing your daughter. Having said that, there are police agencies around the United States who believe that it makes 

our communities less safe to inquire as to the immigration status 

in every case. For example, the domestic violence organizations 

have contacted us to say that if there is a call for a domestic violence situation and the individuals who are calling know that they 

and everyone in their household will be interrogated as to their 

status, a family where there is mixed status will not call for domestic violence. So we have to be mindful of those issues, the entirety 

of the situation that we face. 

I would ask unanimous consent to put into the record a bipartisan letter that was sent to appropriators just 4 months ago signed 

by 162 Members of Congress talking about the importance of the 

Byrne JAG and COPS grants for policing in this country. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And noting that it is those very grants that would 

be removed by the legislation that is before the Congress later 

today. And I would also ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record letters in opposition to H.R. 3009 by the Major Counties 
5 

Sheriffs’ Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force; the League of Cities and the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Ms. LOFGREN. With that, I would just say that I will listen with 

great interest to all of our witnesses, but especially to Mr. Steinle, 

and hopefully I will have a chance to meet you after this hearing 

and your family as well. As you know, Congresswoman Pelosi and 

I sent a letter to the Attorney General and the Department of 

Homeland Security just a few days ago to explore how could it be 

that you would send a person who should have been deported to 

a jurisdiction for a warrant that was 20 years old that clearly there 

was not going to be a prosecution. 

And oddly enough, I mean, this individual was deported in 1994, 

in 1997, in 1998, in 2003. And in none of those instances did this 

ancient warrant prevent him from being deported. I mean, he was 

also convicted repeatedly of felony reentry after removal, and 

served 16 years in Federal prison for that crime, and he just kept 

trying to get in. And I want to give credit to our Border Patrol because every time he tried to come back in, they caught him, which 

is exactly what they should do, and he was prosecuted. 

So we need to examine all of this and knowing that none of it 

can bring your beautiful daughter back, but hopefully we will be 

able to improve the situation as really a tribute to your loss. 

And with that, I would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. The Chair 

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing and for the work that you have dedicated to 

this issue for the last 2 years. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I think 

you all have compelling testimony, but I especially want to thank 

Mr. Steinle, who I just had the opportunity to meet. I told him that 

the fact that he would come here 3 weeks after the tragic death of 

his daughter to me shows courage and determination to make sure 

that other lives are saved as a result of this. So you have my deepest sympathy, but also my deepest appreciation and admiration for 

coming here today. I also told Mr. Steinle that my son lives in San 

Francisco. I have been on that very pier with my son and my 

daughter, and we want to make sure that everybody is safe. 

Last week, this Committee held a Department of Homeland Security oversight hearing with Secretary Johnson as the sole witness. Many Members focused their questions on sanctuary cities, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, and criminal 

aliens. So we have heard much of what the Administration has to 

say about these issues. But today we will hear perspectives on 

sanctuary policies that are distinctly different than what Secretary 

Johnson had to offer, and I look forward to that testimony. 

I am honored to have the family of Kate Steinle here and Mr. 

Steinle testifying. And, of course, their perspective on this issue is 

one that we wish they never had to contemplate. And the same is 

true for the countless other victims of criminal aliens that this 

Committee has heard from the past several years, people like 

Jamiel and Anita Shaw, whose son was murdered by a criminal 

alien gang member who has been released from jail by Los Angeles 

law enforcement pursuant to Los Angeles sanctuary policy. And 

people like Sabine Durden, whose son, Dominic, was killed in a car 
29 

accident by an illegal immigrant who had two prior DUI convictions. Ms. Durden is here with us this morning, and I thank you 

very much for being here today as well. 

These tragedies were preventable. This Administration must reverse its wholesale and unprecedented shutdown of immigration 

enforcement. Because the result of that shutdown is that millions 

of unlawful and criminal aliens are not considered high enough priorities for deportation, they are left in American communities. In 

fact, in the last year, the number of administrative arrests of criminal aliens has fallen by a third, and the Department continues to 

release thousands of such aliens onto our streets. ICE admitted to 

releasing 30,558 aliens with criminal convictions in 2014. 

Last week we publicized ICE data showing the recidivist activity 

of those criminal aliens ICE released in 2014. Already 1,423 have 

been convicted of new crimes like vehicular homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, DUI, burglary, and assault, among many others. And no doubt, even more have been arrested for, and charged 

with, additional crimes. 

Secretary Johnson’s solution, the Priorities Enforcement Program, is a failure. Even the Secretary admitted last week that five 

of ICE’s Priority A, meaning the worst offending jurisdictions, have 

refused to participate in PEP. And while 33 of the 49 Priority A 

jurisdictions have apparently agreed to participate, it remains to be 

seen how fully they will participate. The Administration has admitted that when it says a jurisdiction has agreed to participate, that 

could encompass compliance with only a very small part of PEP. 

There is a clear answer to this problem: compliance with ICE detainers must be mandatory. Jurisdictions that violate that policy 

must suffer consequences. And, most importantly, Congress must 

no longer allow the President the ability to simply turn off the immigration enforcement switch. 

This Committee has passed a bill that addresses all three of 

those priorities, H.R. 1148, the ‘‘Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act’’ introduced 

by Chairman Gowdy. While I look forward to consideration of H.R. 

1148 on the floor later today, the House will vote on legislation to 

address one part of the solution to sanctuary cities. That bill is a 

good first step, and I will support it. I also appreciate the Majority 

Leader’s commitment to me that we will take additional action to 

ensure compliance with our immigration laws in the future. 

Today I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ thoughts on how 

to prevent sanctuary policies and the overwhelming number of 

crimes committed pursuant to these policies. And I also want to acknowledge that Mrs. Wilkerson, I think, is here this morning as 

well. She testified before the Senate hearing on Tuesday. 

So I want to make it clear to everyone that this Committee is 

committed to addressing this problem in a comprehensive way, and 

we have taken the first step by bringing the bill to the floor today. 

But that should not be the end; that should be the beginning of our 

efforts to make sure that American citizens are safe in their cities 

around the country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
30 

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

Subcommittee. Also, see ‘‘Rep. Lofgren Submissions for the Record’’ at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=103781. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Virginia yields back. The 

gentlelady from California is recognized briefly for a unanimous 

consent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should have asked 

earlier for unanimous consent to enter Ranking Member Conyers’ 

statement into the record. And I would also ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record 137 statements, including from the Archbishop of San Francisco, Church World Services, the Methodists, 

and 134 other organizations on this subject.* 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Mr. GOWDY. We welcome our very distinguished panel of witnesses today. I would ask you to all rise so I can administer an 

oath. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give shall be the 

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

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Mr. GOWDY. May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

I will introduce you en banc and then recognize you individually 

for your opening statement. 

From left to right, Mr. Jim Steinle of Pleasanton, California is 

the father of Kate Steinle who was murdered on July the 1, 2015 

by a recidivist criminal alien who had been released from the San 

Francisco Sheriff’s Department. 

Sheriff Scott Jones started with Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department in 1989 as a security officer at their brand new main jail. 

As a deputy he worked in corrections patrol, legal affairs. He was 

promoted through the ranks to sergeant, lieutenant, and finally 

captain. As sheriff, he instituted an annual strategic planning process that prioritizes projects and continues to drive the department 

forward. 

He holds a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from CSU Sacramento and a juris doctor degree from Lincoln Law School. 

Ms. Jessica Vaughan currently serves as the director of policy 

studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. She has been with 

the Center since 1992 where she has experience in immigration 

policy and operations topics such as visa programs, immigration 

benefits, and immigration law enforcement. And, in addition, she 

is an instructor for senior law enforcement, training seminars at 

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety in Illinois. 

She has a master’s degree from Georgetown and a bachelors in 

international studies at Washington College in Maryland. 

Finally, Chief Richard Biehl joined the Dayton Police Department as Director in Chief on January 28, 2008. He has more than 

35 years of experience in law enforcement. He served on the Cincinnati Police Department from 1980 to 2004 in positions including 

officer, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and ultimately assistant police chief. 

Welcome to all of you. Mr. Steinle, you are recognized for your 

opening remarks. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM STEINLE, FATHER OF KATHRYN STEINLE, 

PLEASANTON, CA 

Mr. STEINLE. Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank the 

Members of this Committee for the honor to speak to you about our 

daughter, Kate. All children are special in their own way. Kate was 

special in the way she connected with people. We called it the 

‘‘Kate effect.’’ 

Kate was beautiful, she was kind, she was loving and deep in 

faith. Kate had a special soul, a kind heart, the most contagious 

laugh, and a smile that would light up a room. Kate loved to travel 

and spend time with her friends, and, most of all, spend time with 

her family. In fact, the day she was killed we were walking arm 

in arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco enjoying a wonderful day to-
38 

gether. Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, looked at me and said, 

‘‘Help me, Dad.’’ Those were the last words I will ever hear from 

my daughter. 

The day Kate died, she changed her Facebook cover photo to a 

saying that said, ‘‘Whatever is good for your soul, do that.’’ This 

quote truly describes her spirit. After graduating from Cal Poly 

San Luis Obispo, she went to work for a title company and saved 

her money so she could travel the world. She traveled to Spain, 

Thailand, Amsterdam, Dubai, South Africa, just to name a few. She 

even made her way to the slums of Mumbai, India to reach out to 

her friend’s mother’s nanny. She spent time there with the woman’s family and came home a changed person. 

Everywhere Kate went throughout the world she shined the light 

of a good citizen of the United States of America. Unfortunately, 

due to disjointed laws and basic incompetence on many levels, the 

U.S. has suffered a self-inflicted wound in the murder of our 

daughter by the hand of a person that should never have been on 

the streets of this country. 

I say this because the alleged murder is an undocumented immigrant who has been convicted of seven felonies in the U.S. and already deported five times. Yet in March of this year, he was released from jail to stay here freely because of legal loopholes. 

It is unbelievable to see so many innocent Americans have been 

killed by undocumented immigrant felons in recent years. In fact, 

we recently came across a statistic that says between 2010 and 

2014, 121 criminal aliens who had an active deportation case at the 

time of release were subsequently charged with homicide-related 

offenses. Think about that: 121 times over 4 years an illegal immigrant, a violent illegal immigrant, with prior criminal convictions 

that later went on to be charged with murder when they should 

have been deported. That is one every 12 days. 

Our family realizes the complexities of immigration laws. However, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted, or changed to take these undocumented immigrant felons off 

our streets for good. We would be proud to see Kate’s name associated with some of this new legislation. We feel that if Kate’s law 

saves one daughter, one son, a father or mother, Kate’s death will 

not be in vain. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steinle follows:] 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Steinle. 

Sheriff Jones? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SCOTT JONES, SHERIFF, 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA 

Sheriff JONES. Chairman Gowdy and Members, thank for you the 

invitation to speak with you this morning. I am Scott Jones and 

I am the Sheriff of Sacramento County, one of the largest sheriffs 

departments in the country. And in Sacramento County, like the 

rest of California and many communities, we have a very diverse 

population, including a large population of undocumented immigrants. They are a vital, important, and valued part of our community. 

Unfortunately, there is also a percentage of that community that 

chooses to victimize others as a way of life in sometimes heinous 

ways. Unfortunately, unlike their American counterparts, I cannot 

protect my community from these offenders. 

Secure Communities went a good way in the right direction by 

allowing fingerprints to be processed by ICE. Now, keep in mind 

we do not have access to their database, so we do not know status. 

But they did a good job of notifying their local ICE offices of the 

folks that they wanted to take custody of. Because they cannot be 

in every jail 24 hours a day, they served the jails with a detainer 

that says hold this person for a brief time until we get down to the 

jail and take custody of this person that we have already identified 

should not be released. It worked well, and few people fell through 

the cracks. 

Even under the new watered down version of Secure Communities, the Priority Enforcement Program, it is dependent on detainers to be functional. I can tell you that the detainer system has 

failed, and consequently and necessarily then the Priority Enforcement Program is also failing. 

Even notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Government allows and encourages States to pass their own immigration laws, 

though they have no legal authority to do so—it is a plenary and 

exclusive function of the Federal Government—they are allowed to 

so without consequence or challenge because it is much easier for 

that to happen. So we consequently have 50 different immigration 

policies that are constantly evolving. 

The recent TRUST Act in California severely limited the types 

of crimes for which we can honor detainers. But then came a lowly 

magistrate judge in Clackamas County, Oregon who held that in 

Clackamas County only that detainers were unlawful. I and other 

sheriffs came back and talked with ICE administrators and begged, 

pleaded with them to stand with us so we could stand with our ICE 

partners to keep our communities safe and honor detainers at least 

for the ones that our State laws allowed because they already said 

they would not contravene that. They said, no, that it would not 

happen during this Administration. 

And in a leadership vacuum, someone will fill that space, and 

that someone was the ACLU who seized on the opportunity to send 

a letter to every sheriff in this country telling them that if they 

honored any ICE detainers, not just the ones that were allowed by 

State law, but any ICE detainers, they would be sued. Again, we 
43 

pleaded with ICE to no avail. So now, over 200 jurisdictions in this 

country do not honor ICE detainers. People are simply released 

without any scrutiny from ICE at all. 

California has become a de facto sanctuary State, and in short 

order this entire country will be a de facto sanctuary country. But 

that is not the same as sanctuary cities that pass laws that overtly 

and conspicuously violate Federal law. They, too, are allowed to do 

so. I have it on good authority that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has not contacted ICE for any reason in over 3 years despite 

being served with many detainers during that time period. It is deplorable and reprehensible. And you will find no shortage of police 

chiefs willing to come here and testify that this type of legislation 

named after in part Danny Oliver, the deputy of mine that got 

killed last October 24th by someone removed 4 times, that it is 

going to be bad for our communities, that it is going to erode trust 

in our immigrant communities, that we should not be enforcing immigration law. It should be a function of the Federal Government. 

And I cannot argue with any of that. I agree with every little sentiment that is expressed. 

I do not care. I do not have any desire to enforce immigration 

law, but that presupposes that there are people that are concerned 

with enforcing immigration law, and that is not happening. And 

notice I mentioned police chiefs willing to come here and testify. I 

defy you to find a sheriff that will come here and testify that some 

of this legislation is not a good idea, because while we are both singularly concerned with building trust in our communities, only the 

sheriffs, because of their roles in corrections in this country, are 

concerned with the dire consequence of releasing someone they 

know who should not be released, that they know ICE already 

wants and that society should be protected from, and not to be able 

to hold them for even 1 minute while ICE can come down to the 

jail and take custody of them. 

Sheriffs are accountable to the people. They are elected. We have 

our own political voice. There is a reason, a very conspicuous reason. Even though our large role in corrections in this country that 

there is no sheriff representation on the President’s 21st Century 

Task Force on Policing. And that is it. 

Even without national immigration reform, there can be solutions. There can be legislative or stroke of pen changes by policy 

that will make this part better, to make detainers lawful and mandatory on local detention facilities so we can cooperate with our 

ICE partners despite what the policymakers in Washington have. 

I hope you have had an opportunity to review the information 

that I have presented prior to this hearing. It lists some of those 

suggestions. I remain deeply committed to assisting in whatever 

way I can in this issue, and I look forward to exploring any of those 

issues further through any of your questions you may have. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Jones follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Ms. Vaughan? 

TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY 

STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the public safety problems created when local governments 

adopt policies that obstruct immigration enforcement, commonly 

known as sanctuary policies. 

According to an ICE report that I obtained through a FOIA request, as of October 2014, there were 276 such jurisdictions in the 

United States. Over an 8-month period in 2014, more than 8,100 

criminal aliens who were the subject of detainers were instead released back into the streets as a result of these non-cooperation 

policies. Approximately two-thirds of these individuals already had 

a serious criminal history as defined by ICE as the time of their 

release. Nearly 1,900 of them subsequently reoffended just in that 

8-month period. Only 28 percent of them have been re-apprehended 

by ICE. 

Now, I have just reeled a lot of statistics that I know sometimes 

make some people’s eyes glaze over, but as someone who also has 

lost a close family member—my brother—because of a negligent act 

by a sworn law enforcement officer and also a bad policy—and I 

should add that the offense that was committed was one that some 

on this Committee would call a minor traffic offense that killed my 

brother—I have to say that it is really not okay to refer to these 

tragedies as a little thing, as one Member of this Committee has. 

I have a friend. Her name is Heather. A few years ago she was 

carjacked at knife point and taken to Roger Williams Park in Providence, Rhode Island and raped repeatedly by an illegal alien who 

had been in the custody of the Providence Police Department more 

than once, but was released because of then Mayor Cicilline’s sanctuary policies. This was not a little thing. 

I have other friends, some in this room, who can tell similar stories, and I am afraid that Congress is about to try to get away with 

doing just a little thing just by barring funding from these sanctuary jurisdictions, some funding. And I am asking you today to 

not be satisfied with just doing a little thing. This big problem requires you to have the courage to do a bigger thing. You have the 

language in the Davis-Oliver Act. Please do this for these families 

who have lost so much. 

Sanctuary policies do nothing to build trust between immigrant 

communities and local law enforcement. They do not improve access to law enforcement services for immigrants, nor have they 

been shown to increase the likelihood that more immigrant crime 

victims will report crimes. On the contrary, they destroy the trust 

of the community at large that the laws will be faithfully enforced 

to preserve the quality of life for all. 

Despite the widespread public outrage at the San Francisco sheriff’s policies that caused the release of a man who went on to kill 

Kathryn Steinle, it is clear that some jurisdictions will not budge 

from their criminal alien sanctuary policies. To make matters 

worse, the Obama administration’s new Priority Enforcement Pro-
51 

gram explicitly allows local jurisdictions to obstruct ICE, and also 

establishes the entire country as a sanctuary for nearly all illegal 

aliens by further narrowing enforcement priorities and severely restricting the ability of ICE officers to deport removable aliens, including many with criminal records. 

Therefore, Congress must step in to correct the situation by clarifying in the law that local law enforcement agencies are expected 

to comply with ICE detainers; establishing that local law enforcement agencies will have qualified immunity when cooperating in 

good faith; by implementing sanctions for those sanctuary jurisdictions that continue to refuse to cooperate; and by reversing the 

Obama administration’s non-enforcement policies. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. 

Chief Biehl? 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD BIEHL, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, DAYTON, OH 

Chief BIEHL. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on this important issue. 

I am Richard Biehl, the director and chief of police of Dayton, 

Ohio Police Department. I have had the honor of serving in this position since January 28th of 2008. Further, I have spent the last 

35 years working to improve public safety in urban areas. Through 

that experience, I know that effective public safety, even when 

grounded in evidence-based best practices, is crucially dependent 

upon community engagement and support. 

First, I would like to express my condolences to the Steinle family for their loss and to Sheriff Jones for the loss of his officer last 

year. Sadly, I attended the funeral of Cincinnati Police Officer 

Sonny Kim less than a month ago killed in the line of duty. He was 

my 9th in my career. 

I happened to read a Proverb a couple of days ago, and I think 

it is quite appropriate to the conversation today. ‘‘Our passions are 

the winds that propel our vessel. Our reason is the pilot that steers 

her. Without winds, the vessel would not move; without a pilot she 

would be lost.’’ 

I know we are here to discuss the topic of sanctuary cities and 

the role in public safety. As we have the conversation about sanctuary cities, the specifics of how we define them are important, and 

as we think about how to best protect the residents and keep our 

communities safe, it is crucial that we do not undermine proven 

community policing practices. 

First, I would like to explain Dayton’s policy regarding cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement efforts. Our policy 

states that the Dayton Police Department shall not stop, investigate, or arrest a person solely because of their real or perceived 

immigration status. Investigation of a person’s immigration status 

must be done only for the most serious offenders. This approach 

has served the Dayton community well. During the time these policies have been in place, Dayton has experienced significant reductions in crime. This is an important point I want to convey to you 

all. 

As chief of police, my primary concern is with the safety all residents, and in Dayton we have seen a reduction in crime in our city. 

Our immigration law enforcement approach allows us to focus on 

true threats to public safety while ensuring that our immigrant 

communities maintain necessary trust to report criminal incidents 

to our Department. 

I am concerned that proposed legislation, such as H.R. 3009, 

would coerce local law enforcement departments to make decisions 

that undermine our ability to keep our community safe. The Dayton Police Department, like many agencies throughout the State of 

Ohio, is facing critical staffing shortages that are already creating 

potential challenges for fulfilling its public safety responsibilities. 
60 

Making local police departments fulfill immigrant enforcement responsibilities will only make it even more challenging. 

I have seen the positive effects of community policing in my city. 

Dayton as a population is only 4 percent foreign born. Given its demographics, it may appear an unlikely place for a national immigration policy to be of much concern, much less an issue impacting 

local policing. But in my time as police chief, I have repeatedly witnessed how significant the issue is to our community. 

Within a month of beginning my service as Dayton Police Chief, 

I was approached by multiple community advocates who expressed 

concerns that the Latino community members were being racially 

profiled. Allegations like this are deeply troubling to me. Our cities 

are safer when there is a sense of trust with our communities, including our immigrant communities. If families view law enforcement as a threat, or are fearful of dropping off their kids off at 

school, or walking around their neighborhood, no one benefits. 

As I stated earlier, Dayton has seen a reduction in crime, not an 

increase, as a result of our community policing policies, such as investigating persons of immigration status only for the most serious 

offenses. I might add that we have bene recognized Statewide, nationally, and internationally for excellence in problem-only policing 

and community-oriented policing. 

While immigration enforcement is a Federal responsibility, collaboration between State and local law enforcement and Federal 

immigration enforcement official can and should exist; but policies 

need to be clearly tailored to ensure community policing is not undermined. I agree we should deport serious violent offenders. No 

one wants violent crime in their community, because once we get 

beyond violent offenders that some localities and municipalities disagree over collaboration with Federal immigration enforcement officials. 

I support the new Priority Enforcement Program initiative as the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security has described it. PEP allows local jurisdictions to work with ICE to implement priorities 

concerning crimes that most negatively impact public safety in 

their communities. 

I believe local law enforcement should comply with notifications 

as well as detainers as long as the detainers do not require jurisdictions to exceed their legal authority to hold persons beyond their 

current sentence and local charges. Requiring local law enforcement to hold persons for additional time must be supported by a 

legal basis; otherwise, it would ask local law enforcement to violate 

the U.S. Constitution, something none of us wants. 

Before Congress tries to impose a legislative solution, I believe 

it should first allow PEP to be implemented. What everybody 

wants is a safe community. That is what I want, and that is what 

community members care about. We should not punish localities 

who are trying to promote trust in their communities. Collaboration with Federal immigration officials should exist for those serious and violent of criminals. That collaboration needs to be carefully tailored to address the priorities of local communities while 

ensuring community policing is not undermined, such as through 

the PEP Program. 
61 

A long-term solution requires Congress to come up with a fix for 

a broken immigration system and clarify immigration enforcement 

responsibilities. Until that time, local community leaders will continue to implement practical solutions to promote public safety in 

our communities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy 

to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Biehl follows:] 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chief, and thank all our witnesses. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. 

Labrador, for his questions. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you all for being here. Sheriff Jones, in 

your written testimony you provide some suggestions for fixing our 

immediate problems between ICE and local law enforcement, including making detainers mandatory in local jails and having ICE 

share resources with localities to ensure effective enforcement. In 

your view, given the current politicized status of ICE’s policies, 

what can be done to compel ICE to provide these resources to 

States and localities? 

Sheriff JONES. Well, thank you for the question. It is important 

to remember that until a couple of years ago, ICE detainers were 

mandatory. There was nothing equivocal in the enabling statute. It 

says ‘‘local jails shall,’’ not ‘‘may’’ or ‘‘in their discretion,’’ but ‘‘shall’’ 

hold folks for no more than 48 hours. It is only through policies of 

this Administration that that has softened up. 

About 3 years ago, they were mandatory. For about a year or 2- 

year period, the Federal Government literally would refuse to answer whether they are mandatory or mere requests, and now, of 

course, they have simply thrown up their hands and said, well, 

look at Clackamas. I guess that is Federal law. Well, that is not 

the way our American system of jurisprudence works. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Can you explain that to the American people? It is one judge in one jurisdiction does not make the law for 

the United States. 

Sheriff JONES. It is not even a judge. 

Mr. LABRADOR. It is a magistrate. 

Sheriff JONES. It is a magistrate. 

Mr. LABRADOR. They are judges—— 

Sheriff JONES. I guess. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. 

Sheriff JONES. They still have a longer appointment than I do, 

so. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. 

Sheriff JONES. So it is applicable in that particular district, nowhere else. And so, the Federal Government could have done something minimally such as stand up and say we do not agree with 

that, let alone challenge it, but they do not. They allow that to extrapolate to make national policy, and the ACLU seized upon that 

vacuum to do so. 

So it is not like it is unprecedented that detainers are mandatory. They have been mandatory, and that was the success of the 

Secure Communities Program. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So what can be done now? You see this Administration not doing their job. What—— 

Sheriff JONES. Well, there are a number or things, but specifically relative to detainers, they have to be once again determined 

to be mandatory. The fact that you cannot hold someone based on 

anything less than a warrant or a court order is ludicrous. We arrest everyone in this country, citizens or not, we detain them on 

reasonable suspicion. We arrest them on probable cause. They do 

not see a judge for 48 hours or 2 days or 3 days. So to suggest that 
70 

because you are undocumented you somehow have greater constitutional rights, that—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. American citizens. 

Sheriff JONES [continuing]. Is ludicrous. You cannot—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. It is. Okay. Thank you very much. Chief Biehl, 

thank you for the work that you do in your community, but I do 

have some questions for you. Your testimony discusses the need for 

comprehensive immigration reform to help law enforcement know 

who is present in the community. But is it not true that Kate 

Steinle’s killer was previously in the custody of San Francisco law 

enforcement officials, and, thus, was already known by the San 

Francisco law enforcement? 

Chief BIEHL. That is a fact. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Your written testimony contains a quote from an 

email by community advocates you received regarding alleged racial profiling in Dayton. Were any of the allegations in the email 

substantiated? 

Chief BIEHL. They were not substantiated through investigation. 

I will say that in terms of arrest data, there was clearly a surge 

of arrests of Hispanics and Latinos that occurred 1 year prior to 

my arrival that was substantial. So whether the actual basis of 

those allegations—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Were any of these arrests taken out because 

there was insufficient data about their criminality? 

Chief BIEHL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Were any of these arrests dismissed, or were they 

not prosecuted because of racial profiling? 

Chief BIEHL. Yes, a number of them were—I am sorry. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Because of racial profiling? 

Chief BIEHL. No, not because of racial profiling. A number were 

dismissed, though. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But not because of racial profiling. 

Chief BIEHL. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Your testimony notes that your department is focused on serious chronic and high rate offenders. Would 

it not make sense to protect residents of Dayton by working with 

Federal immigration agencies to enforce laws so that aliens never 

have the opportunity to commit so many crimes as to be considered 

serious, chronic, and high rate offenders? 

Chief BIEHL. Actually we do work with Federal immigration authorities. In fact, we have partnerships with the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, United States 

Marshals Fugitive Task Force, Department of Homeland Security, 

including individuals who have homeland security investigation 

credentials, even the Trafficking and Steering Committee, and also 

the United States Secret Service. So we have partnerships across 

Federal law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And you think that is a good thing, right? 

Chief BIEHL. Absolutely. That is why we do it. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you comply with ICE detainers? 

Chief BIEHL. Actually they are complied with in my county. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Excellent. And would you have complied with an 

ICE detainer in the case of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a seventime convicted felon who has been deported by the U.S. five times? 
71 

**Note: The material referred to was previously submitted. See page 22. 

***Note: The material referred to was previously submitted. See page 18. 

Chief BIEHL. Absolutely. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Absolutely. Your recent opposition to allowing 

State and local law enforcement officers to help enforce Federal immigration law include that immigration law include that immigration laws are very complex. I do not know that immigration laws 

are any more complex than other criminal laws. Why do you not 

think that your officers are smart enough to be able to act as a 

force multiplier for Federal immigration enforcement? 

Chief BIEHL. Thank you for that question, Congressman. My understanding for individuals to be credentialed on a 287 requires 3 

weeks of training. That is a substantial commitment of training 

time for police officers for a very specific area of enforcement. I cannot think of any agencies that could spend that amount of time 

with personnel and training. 

There are training requirements now being proposed through the 

State of Ohio. There have been a number of tasks forces established—the 21st Century Task Force on Policing, the Presidential 

Task Force—that are once again emphasizing the need for additional training for law enforcement. I can tell you training time is 

at an absolute premium specifically as it relates to critical staffing 

levels. So how do we spend time training police officers? 

And just from talking from individuals who are in this area of 

law, the law is constantly changing, so 3 weeks of training is only 

valuable as long as the laws do not change. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Idaho yields back. The 

gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I appreciated 

hearing from all the witnesses. Sheriff Jones, you mentioned that 

no sheriff would come and take the position of Chief Biehl. I would 

like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from 

the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force opposing H.R. 3009 

signed by a number of law enforcement officials, including Sheriff 

Mark Curran from Illinois, Sheriff Tony Estrada from Arizona, 

Sheriff Leon Lott from South Carolina, Sheriff William McCarthy 

from Iowa, Sheriff Margaret Mims from Fresno, and Sheriff Lupe 

Valdez from Texas.** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Also I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

place in the record a letter from the Major County Sheriffs’ Association opposing the idea of removing grant funding as a mechanism to enforce anything.*** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You know, as we seek efforts to make our communities safer, we do not want to make it more dangerous. And, Chief 

Biehl, your testimony I thought was very interesting. In your oped recently you said that crime in Dayton dropped by nearly 22 

percent after you engaged in your new community policing effort, 

and that serious property crime dropped almost 15 percent. 

Now, why do you think this happened? Was it community trust? 

And have these favorable crime reduction figures continued or not? 
72 

Chief BIEHL. Thank you, Congresswoman. In fact, they are a direct outgrowth of not only innovative policing strategies, but also 

community partnerships. Our community working with us to address crime and particularly serious violent crime has been crucial 

in reducing crime in Dayton as crime trends have continued 

through my tenure as police chief. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, again, there has been a lot of discussion 

about detention and whether that is constitutional and citing one 

particular case. However, there are a number of cases, and rather 

than go into all of them here, I would ask unanimous consent to 

place a summary of a series of cases, Federal cases, that have 

found that you cannot hold somebody on a civil matter at the request of ICE absent a warrant or something else. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Federal Court Decisions Invalidating ICE Detainers 

Morales v. Chadbourne, 996 F. Supp. 2d 19, 29, 32–34 (D. R.I. 2014) (holding that 

plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim where she was held for 24 hours on an 

ICE detainer issued without probable cause), affirmed, Morales v. Chadbourne, 

—F.3d —, 2015 WL 4385945, *4-*8 (1st Cir. July 17, 2015) (slip op.) (holding that 

ICE agent could be held liable for detention because it was clearly established in 

2009 that ICE detainers must be based upon probable cause). 

Galarza v. Szalczyk, No. 10–6815, 2012 WL 1080020, at *10, *13 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 

2012) (unpub.) (holding that where plaintiff was held for 3 days after posting bail 

based on an ICE detainer, he stated a Fourth Amendment claim against both federal and local defendants; it was clearly established that the ‘‘detainer caused a seizure’’ that must be supported by ‘‘probable cause’’), rev’d on other grounds, Galarza 

v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding that the County operating the jail, 

too, may be liable for violating the Fourth Amendment). 

Mendoza v. Osterberg, No. 13–65, 2014 WL 3784141, at *6 (D. Neb. July 31, 2014) 

(unpub.) (recognizing that ‘‘[t]he Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the 

person,’’ and thus, ‘‘[i]n order to issue a detainer[,] there must be probable cause’’) 

(internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citations omitted). 

Villars v. Kubiatowski, 45 F.Supp.3d 791, 808 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (holding that plaintiff 

stated a Fourth Amendment claim where he was held on an ICE detainer that 

‘‘lacked probable cause’’). 

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cnty., —F.Supp.2d —-, No. 12–02317, 2014 WL 

1414305, at *10 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2014) (slip op.) (holding that plaintiff’s detention 

on an ICE detainer after she would otherwise have been released ‘‘constituted a new 

arrest, and must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’’). 

Uroza v. Salt Lake County, No. 11–713, 2013 WL 653968, at *5–6 (D. Ut. Feb. 21, 

2013) (unpub.) (holding that plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim where ICE 

issued his detainer without probable cause; finding it clearly established that ‘‘immigration enforcement agents need probable cause to arrest . . . [and] detainees who 

post bail should be set free in the absence of probable cause to detain them again’’). 

Vohra v. United States, No. 04–0972, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34363, *25 (C.D. Cal. 

Feb. 4, 2010) (magistrate’s report and recommendation) (‘‘Plaintiff was kept in formal detention for at least several hours longer due to the ICE detainer. In plain 

terms, he was subjected to the functional equivalent of a warrantless arrest’’ to 

which the ‘‘‘probable cause’ standard . . . applies’’), adopted, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

34088 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (unpub.). 
73 

Ortega v. ICE, 737 F.3d 435, 439, 441 (6th Cir. 2013) (dismissing plaintiff’s due 

process claims against individual officers based on qualified immunity, but clarifying for future cases that ‘‘transfer[ring] [a prisoner] from home confinement to 

prison confinement’’ based on an ICE detainer ‘‘amounts to a sufficiently severe 

change in conditions to implicate due process’’; dismissing plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because it was not clearly established in 2011 whether ‘‘moving a convict 

from home confinement to prison confinement’’ based on an ICE detainer ‘‘resulted 

in a new seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.’’). 

Mendia v. Garcia, 768 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2014) (where plaintiff alleged that 

ICE caused his extended detention by issuing an ICE detainer that precluded him 

from posting bail, his injury was traceable to ICE for purposes of establishing standing to sue for damages). 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I think that is why sheriffs all across the 

United States, whether or not their communities say they are 

‘‘sanctuary cities,’’ have been reluctant to do this. And that is why 

the Administration has gone to this Priority Enforcement Program 

because it does not violate anybody’s constitutional rights if you 

ask to be notified before you release somebody. 

And what we have heard from ICE is if you have got a serious 

character like this guy in San Francisco, they will get there, and 

they will pick him up, and they will take him away and deport 

him, which is what should have happened in this case. Actually he 

should never have been sent to San Francisco in the first place. 

I am wondering whether you have any objection, Chief Biehl, or 

whether your community would have any objection to the Priority 

Enforcement Program that requires notification so that ICE can 

come and remove people who are priorities for enforcement, who 

are serious criminals. 

Chief BIEHL. I am not aware of any objection from my community with that program at all. None have been expressed to me. I 

have been involved in the Committee conversations, the task force 

conversations for the development of some of the mechanisms and 

notification and also for, you know, basically be involved in the roll 

out. I mean, it is just literally being rolled out as we speak. 

I just met with our local field office director last week, who actually gave me a packet describing the program and its implementation. So this is literally just being implemented. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would note also, and I see that my time is almost 

expiring, that when someone is booked into a jail, their fingerprints 

are taken. And those fingerprints, I mean, of everyone. 

Chief BIEHL. Correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Immigrants, undocumented, legal, American citizens. Those fingerprints are shared with the Federal Government 

and made part of the database. And that has not been changed at 

all, has it, Sheriff? No. And I do not think there is any confusion 

that that interferes with community policing or building trust with 

the community. Have you heard that? 

Chief BIEHL. Not at all. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we can hone in 

on the need to make sure that the ability to remove dangerous 

criminals by ICE is enhanced, and that we do not get diverted by 

disagreements over overall immigration policy because I believe 
74 

that we can have the ability to come together to reach consensus 

in a way that would be a very positive outcome. 

And with that, my time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman 

and recognizes himself for his questions. And let me just say that 

there are 5,000 ICE agents in the country responsible for enforcing 

our immigration laws, which we know there are 350,000 convicted 

criminal illegal aliens on the streets right now. There are 11 million or more people who are unlawfully present in the United 

States. And that when you have over 900,000 local law enforcement 

officers, some communities may want to participate, some may not. 

We do not require them to enforce our immigration laws. 

But the people who are unlawfully present in the United States 

and cause various types of problems, including committing crimes, 

are a concern to not just the national government, to local governments as well. So I think the first step is to see that our laws are 

enforced by the Federal Government, and I do not believe they are, 

and by State and local governments. And I think that beyond that, 

legislation is needed to address many aspects of our immigration 

policy. 

Let me ask Mr. Steinle and then Sheriff Jones to talk a little bit 

more about the personal experiences that they have. Mr. Steinle, 

do you believe that San Francisco should have been required to 

honor ICE detainers? 

Mr. STEINLE. Well, absolutely. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And do you agree that the U.S. immigration and 

enforcement policy should not be to the detriment of U.S. citizens 

and legal lawful resident immigrants? 

Mr. STEINLE. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So would it not be best to remove unlawful 

aliens before they commit serious crimes as opposed to simply 

trusting and hoping that they will not, in fact, commit serious 

crimes? In the case of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, he had committed some 

drug offenses, and he had committed the offense of illegally entering the United States. He had not committed murder at that point 

in time. But this whole debate about how serious a crime you have 

to commit before you can be subject to the enforcement of the laws 

which apply to everybody gets to be problematic, does it not? 

Mr. STEINLE. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may, our intent with 

Kate’s law is to get rid of or do something with the violent felons. 

The way I understand the law is if any undocumented person 

comes into the United States and subsequently is deported, then 

comes back into the United States, they are a felon. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct, and they do not have to have 

committed any other crime. They are a felon at that point in time. 

Mr. STEINLE. They are a felon at that point. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And Kate’s law would impose a mandatory minimum sentence. 

Mr. STEINLE. But where I see that we have to hone in on is a 

felon is not a felon is a felon. We are talking about violent felons 

that come in here to the United States. If we try to arrest every 

felon, the jails would be full, and the officers here would be extremely busy. I think we need to differentiate somehow or another 
75 

the levels of felonies, and that is another can of worms. I understand that. But do you see that as a—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But if you have cooperation between local law 

enforcement and the Federal Government, with limited resources 

they do have to set priorities, but they will set those priorities 

based on the best information, not based upon—— 

Mr. STEINLE. I understand. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Individual localities trying to set 

their own immigration policies. 

Mr. STEINLE. Sure, I understand. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sheriff Jones, would you tell us about Deputy 

Danny Oliver, his life, and what kind of person, deputy he was, 

and the circumstances of his murder? 

Sheriff JONES. Yes, thank you. He was not unlike any cop in this 

country who has answered the call, who law enforcement is a calling, not a job, to help people, and for a life of service. He was particularly assigned to the Problem-Oriented Policing Unit, or ‘‘POP 

officers’’ might be more familiar. They are what I call the quality 

of life police. Their job is to address quality of life issues, not answer calls for service. 

It is what he was doing on that date with a particular problem 

motel in our jurisdiction, had already made contact with someone 

in the front, and was onto the back of the hotel when he came in 

contact with two people in a car. And I believe the last words he 

ever spoke was ‘‘How is your day going today,’’ and then he was 

shot a single time in the forehead killing him almost instantly. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Are there changes to immigration enforcement 

that could have prevented Deputy Oliver and Investigator Davis’ 

murders? 

Sheriff JONES. First of all, he was booked in under an alias that 

we did not even know his true identity for several days. Secondly, 

we realized that he had a driver’s license that was issued from one 

of the States that issue them. Now California does as well. Had 

suffered 11 different misdemeanor traffic-related convictions from 

hit and run to DUI. Was able to walk in and renew his driver’s license. 

And he had been removed from the country four times, the first 

time with a deportation. The second time the next year he was simply released back across the border the very same day he was captured, 3 days later was back in this country. Once again, released 

across the border that very same day, and the next year came into 

this country illegally. Was arrested on felony warrants for a local 

crime, was deported again 3 days later. So not only escaping consequences for any of his deportations or prior illegal entry, but in 

the last case at least escaped any consequences for his local criminality because presumably it was easier to deport him than face his 

criminal conduct. 

Some time thereafter, I know not when, he entered the country 

illegally, and fast forward to the events of October 24th of last 

year. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. One last question. Ms. Vaughan, 

what are your thoughts when you hear sanctuary cities proponents 

state that unlawful aliens are no more likely to commit crimes 

than native-born individuals? 
76 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, I have reviewed a lot of the literature on 

this, and there is no evidence that immigrants are any more or less 

likely to commit crimes than anyone else. That is really not the relevant question. The question is what do we do with that fraction 

of the immigrant population that is committing crimes, that has 

committed crimes? How do we handle that? And that is where ICE 

needs the cooperation of law enforcement agencies because it is the 

local agencies who know who those problem individuals are. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Illinois for his questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start off by 

expressing my deepest sympathies to the family of Kathryn Steinle. 

Her death is a senseless tragedy. I have two daughters of my own, 

and as a father I cannot even begin to imagine the pain that her 

parents are going through. I am truly very sorry for your loss. 

I am often criticized by my supporters because I do not have a 

soft spot for immigrant criminals no matter how small or how old 

their violations. Many argue that old convictions on drunk driving 

should be forgiven when determining whether someone should get 

deported or not. After all, they have already served their time and 

paid the consequences doled out by the criminal justice system. 

I am not one of those people who argue for leniency for criminal 

immigrants. If you have serious criminal activity on your record, 

you have given up your USA privileges, and, generally speaking, I 

will not spend time or energy fighting for you. There are too many 

immigrants in this country who have never done anything wrong 

or never committed crimes, and I fight for them because they are 

part of what enriches America and what benefits all Americans. 

The tragedy in San Francisco has generated an important dialogue regarding our communities, the police officers we have entrusted to protect us, and our broken immigration system. The fact 

is, he should have never been released to be on our streets again. 

Deported five times. It seems to me they caught him and deported 

him, and he should have been deported once again. 

But there are serious questions about just how it is the local police should go about it. Nearly 300 jurisdictions have decided that 

they will not comply with a detainer from Homeland Security. The 

fact is the courts have said that they do not have to comply with 

those detainers, so what we need to figure out a way is to fix the 

broken immigration system that we have. 

We spend a lot of time talking about Mr. Lopez. We do not spend 

a lot of time talking about people who enter this country through 

other borders—JFK, LAX—and commit crimes in this country from 

all over the world. So if we are truly going to protect our Nation, 

then we need to have a holistic approach to our broken immigration system. 

It breaks my heart, Mr. Steinle, because I could have been walking on that pier, as I have, with both of my daughters, and I want 

to make sure that it does not happen. And I will continue to work 

with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fix our system, 

not in pieces and bits, but in its totality so that we can protect everybody in America, because indeed there are many people who 

want to fix our broken immigration system, and we need to do it 

in a holistic way. 
77 

Had we done it, we would have secure communities. We would 

have more. We would have verification of employment. We would 

have so many other means. We would have the ability to flush out 

the bad people. Why? Because we would let the good people come 

forward so that they cannot hide among the good people, the good 

people who live in my congressional district. 

Now, I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to go back 

just for one moment. I know it might seem a little just, I do not 

know, unnecessary, but I would like to go back to a transcript at 

the end of the DHS hearing which you presided over, Mr. Gowdy, 

on July 14, 2015. I said, and this is the record, a transcript of the 

record of the July 14 hearing, which I stayed for the whole hearing, 

all 3 hours. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, you did. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. ‘‘First, thank you, Mr. Gowdy, for your excellent presiding over these hearings. . . . I just want to just for the record, because 

I think it’s very important’’—listen to this—‘‘I want to say to you, Mr. 

Gowdy, I share with you the same anguish and pain, as I know the Secretary does and every American, at the death of that woman, and that nobody has come here to look for excuses or anything else. . . . I mean, this 

is a career criminal we have on our hands. So I think we should just try 

to figure out a way. . . . This man is not an immigrant. Immigrants come 

here to work hard, sweat, and toil. We should be warm in receiving. This 

man’s a foreigner who came here to cause damage. And let’s fix our broken 

immigration system so we can get rid of foreigners that come here to cause 

damage and harm and welcome the immigrants.’’ 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That was my statement. I would just like to put 

it in the record once again because apparently Ms. Vaughan did 

not read it or take the time to read it. 

Secondly, for the record, on the floor of the House of Representatives on July 9, and this is in the record, and I would like to put 

it in the record once again because apparently Ms. Vaughan does 

not read what actually is said in the English language that I have 

said. ‘‘Now, the anti-immigration wing of the Republican Party in 

this body and on the air say that Trump may have a point. After 

all, this woman was shot in cold blood by a Mexican immigrant in 

San Francisco just last week. Why was he not deported? Why was 

he not held in jail the last time? Why is it? And you actually hear 

this on Fox News. ’Why is President Obama letting Mexicans kill 

beautiful young American women?’ 

As the father of two daughters about the age of Kate Steinle, the 

young woman who was shot and killed, I pray every night that no 

one of any racial or ethnic background ever does them harm, and 

I can only imagine the grief that her family is feeling. When we 

have felons in Federal custody or State or local custody with warrants for drug crimes who are deported multiple times and come 

back, this Congress has not done its job, unfairly leaving States 

and localities to cope with decades-old inaction on immigration 

criminal justice and the range of other issues. I have no sympathy 

for the man accused of this crime. Murderers should rot in hell.’’ 

Apparently people have decided to besmirch people’s reputation 

and take their words and exploit the death of a beautiful young 

American woman, and I will not simply stand here and remain si-
78 

lent while that happens. You may not believe that we should have, 

Ms. Vaughan, a fixing of our broken immigration system, but do 

not exploit a young woman’s death in order to receive a paycheck 

to put food on your table. You should find a more decent and practical way to go about earning your living. 

So, Mr. Steinle, I am so sorry about the death of your daughter. 

I assure you, I have a 36 year old and a 27 year old, and I love 

them dearly. I can never imagine losing them. And I will work to 

make sure that we fix this immigration system and that situations 

like the ones you suffer never happen again. 

That has been my record in the past in working with Members 

of the minority and the majority in this House, and I take great 

offense at anybody suggesting otherwise. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. The gentleman from Illinois yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the past 

Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Smith. 

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

your heartfelt testimony. It is sad that we need to be here today. 

The tragic murder of a beautiful young woman, your daughter, I 

think could have been prevented. 

There are also thousands of other victims that did not need to 

be victims and would not have been victims if this Administration 

had enforced immigration laws. In my view, someone in this Administration probably should be arrested for negligent homicide or 

for any of another dozen crimes that are so frequently committed 

by illegal immigrants in this country who should not even be here. 

In the case of the sanctuary cities, in just 8 months last year, 

they released almost 9,000 individuals who had been either arrested or convicted of serious crimes. Two-thirds of those 9,000 individuals had either committed or been arrested of serious crimes. 

In just the few months since they were released, one-quarter have 

committed other crimes. How many others are going to commit 

more crimes in the coming months, if one-quarter have already 

been arrested for other crimes. 

This Administration last year released 30,000 criminal aliens; 

2,000 under the Constitution they had to release, but 28,000 were 

released voluntarily by this Administration. They committed the 

worst crimes imaginable, thousands of crimes. So, if anything, you 

have got an Administration setting an example for sanctuary cities 

rather than trying to prevent sanctuary cities from trying to escape 

enforcing immigration laws. Sanctuary cities have increased exponentially under this Administration for one good reason, that is the 

Administration has done nothing to encourage municipalities and 

other jurisdictions from becoming sanctuary areas. 

Many people claim that by being a sanctuary city or area or jurisdiction that that is somehow going to encourage illegal immigrants to report crimes. In my view, that is a specious argument, 

apocryphal. It is simply anecdotal, and I have never seen one shred 

of evidence that that is the case. It is just a simple assertion. And, 

in fact, every study I have seen, three out of three, have actually 

demonstrated just the opposite. 

One major study found no decline in crime reporting by Hispanics after the implementation of a local police program to screen 

offenders for immigration status and to refer illegal immigrants to 
79 

ICE for removal. Another academic survey found that by far the 

most commonly mentioned reason or not reporting a crime was a 

language barrier followed by cultural differences, not fear of being 

turned over to immigration authorities. And a third study found 

that significantly more removals of criminal aliens did not affect 

patterns of crime reporting in immigrant communities. It would be 

nice if the media would just once cite any of these studies. We only 

hear the other side. 

My question to Ms. Vaughan, who has done some research on 

this subject, what do you think about the arguments made that 

somehow we are going to reduce crimes if we allow illegal immigrants to seek sanctuary and stay in this country in violation of 

current immigration laws? It seems to me it is very clear that more 

crimes are committed as a result of this policy, not fewer, but I 

would be interested in your opinion. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. This so-called ‘‘chilling effect’’ is a myth and has 

been refuted by the studies that you mentioned and by the words 

of immigrants themselves when the ones who have been victims of 

crimes tell researchers that it is because of language barriers. So 

access to law enforcement services is something that law enforcement agencies do legitimately need to focus on, but the way to do 

that is through community outreach programs, having personnel on 

the staff of these forces who speak the language of the community. 

Anonymous tip lines. Most law enforcement agencies have these 

anonymous tip lines. No one need be afraid of reporting a crime. 

ICE simply does not target witnesses or victims of crime for immigration enforcement. And I wish that the advocacy organizations 

that claim to speak for immigrants, who go around telling people 

that immigrants have to be afraid to report crimes because of cooperation with ICE should be telling them that victims and witnesses are not subjects for immigration enforcement, and that that 

would be a much more constructive message that would help the 

immigrant community. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. Mr. Chairman, I simply do 

not understand how anyone could oppose enforcing current immigration laws. These unnecessary victims are not Republicans and 

not Democrats. They are innocent Americans. And immigration 

laws should be enforced by everyone in America, and yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair thanks the former Chairman of the Committee and recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. Mr. Steinle, I add, again, as I know all Members have done, 

sympathy to you and your family. The sound of the violent act 

against your daughter simply penetrated around this Nation and 

beyond. I would also indicate, Chief Jones, that any time we lose 

someone in the line of duty, we, too, feel that pain. And frankly, 

we should try to find the solutions that we need to find. 

So let me just offer a few thoughts in the instance of the facts 

in San Francisco, but I think it is important to join in my colleague 

from Texas and say that the laws that are on the books that are 

legal should be enforced as they relate to immigration issues in 

this country. 

Those of us who support comprehensive immigration reform in 

no way view that reform as coddling criminals. They stand aside 
80 

from the population of families, of students, of workers, who have 

come in this country to do good and not to do harm. And I think 

that when we get into a process of viewing one group of wanting 

not to abide by the immigration laws and another group as, then 

it is a misrepresentation of many of the American people who support our perspective. 

And I might just add one thought. When you have deferred adjudication, that is actually a legal use that can be utilized under the 

term ‘‘prosecutorial discretion,’’ which ICE has and a number of 

other agencies have. It is not in this instance that I think that 

prosecutorial discretion played out in any way. It did when we 

speak of these young DREAMers that have been allowed to stay 

and go to school. 

But what I do want to make note of is that I wish the clock could 

have been turned back on this terrible tragedy, and just make 

mention that the individual in question in your daughter’s tragic 

circumstances was in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They did hold 

this individual, and in March 2015 transferred him to the custody 

of the San Francisco’s sheriff’s office on a 20-year-old warrant for 

a marijuana charge with the expectation that the district attorney 

would pursue. We wish this had not happened, but what did not 

happen, which was a simple act, was a phone regarding Mr. LopezSanchez’s statement or status. 

This bill dealing with the sanctuary cities and removing all opportunity for such cities, and frankly why do we not all agree that 

that name connotes a problem for many, because it suggests that 

you are giving sanctuary to everybody, has a right to stay under 

that umbrella, crooks, and criminals, and bad actors. And I want 

you to know that is absolutely not the case. It was utilized in a 

time when people came and did not speak English, and they were 

afraid of harm. And the only way that law enforcement officers 

could do their effective job was to be able to find out who did it. 

So I want to ask—yes. I am not seeing the name, and I am looking for my list. I always like to call the name, but I will call it in 

a moment. But, yes, did I characterize if we use a different term 

other than ‘‘sanctuary.’’ We are not giving sanctuary to crooks and 

criminals, are we? 

Chief BIEHL. I am sorry, Congresswoman. I cannot quite hear 

your question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. With respect to sanctuary cities, we are 

not attempting to give, and I do not particularly hold to the name. 

It comes out of a religious basis of sanctuary, and I appreciate my 

faith community who started out trying to help people who are in 

need. 

My question to you, in the law enforcement, it is not a refuge for 

crooks and criminals. Is that correct? That is not the definition of 

‘‘sanctuary city.’’ 

Chief BIEHL. I am not aware actually what the exact definition 

for ‘‘sanctuary cities.’’ I think the terminology is used as if it is understood what it actually means. Not being a sanctuary community, I cannot really speak to the intent of those who have passed 

laws and/or other policies to, in fact, be a sanctuary city. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just without not being one, however, an overall position, you do not perceive that anyone is trying 
81 

****Note: The material referred to was previously submitted. See pages 18, 20, and 27. 

to protect anyone that is a criminal with an established criminal 

record. You would not perceive that to be the case. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady is out of time, but the chief may answer. 

Chief BIEHL. I am sorry. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady is out of time, but you may answer 

her question. 

Chief BIEHL. I cannot think of anyone in professional law enforcement that that would ever be their intent in adopting any policy that may be considered a sanctuary city. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for allowing him to answer, and I have a number of statements from law enforcement 

that oppose H.R. 3009, Mr. Chairman: The National League of Cities and the National Conference of Mayors; the Major County Sheriffs’ Association; and the Fraternal Order of Police. I ask that the 

statements be put into the record.**** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King. 

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

your testimony today, and I continue to be amazed at the 

composure that you are able to bring to this issue, Mr. Steinle. 

I wanted to inform you that some of us have been doing some 

things to try to move this Congress and this country in the right 

direction. I look back on testimony at this same table about the 

first year I came here in Congress, which would be around 2003 

or 2004. The witnesses were testifying then of the number of people 

who died trying to get across the Arizona desert. 

I asked a witness who was seated in your seat, Chief Biehl— actually I asked each of the witnesses—he had an answer. I said, do 

you know how many Americans died at the hands of those who did 

make it into the United States. And his answer to me on September 11th was fresher in our minds than it is today. He said, I 

do not know the number, but I can tell you it would be in multiples 

of the victims of September 11. 

And at that point, I began the effort to get a GAO study, which 

Ms. Lofgren cooperated with me on. In April of 2005 we got a study 

out. It was not quite apples to apples because we do not keep 

records well enough to have it exactly apples to apples. We refreshed that study again in March of 2011. I continued to bring 

amendments that cut off funding to sanctuary cities. 

I never believed that there should be a separation between the 

levels of law enforcement in this country. I grew up in a law enforcement family, and I understand the interrelationships that are 

part of the testimony we have heard here today. 

I wrote an op-ed last year dated August 26. It is in the National 

Review: ‘‘The ACLU Reverses the Rule of Law.’’ In it I objected to 

the ICE detainer decision. What has been missing here is that then 

acting director of ICE, Dan Ragsdale, issued a statement, a letter 

to the political jurisdictions on February 25, 2014, that said that 

ICE detainers are not mandatory as a matter of law. And so, this 

is initiated not by ICE reacting to the ACLU’s threat of lawsuits. 
82 

That letter from ICE, contributed to this tragedy that we have here 

before us. And they changed the word ‘‘shall’’ to now it is a suggestion. 

The last sentence in that op-ed says, as I wrote, ‘‘If we bow to 

the outrageous demand of the ACLU and ignore detainer orders, 

the price will be paid by thousands of crime victims who would otherwise have been protected by law.’’ I think we have clearly heard 

today the effect of that, and we have heard it from expert testimony and very painful experiences. 

Mr. Steinle, on the day that I saw the news of your daughter’s 

death, long before I knew it would be a national story, I sent out 

a tweet, and it is dated July 3. And it says this, ‘‘100 percent preventable crime. Just enforce the law. This will make you cry, too.’’ 

And it happens every day. That was the Breitbart article from that 

day, and I sent out a subsequent tweet the following day, and it 

says this: ‘‘This story happens every day in the U.S.’’ 

And as of 2011, 25,064 criminal aliens were arrested for homicide 

in the United States. That is as of the end of 2010. How many 

since then? How big is that number? I look at the report and I do 

the math. That number comes to perhaps 48,000. I look at the 

crimes that have been committed by criminal aliens. This report, 

coupled with a subsequent report, brings us to a number in the 

area of 7,200,000 crimes for perhaps less than around half of that 

many as crime victims. 

The devastation in this country because we refuse to enforce the 

law is breathtaking when you look at the statistics, and it is a tragedy that causes my heart to cry when I see what happened. And 

we knew it. This Congress knew it. I saw it 12 or 13 years ago. 

Many of us have seen it, but because of political desires people that 

gain a political advantage from having the political support, they 

are pandering to and catering to people that they know are 

lawbreakers. And this tragedy was 100 percent preventable. 

I feel like I ought to ask a question, so I want to say, Sheriff 

Jones, I think your testimony has been very specific and well informed. And I would ask if you could comment on what I said 

about ICE detainer orders. 

Sheriff JONES. Yeah, absolutely. First of all, it is important to 

note that even under the Priority Enforcement Program prior removal felonies, any felon conviction, as long it is not aggravated, 

extensive gang activity, and any misdemeanor convictions will not 

get you into the first priority. But even if you were in the first priority, ICE detainers are not working. 

It is naive to believe, to assert, that for the most offensive crimes 

that we are able to hold the person until ICE can get down. Even 

if we notify them, if Ms. Steinle’s murderer were somehow released 

from court today, they would not hold them 1 minute for them to 

get out of custody. I cannot even honor an ICE detainer for the person that killed my officer that is currently in custody. If he were 

to somehow get released or charges dismissed, he would get out before ICE would ever come down to the jail. 

By ICE’s own numbers, their in-custody arrests are down 95 percent over a year ago. That is 95 percent. That is more than just 

folks that are falling in the first priority. That is almost every sin-
83 

gle person escaping a consequence for being in this country illegally 

or whatever crimes they may have committed. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Sheriff. I would just say to the Chairman 

that the families that have suffered this kind of tragedy that it was 

100 percent preventable are becoming the equivalent of gold star 

families here in this country. And I want to honor you and thank 

you. And I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The Chair would now 

recognize the gentleman from Colorado, the former district attorney, Mr. Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sheriff Jones, have long 

have you been with the sheriff’s office? I heard earlier, but I forgot. 

Sheriff JONES. Since 1989. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And in your office or in your jail, I take it that 

you implement a program with ICE. 

Sheriff JONES. We do. We cooperate with ICE to the extent we 

are able to. 

Mr. BUCK. And that program, at least when I was in local law 

enforcement, used to be known as the 297 Program or 287G Program? 

Sheriff JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. BUCK. And it requires you to send some of your deputies to 

be trained with ICE. Is that my understanding? 

Sheriff JONES. There is a training component. I am not certain 

as I sit here today what it is. We have a large jail. We are right 

next to a Federal courthouse, and so we have a pretty handy ICE 

presence in our jail. They are able to be in our jail unlike many 

jails. 

Mr. BUCK. And when I was district attorney, I inquired of ICE 

how they found out about individuals’ nationality and made their 

determination. And I was concerned with profiling issues because 

they were raised to me. My understanding is that ICE asks neutral 

questions to begin their questioning. They will ask something like, 

where were you born, and they will ask that of everyone that they 

interview in custody. Is that your understanding? 

Sheriff JONES. That is correct, but because of Secure Communities and its progeny, they will already have an indication many 

times if there is a fingerprint match, if someone is in the country 

illegally. 

Mr. BUCK. And if they do not have that indication—— 

Sheriff JONES. Right. 

Mr. BUCK [continuing]. They would still ask the neutral question 

of everyone. 

Sheriff JONES. Right. 

Mr. BUCK. They will not just ask people who speak Spanish or 

people who speak a foreign language. They will ask that question 

of everyone that is in custody taken in that day, for example. 

Sheriff JONES. That is correct, or folks that have self-indicated 

that they were born outside of the United States or are here illegally. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And I have seen in my experience changes in 

the morale of the ICE agents that are working there. Many of the 

ICE agents that I deal with feel like they have been handcuffed by 
84 

this Administration recently. Do you have that feeling also with the 

ICE agents that you work with? 

Sheriff JONES. Absolutely I do. The line level officers in both ICE 

and us have the same desire, and that is to keep the community 

safe. They took an oath. They have a mission. They are not being 

allowed to carry out that mission. That morale issue was discussed 

and addressed by the Administration with the raise, but that is not 

what is giving the ICE at the line level poor morale. 

Mr. BUCK. Can you pay a law enforcement officer enough to ignore crime? 

Sheriff JONES. No. 

Mr. BUCK. We do it. I did it or we do it for other reasons. We 

do it because we feel like we make our communities safer. We do 

it because we want to help people around us. We do not do it for 

another $1,000 a year in pay. Is that fair to say? 

Sheriff JONES. Yes. I said earlier, it is a calling. We do not choose 

law enforcement. It chooses us. 

Mr. BUCK. And you have mentioned a statistic that shows decreased crime, but it is also your sense that there is decreased enforcement as a result of changes in Administration policy. 

Sheriff JONES. There is undoubtedly less enforcement on immigration issues and certainly detainers as a result of—— 

Mr. BUCK. And that is what you hear anecdotally from the people 

that you deal with in ICE. 

Sheriff JONES. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. BUCK. Chief Biehl, as part of your job as a—oh, I am sorry. 

I wanted to mention something also, Sheriff Jones. I really appreciate you drawing the distinction between sheriffs and chiefs, and 

it I something that I have noticed. Chiefs are appointed by mayors 

typically or city councils or administrators who work for mayors 

and city councils in urban areas. And they tend to be more liberal, 

and they tend to have more liberal policies. Sheriffs run for election. They deal with individuals. They have a sense of the community that far exceeds, at least in my experience, that of a police 

chief. 

We have had so many times in the Colorado legislature bills that 

have been supported by sheriffs and opposed by chiefs, bill that 

have been supported by chiefs and opposed by sheriffs. Two very 

different spokesmen or women for law enforcement, and I appreciate you drawing that distinction. 

Chief Biehl, I want to ask you really quickly, do you have a task 

force, for example, with DEA when you deal with drug cases? 

Chief BIEHL. Absolutely. 

Mr. BUCK. And in those task forces, you gather intelligence and 

share that intelligence with DEA. 

Chief BIEHL. That is correct. We actually are on the DEA task 

force. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And the same is true if you know of a large gun 

running organization, national gun running, you would share information with ATF. 

Chief BIEHL. That is correct. 

Mr. BUCK. And I take it if you heard of some international terrorist organization, you would share information with the FBI. 
85 

Chief BIEHL. We are a member of the FBI/JTTF, Joint Terrorism 

Task Force. 

Mr. BUCK. And but when your officer shows up at a domestic violence situation, what you are telling me is they do not make inquiries about nationality, and they would not share information if they 

had a suspicion about someone being in this country illegally. 

Chief BIEHL. For the victim, absolutely not. In fact, what we do 

is try to work with victims to have an advocate work with them 

and see if they are eligible for a U visa application. So that is one 

of the community partnerships we have. If the person is a suspect, 

it would really depend on the circumstances if the insistence of the 

immigration would be helpful in our investigation. Did it bring 

something additional to the table that will help us in this case or 

not? We have the authority to act on that case and take that person into custody. When they get to jail, they will be screened 

through ICE. 

Mr. BUCK. I am out of time, but you distinguish between the various types of crime and how you interact with the Federal Government. 

Chief BIEHL. Correct. Correct. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Colorado yields back. The 

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the former 

U.S. attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steinle, as the father of two daughters, I cannot begin to comprehend the grief that 

you have endured over the last 3 weeks. And I would like to join 

all of my colleagues, many of them, in expressing my deepest condolences to you and to your entire family. 

Can I ask you whether in the last 3 weeks President Obama has 

expressed his condolences to you? 

Mr. STEINLE. I did not hear the question. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Can I ask you if in the last 3 weeks President 

Obama has expressed his condolences to you or your family? 

Mr. STEINLE. [Nonverbal negative response.] 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, I am very sorry to hear that. When there 

have been other very public deaths in this country, like Michael 

Brown and Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray, the President has 

expressed his condolences to the family. I would have expected him 

to do that here. He did more than express his condolences in those 

cases. He had a lot to say about those circumstances I think because they tied into policies that he cared about like gun control 

and alleged police profiling. And yet when one of his policies with 

respect to immigration enforcement is at the root of a problem here 

that we are all discussing today, we do not hear anything from 

him, and you did not hear anything from him. 

About the kindest thing I can say about that is that is incredibly 

disheartening and troubling to me because I very much believe that 

the loss that you have experienced is unacceptable if for no other 

reason that it was entirely preventable had the immigration laws 

in our country been enforced. And this Administration has, frankly, 

refused to uphold the law, and its inaction has emboldened cities 

across the country like San Francisco to ignore and, in some cases, 

actually obstruct enforcement of our immigration laws. And we all 
86 

know that the status quo is not working, and since the Administration is not going to apparently do anything about that, Congress 

has to step in and act. 

You know, today the House is expected to vote on a bill that 

would deny certain Federal funds to sanctuary cities, and I do 

think that is a good first step. I agree with Ms. Vaughan that that 

is all it is, that it is just a good first step and that we certainly 

have to do more, and that we have to have the courage and conviction not just to do more, but to do what is right. 

So, Ms. Vaughan, let me ask you a question. In your testimony, 

you noted that detainers have been used for decades and have been 

viewed by law enforcement as mandatory rather than just optional. 

In your opinion, what do you think is at the root of this dramatic 

departure from prior interpretations? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I believe that this whole series of events of more 

and more jurisdictions becoming sanctuaries was set off by the policy change at ICE to suddenly declare that detainers were optional. 

In this letter that Mr. King referred to from Dan Ragsdale to just 

suddenly declare that they were optional, not mandatory, with no 

legal foundation whatsoever that to my knowledge has ever been 

made public as to what, you know, legal reasoning they had for 

changing that policy. 

But once that was done, that then provided legal cover for all of 

these other jurisdictions around the country to change their policies 

to stop complying with the detainers. And it also provided an opening for groups like the ACLU to threaten litigation against those 

sheriffs who are complying with detainers. And I think that is why 

it is very important that language such as that in the Davis-Oliver 

Act be included in any effort to address the sanctuaries to protect 

those law enforcement agencies that are doing the right thing and 

complying with all detainers all the time so that they are not going 

to be held responsible. 

Knowing that ICE’s policy nowadays is not to assist them in litigation, even if it is ICE’s mistake, we have to give them cover, and 

protection, and qualified immunity to do the right thing in these 

cases in complying with detainers. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan, and I appreciate you 

being here. I found your testimony earlier compelling. Sheriff 

Jones, I found yours compelling as well, and I would like to give 

you an opportunity because you talked about this same issue about 

detainers being interpreted as mandatory previously rather than 

just requests. And I would like to ask you the same question about 

whether you have an opinion about what has caused this dramatic 

shift. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman is out of time, Sheriff, but you may 

answer the gentleman’s question. 

Sheriff JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clearly it is policy differences, and obviously as the Member pointed out, these policy 

and the preferences came about long before the decision in 

Clackamas County, Oregon. That was just a catalyst and vehicle 

for them to make that a nationwide policy shift. 

You have to understand that the DHS assistant secretary over 

State and local law enforcement is Heather Fong. She is the former 

police chief of San Francisco. So not saying anything about her 
87 

competence as police chief or in the position she currently holds, 

but that does give you some insight into the political will and 

mindset of this Administration. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here, and 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair thanks the former U.S. attorney, and recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Trott. 

Mr. TROTT. I thank the Chair for organizing this hearing today, 

and all the witnesses for sharing their insight. I also want to thank 

my good friend from Texas for his question. Mr. Steinle, I was 

going to ask you if the President had reached out to you, but I decided not to do that because I assumed that, of course, he had done 

that. So I am sorry that has not happened. 

I thank you for your courage in being here today, and I, too, hope 

this is just a beginning. And my question is to Ms. Vaughan. One 

of my concerns is I am going to support H.R. 3009. I am going to 

vote for it this afternoon. But it really has to be just the beginning 

because it targets about $800 million of money for law enforcement. 

And my concern, and I would like you to speak to it, is it has 

to be just a first step because many times law enforcement, sheriffs, and police chiefs are following the directive of a city council, 

or a mayor, or a county commission. And I think we have to go further upstream and withhold TIGER grant money for road funding 

for sanctuary cities that decide to ignore Federal law. I think we 

have to make the repercussions of a sanctuary city deciding to ignore Federal law much more severe than H.R. 3009. Can you give 

you any suggestions or thoughts in that regard? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, again, I think the language that is in the 

Davis-Oliver Act is very comprehensive in addressing this problem. 

I do agree with you that, you know, money talks. In most cases, 

sanctuary policies are not something that law enforcement agencies 

ask for. They are imposed on them usually by political elected officials. And so, but money is a way to target them that we can come 

up with objective ways to define what a sanctuary is. And I think 

it should be a jurisdiction that does not comply with all detainers 

all the time for all types of people who are removable, whether they 

have committed serious crimes or not. 

And I do think that the policies of the Obama administration in 

enabling sanctuary jurisdictions and greatly restricting what ICE 

agents can do, despite the plain language of the law, also ought to 

be given attention through legislation from Congress because we 

know that the Administration is not going to make an effort. They 

have said as much. They are not going to address this on their 

own. And so, Congress needs to reassert its constitutional authority 

over these matters. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you. Chief Biehl, during your testimony you 

commented that, you know, resources are finite. It is difficult for 

police departments to balance the different needs, and the Federal 

immigration laws on some level are a distraction perhaps in balancing all the different demands on your police officers. That is 

true of so many things today in State and Federal Government, so 

it is not unique to whether we should enforce our immigration 

laws. Do you agree with that? 
88 

Chief BIEHL. I think it raises the issue of where we spend our 

enforcement resources always. How do we prioritize what we do? 

In fact, that is what every police chief and every sheriff across this 

country does. That is what the Federal administration is attempting to do. I would believe as it relates to immigration and enforcement policy to try to do everything, we do nothing well. So we focus 

and are very strategic in how we deploy resources. That is how we 

are effective. 

Mr. TROTT. But if we boil it down where we are talking about 

with respect to today’s tragedy that led to this hearing is a phone 

call, right? 

Chief BIEHL. I think I have already testified to the effect that the 

notification should have been made. In fact, I think we need to 

move just a little back upstream that the Federal Government had 

the capability to act on that deportation without ever involving San 

Francisco authorities. And I have not heard that comment much 

today. The authority existed. The capability and ability to take action existed, and somehow that is not being recognized I think. 

Mr. TROTT. In your testimony you kind of suggested that sanctuary cities maybe are helpful insofar as unlawful immigrants are 

not afraid to report crimes. Ms. Vaughan disagrees with that, suggests it is a myth. Do you want to comment on that? 

Chief BIEHL. I think we just see this differently. Mine is based 

on my actual experience with my city, so I yield to my experience. 

Mr. TROTT. Sheriff Jones, the President’s policy is just to seek 

custody of folks that have been convicted of crimes, not charged. Do 

you want to comment on that? 

Sheriff JONES. Well, I can say that the only vehicle for that to 

happen, the only vehicle for the Federal Government or ICE to be 

notified of that is the detainer process. And as I have tried to illustrate, the detainer process is not working. We are not able to honor 

ICE detainers for 1 second after the local charges are cleared. 

Now, if someone is sentenced to local time, doing time in jail, 

then ICE can have a pretty decent idea, relatively accurate idea of 

when they are getting out. And for those folks it might still be effective. But for the 58,000 people that I book in my jail every year 

that overwhelmingly mostly get out on their own recognizance, bail 

perhaps, they are able to bail, they get released from court, that 

happens with no notice or warning to ICE, and they do not have 

the ability to run down to the jail before I have to release them. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you, Sheriff. And, Mr. Steinle, I will close with 

this. I am out of time. But the head of Amtrak apparently could 

not find time a few months back after the tragedy in Philadelphia 

to call the eight families that were affected by that. So apparently 

there is a pattern and practice here in Washington of people not 

being considerate of the tragedies that affect our citizens. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Michigan yields back. The 

Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Steinle, I want to thank you for beautifully capturing the essence of your daughter was. And I have read everything that I can 

get my hands on, and I last night watched the clips of various family members describing your daughter, and she is precisely the 
89 

kind of person that our country desperately needs. So I want to 

thank you for sharing her with us today. 

Mr. STEINLE. If I may, I would like to recognize my sisters here 

in grief that supported us during this. They have been there, done 

that, and we are going to carry this forward, and hopefully some 

good will come from Kate’s death. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, which is a perfect segue. I was going to 

thank Chief Biehl and Sheriff Jones and ask that they specifically 

tell the women and men that work with them how grateful all of 

us for folks who go into that profession and that calling. And I suspect that both the chief, and the sheriff, and the women and men 

that work with them would tell you that there are lots of really 

hard parts of being in law enforcement. The crime scene photos 

never leave your head. You never get them out. The crimes scenes 

themselves you never get out. 

But the hardest part for most law enforcement officers that I 

have talked to is having to talk to the families, like the four ladies 

sitting right behind you because they have got really good questions. Why? Why did this happen? How did this happen? And those 

questions go all the way up to the theological. Those are not just 

law enforcement questions. They are life altering, lifelong questions. So tell the folks that you work with how grateful we are. 

Sheriff, this is something that I am struggling to understand. 

ICE had probable cause for Mr. Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, correct? 

I mean, he is a five-time convicted illegal entrant. I think even 

some of the members of this panel could have won that case in 

court. So they had probable cause. 

Sheriff JONES. That is my understanding. 

Mr. GOWDY. Why not a warrant? Why a detainer? 

Sheriff JONES. You know, I would not claim to be an insider into 

the dynamics. I have talked to some of my friends in ICE about 

that particular case. There were certainly failures, but it is an 

overarching policy-level decision to not challenge or enforce the existing immigration laws or challenge contrary laws that led, at 

least in part, to the release of this suspect. 

Mr. GOWDY. But surely even sanctuary cities like San Francisco 

would have to honor a Federal warrant. 

Sheriff JONES. Clearly. 

Mr. GOWDY. Because the Bureau of Prisons honored a local warrant. 

Sheriff JONES. Yes, and we had this discussion about why do you 

not just create the detainer process into somewhat of a probable 

cause declaration and have them reviewed by a magistrate. It is 

case load prohibitive, but there are 93 Federal districts in this 

country, including three territorial district courts. And if we were 

to supply one additional magistrate to each of those districts, I am 

sure they could handle the workload of reviewing the probable 

cause detainer declarations. These things are easily fixable. There 

just has to be a desire and the political will to be able to do that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I want to give you one other way to fix it, 

Chief, and I will go to you for this one. San Francisco wound up 

dismissing that warrant, correct? 
90 

Chief BIEHL. And I would have expected that. Quite honestly in 

my experience, I would be shocked if that case would have gone 

forward. 

Mr. GOWDY. But they could have dismissed it while he was halfway through his Federal prison sentence. 

Chief BIEHL. Absolutely. 

Mr. GOWDY. They could have dismissed it when he had a month 

to go on his Federal prison sentence. 

Chief BIEHL. That is correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. They could have dismissed it at any point in his 

Federal prison sentence. Therefore, he never would have been returned to the City of San Francisco. 

Chief BIEHL. That is a fact. 

Mr. GOWDY. And if I were Mr. Steinle, those are some of the 

question that I probably would be asking is you knew you were 

going to dismiss this warrant. You knew that. Hell, I am not even 

sure drugs are still illegal in San Francisco. So you knew that case 

was not going to be prosecuted. Why did you wait until he was in 

your custody to dismiss it, leading to this result? 

All right. I want to move to one other thing. To both my law enforcement officers, have you ever noticed throughout the pendency 

of your careers that folks start with misdemeanors, and then they 

kind of work their way up to aggravated misdemeanors, and then 

they get into felonies. Rarely do you go from zero to 100 miles an 

hour. Rarely. And when you do go from zero to 100 miles an hour 

and commit a murder or a sexual assault or a kidnapping, you are 

in jail. If you have got a decent prosecutor and a halfway decent 

case, those folks are already locked up. 

So since we accept the fact that you do not go from zero to 100, 

I think we are missing the boat if we focus solely on felonies when 

it comes to background checks for folks who want to be in this 

country. Look, all misdemeanors are not the same. Speeding is a 

violation. DUI is worse. Recidivist DUIs are worse. Property damage DUI is even worse. Personal injury DUI is even worse. I get 

all that. But this obsession that we have with only felons, we can 

only deport felons. Sheriff, has that been your experience, that people who commit misdemeanors always learn their lessons and 

never graduate? 

Sheriff JONES. Clearly some do, but the best predictor of future 

behavior is past behavior. And I think there are studies that will 

demonstrate that generally is an escalation of criminality, especially when you do not have the consequences to try and deter the 

behavior. And it is not just felonies that are getting deported. It is 

only aggravated felonies. So there are many felony convictions that 

escape scrutiny whatsoever, even under the highest priority of the 

Priority Enforcement Program. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. I am out of time, but I want to ask one 

final question because this deals with broader issues of immigration. I want to assume for the sake of argument that there are 11 

million undocumented folks in the country. Let us assume that. 

And I do not know what the percentage is. Ms. Vaughan, maybe 

you do. Of that 11 million, what percentage have either felony or 

what we could consider to be serious misdemeanor criminal histories? 
91 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I do not know the exact answer to that. ICE estimates that there are more than 2 million criminal aliens in the 

United States. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Let us do this. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Twenty-nine million are removable because some 

of them have green cards. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, let us do this. Just for the sake of conservatism, let us cut that in half. Let us say it is a million. Let us err 

on the side of being conservative. What is the Administration’s 

plan for removing those 1 million? To wait until they reoffend? 

Does anyone know the plan? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GOWDY. This is not a rhetorical question. I am honestly asking if the strategy is to wait until those 1 million reoffend. Somebody is going to be apologizing to a whole lot of moms and dads. 

Is there another strategy that either of the law enforcement professionals or Ms. Vaughan, is there a strategy other than simply waiting for that 1 million to reoffend? 

If you cannot ask about status, if you cannot place a detainer, 

how are we going to identify that universe, however small it may 

be? If you are Mr. Steinle, it does not matter if it is one. What is 

our plan to identify that universe before they reoffend? Not all at 

once. 

Chief BIEHL. Mr. Chairman, I just would suggest that the Federal Government, ICE, certainly should have an idea based on their 

database, which is not shared with local law enforcement, of who 

those individuals are and who poses significant risk. And they have 

the ability to take action, and if they need the assistance of local 

law enforcement, they certainly can request that. 

Mr. GOWDY. When you say ‘‘take action,’’ you mean wait for them 

to do something else wrong where they interact with law enforcement? 

Chief BIEHL. They have the ability to take proactive action just 

like any police officer does. 

Mr. GOWDY. But there are less ICE agents than there are officers 

in certain big cities in the United States. There are 5,000. All right. 

I am out of time. I cannot ask about U visas. I will close in just 

a second. 

I want to recognize my colleague from California for any closing 

remarks she may have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would like to 

ask unanimous consent to put in the record the priorities for removal. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Ms. LOFGREN. There have been several comments made her that 

are just not correct. The priorities for removal are Priority 1A, B, 

C, D, and E, and Priority 2A and B. And what that is, terrorism, 

gang, any felony as well as any aggravated felony. Under Priority 

2, and this is equal with 1, three or more misdemeanors other than 

traffic, and significant misdemeanors, which includes a single DUI, 

no matter when that offense was included. Those are all priorities 

for removal. 

I would just note that no system is perfect, and clearly there was 

a failure here in San Francisco. I mean, there is no question about 

that. I think your question about the warrant is a good one and one 

we ought to explore. One of the reasons I think every jurisdiction 

has a multiplicity of bench warrants that have been issues, and 

there generally is no process for going back and taking a look at 

old bench warrants to see whether they ought to be dismissed. 

Maybe that is part of the answer. 

On the other hand, if the bench warrant was not for a drug offense but for a rape, you would not want that dismissed. So, you 

know, we need to sort through with some granularity to make sure 

that we are actually solving a problem and not creating new ones. 

And I would just close with saying that although the system is 

far from perfect, it is often the case that individuals who have either no status or they gain status who commit an offense are the 

subject of enforcement action. In fat, I have met a number of people 

who are legal permanent residents of the United States who have 

lost their legal permanent residence because they have been convicted of a crime that allows them to be removed. So I am not saying it is perfect, but it is far from rare. 

I think that as we move forward in this, we have plenty of questions and an opportunity to work together to make sure that this 

whole system works better for the safety of our community. And I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. And with respect to the 

warrants, the gentlelady is exactly right. I do want them enforced, 

particularly if there is a victim involved. But it is really easy. You 

just tell the prosecutor and the local law enforcement agency you 

have X amount of time with which to resolve this warrant. You can 

try it. You can plead it. You can dismiss it. That is up to you. But 

you are going to return this person back to the Agency or entity 

from which they came. You are not going to release them. That is 

an easy fix. Give California, give San Francisco 30 days. It is 20 

years old. Good luck finding the witnesses. My concern more is that 

all of that could have been done while that person was serving a 

prison sentence. All of it could have been done. 

So let me just in closing, Chief Biehl, Sheriff Jones, I want to tell 

you, I think you have got folks on task forces. I do not know if you 

have folks on task forces that are not. They are probably Federal 

task forces. They may be RICO. They may be OCDETF. Those are 

pretty complex matters, too, if you have ever tried to unlock a Federal RICO case. Hell, for that matter State DUI laws are 16 pages 

long, and your guys are smart enough to do DUI laws. So I reject 

the notion that somehow immigration law is too complex for State 

and local law enforcement. 
99 

But I want to end the same way I started, Mr. Steinle, by thanking you for your courage. For those of us that are parents or, frankly, even if you are not a parent, I could not do what you have done. 

I could not have the grace. I could not do it. So thank you. 

Mr. STEINLE. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Vaughan, thank you. And, Sheriff Jones and 

Chief Biehl, if you would be kind enough to let the women and men 

that work with you know how grateful we are for their service. 

With that, Members have 5 legislative days to put whatever they 

want in the record and with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ