HINDER THE ADMINISTRATION'S LEGALIZATION TEMPTATION (HALT) ACT
[House Hearing, 112 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] HINDER THE ADMINISTRATION'S LEGALIZATION TEMPTATION (HALT) ACT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2497 __________ JULY 26, 2011 __________ Serial No. 112-50 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67-575 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DENNIS ROSS, Florida SANDY ADAMS, Florida BEN QUAYLE, Arizona [Vacant] Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel ------ Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico DENNIS ROSS, Florida George Fishman, Chief Counsel David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- JULY 26, 2011 Page THE BILL H.R. 2497, the ``Hinder the Administration's Legalization Temptation (HALT) Act''........................................ 3 OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1 The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary....... 8 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 9 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary...................................................... 10 WITNESSES Chris Crane, President, National ICE Council Oral Testimony................................................. 17 Prepared Statement............................................. 20 Jessica M. Vaughan, Policy Director, Center for Immigration Studies Oral Testimony................................................. 29 Prepared Statement............................................. 32 Margaret D. Stock, Adjunct Professor, University of Alaska- Anchorage Oral Testimony................................................. 39 Prepared Statement............................................. 42 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Prepared Statement of the Honorable David Vitter, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.................................... 14 Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 66 APPENDIX Material Submitted for the Hearing Record Prepared Statement of Richard T. Foltin, Esq., Director of National and Legislative Affairs, Office of Government and International Affairs, American Jewish Committee............... 107 Letter from Nelson Peacock, Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security...... 109 HINDER THE ADMINISTRATION'S LEGALIZATION TEMPTATION (HALT) ACT ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:11 p.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Gohmert, Gowdy, Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, and Pierluisi. Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Marian White, Clerk; and (Minority) Hunter Hammill, USCIS Detailee. Mr. Gallegly. I call to order the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. Good afternoon. Two weeks ago, Ranking Member Lofgren held a press conference to denounce the HALT Act. Last week, 75 Democrats sent a letter to President Obama to tell him that they would work to sustain a veto on this bill. The HALT Act, if enacted, would prevent the Obama administration from engaging in the mass legalization of illegal immigrants. Clearly, the lines are drawn between those who support upholding the laws of the United States and those who believe they should be ignored. Immigration advocacy groups have been working for years to convince Congress to pass mass amnesty legislation for illegal immigrants. Upon the failure of those efforts, they have been trying to convince the Administration to bypass Congress and administratively legalize millions of illegal immigrants. These groups have apparently made headway. Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued two memos that laid the groundwork for just such a mass legalization. We will hear from witnesses today about the pressures that ICE officers are now under to refrain from enforcing immigration laws. In reaction, Chairman Smith and Senator Vitter introduced the HALT Act, and amnesty advocacy groups have strongly condemned the bill. Congress simply cannot allow the Administration to grant parole or deferred action, except in narrow circumstances. Congress cannot allow the Administration to grant extended voluntary departure or cancellation of removal, to grant work authorization except where authorized by law, to grant temporary protective status, or to waive the bars of admissibility for immigrants who are here illegally. How do we handle extraordinary humanitarian situations that are bound to occur in the interim? Congress can always act by passing private bills to help non-U.S. citizens in the U.S. or outside the U.S. when we deem it wise, just, and prudent. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. And at this point, we expect the Ranking Member here shortly. But until she comes, I will defer to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, the author of the bill. The bill, H.R. 2497, follows:] __________ Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American people have called upon Congress to defeat several amnesty bills in recent years. Following Congress' rejection of these attempts, the current Administration now wants to grant a ``backdoor amnesty'' to illegal immigrants. What had once been rumor fueled by leaked Administration memos is now official Department of Homeland Security policy as of last month. The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued two directives on the scope of DHS officers' prosecutorial discretion that could allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid our immigration laws. The memos tell agency officials when to exercise prosecutorial discretion, such as when to defer the removal of immigrants, when not to stop, question, arrest, or detain an immigrant, and when to dismiss a removal proceeding. The directives also tell officials not to seek to remove illegal immigrants who have been present illegally for many years. Millions of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. since the 1990's. So the ICE directives literally apply to millions of illegal immigrants. DHS's plan to open the door to mass administrative amnesty is a rejection of Congress' constitutional rights and shows utter disdain toward the wishes of the American people. Prosecutorial discretion is justifiable when used responsibly. In fact, I and others asked Clinton administration INS Commissioner Doris Meissner to issue guidelines recognizing that ``true hardship cases [involving legal, not illegal, immigrants] should exercise discretion.'' Commissioner Meissner did so, but she was careful to point out that prosecutorial discretion ``must be used responsibly'' and that ``exercising prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the INS's commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the best of our ability. It is not an invitation to violate or ignore the law.'' Just this March, Meissner stated that, ``Prosecutorial discretion should be exercised on a case-by-case basis, and should not be used to immunize entire categories of noncitizens from immigration enforcement.'' Unfortunately, the ICE memos make clear that DHS plans not to use but to abuse these powers. If the Obama administration has its way, millions of illegal immigrants will be able to live and work legally in the United States. This unilateral decision will saddle American communities with the costs of providing education and medical care to illegal immigrants. It will also place our communities at risk by not deporting criminal immigrants. As a result, Senator Vitter and I introduced the HALT Act. This legislation prevents the Obama administration from abusing its authority to grant a mass administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants. The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws it will enforce. Congress must put a halt to the Administration's backdoor amnesty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. Mr. Gallegly. The gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member, my good friend Ms. Lofgren? Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill we are considering today is irresponsible and blatantly political. Bills in Congress sometimes have no basis in fact, but this one takes that to a whole new level. It is designed around a conspiracy theory that really boggles the mind. And if I weren't sitting here, I wouldn't believe that the U.S. Congress would actually waste time and money on such a bill, but here we sit. According to the majority, the bill is a response to a series of recent ICE memos that lay out immigration enforcement priorities and provide guidance on the use of agency discretion to best meet those priorities. Actually, anyone who reads the memos will see there is nothing sinister about them. Like every other law enforcement agency on the planet, ICE has limited resources, and it must lay out enforcement priorities so that resources are not squandered. As crazy as it sounds, these memos put terrorists, criminals, and otherwise dangerous individuals at the top of that list. If we can only deport a limited number of people, around 400,000 this year, the memos say, then ICE should focus its resources on those who would do us harm. That is just common sense. But rather than see common sense, the majority apparently sees a diabolical plot. They allege a grand scheme to avoid enforcing immigration laws, even while the Obama administration has set all-time records with respect to removals, prosecution of immigration violations, worksite enforcement actions, fines, jail time, and assets at the border. In 1999, a number of congressmen sent a letter to former Attorney General Reno stressing the importance of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context, asking her to issue necessary guidance. In that letter, the congressmen cited, ``Widespread agreement that some deportations were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship,'' and they asked why the INS pursued removal in such cases when so many other more serious cases existed. They urged for a prioritization of enforcement resources, asking the Attorney General to develop INS guidelines for the use of its prosecutorial discretion similar to those used by U.S. attorneys. The letter was signed by the current Chair of our Judiciary Committee, as well as many other very conservative Members of the House, including former Chair Henry Hyde, former Chair Jim Sensenbrenner, Brian Bilbray, Nathan Deal, Sam Johnson, and David Dreier. I guess prosecutorial discretion wasn't so bad back then. Ironically, it was the 1999 letter signed by the Chairman that started the chain of events that lead us to the two ICE memos at issue today. Months after Chairman Smith signed the letter asking for guidance, guidance finally came. Memos outlining guidelines for the use of prosecutorial discretion were issued by the INS general counsel in July of 2000 and then issued by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner in November of 2000 and later issued by the first ICE Director Julie Myers in November of 2007. These early memos are the predecessors of the two memos the majority is complaining about today. The majority never said anything about those earlier memos or the factors listed in those memos until now. In a recent ``Dear Colleague'' letter seeking support for the HALT Act, Chairman Smith questions many of the factors listed by ICE for exercising discretion, focusing on certain factors, such as length of presence in the U.S., family ties, whether a person is DREAM Act eligible, as clearly indicating the Administration's plan to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants. But these factors are not new in any way. They are the same factors we have been considering for years. In fact, length of presence, family ties, entry during childhood have been specifically listed as positive factors for agency discretion since they were first listed in the memos published by INS in 2000 in response to the Chairman's letter. By eliminating prosecutorial discretion, it says that ICE cannot prioritize criminals over the spouses of soldiers. It says that ICE must go after innocent children the same way it goes after murderers and rapists. That is absurd, and so is this bill. If this bill were the law, we could not grant waivers to the spouses of U.S. citizens who would suffer extreme hardship if they were separated; parole to the U.S. widows so they could attend the funerals of spouses killed in action while serving in our military; parole in orphan children to be with their U.S. citizen grandparents; parole in orphans being adopted by United States citizens, as we did after the Haitian earthquake; grant TPS in case another catastrophe like the Haiti earthquake were to happen again; grant deferred action to victims of human trafficking and violent sexual abuse; parole in child bomb victims in Iraq who need prosthetic limbs; or prevent businesspeople from getting--who are lawfully present in the United States from getting advance parole so they can do their business abroad and be able to return home to work. You know, in the District of Columbia, it is a crime to engage in prostitution. In July of 2007, Ms. Deborah Palfrey, known as the ``D.C. madam,'' who had been convicted under this statute, published her phone records indicating that one of our witnesses was her client. Later, Senator Vitter said, ``This was a very serious sin in my past, for which I am, of course, completely responsible.'' Under the D.C. criminal statute related to solicitation, the Senator could have faced 90 to 180 days for each solicitation, but he never faced trial. In fact, prosecutors never brought charges. Sure looks like he benefitted from prosecutorial discretion. I would not mention this incident today if it didn't expose the hypocrisy of seeking to prevent the use of discretion to benefit others when one has enjoyed the benefit himself. Now I notice that Senator Vitter has not, in fact, showed up today, but we do have his testimony. It is a part of our record. And I think it really takes the cake to get the benefit of discretion and urge that it be denied to others. With that, I yield back. Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers? Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Chairman Smith. This is an unusual matter. H.R. 2497, the ``Hinder the Administration's Legalization Temptation Act.'' Could I yield to anyone to tell me whose title that is? Was it originated by Members of Congress or some brilliant staff person? Did you want me to yield to you? Mr. Gallegly. I can't answer that question. Mr. Smith. I will be happy to respond to the gentleman, if he wants to yield? Mr. Conyers. Of course. Mr. Smith. We thought that was a particularly appropriate acronym, H-A-L-T. And I won't say who we should give the credit to, but it was obviously a creative mind. But it so happens that acronym is very, very appropriate, since we are trying to halt the Administration's efforts to engage in backdoor amnesty. And thank you for yielding. Mr. Conyers. Well, that is fine. I just--Hinder the Administration's Legalization Act of Immigration. That would have been a title I wouldn't raise an eyebrow about, but the Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act? I have never heard the word ``temptation'' involved in a title of a bill in my years in the Congress. But there is always a first time. So this is it. If anybody ever uses that word again, with or without an acronym, I will remember that it started in the House Judiciary Committee by some unknown creative mind. [Laughter.] So the majority, and particularly my dear friend, the Chairman of the Committee, full Committee, my friend Lamar Smith, thinks President Obama cannot be trusted with the authority that every other President has had. The bill's sunset date, January 21, 2013, says that Obama is such a great threat that he and only he must have his authority withdrawn. So this is not an attack on the presidency, but an attack on the President himself. And I am just wondering am I being overcritical? And I would yield to anyone who suggests that maybe this is not the case. This is not an attack on the office of the President. This is an attack on Barack Obama himself. Now---- Mr. Smith. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to clarify that, if I could? Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir. Mr. Smith. This is not a personal attack on any individual. What it is, is an effort to halt what many of us perceive as being abusive executive decisions that would lead to the backdoor amnesty that I think we would like to prevent. And in this particular instance, it is this President who, in my judgment, who has been abusing the privileges of the Administration. I would be happy to have this apply to any other President in the future. It just so happens that the individual who is serving as President today is the one whose officials within the Administration are abusing the process. And that is the purpose of the bill is to stop those kinds of procedures. Mr. Conyers. Well, I thank you, Lamar Smith, for that explanation. Do you want me to yield to you? Mr. Gallegly. No. I was just going to ask a question. Mr. Conyers. Sure. Mr. Gallegly. Maybe it is a rhetorical question, but if it is, forgive me. When you alluded to January 2013, were you conceding that that would be the end of President Obama's presidential career? Mr. Conyers. Well, much to your sorrow, no. [Laughter.] Mr. Gallegly. Just checking. Mr. Conyers. That is what the bill says. The bill's sunset date is January. They are assuming that perhaps they won't have this President that endorses backdoor immigration won't be here. Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Conyers. Yes. May I have an additional 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Gallegly. Without objection. Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir. And I yield to Zoe Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding. I would just note that the Department of Homeland Security, during the last 2 years of the Bush administration, averaged 29,343 grants of deferred action and parole a year. For the first 2 years of the Obama administration, the average was 27,800 of grants of deferred action and parole a year, actually less than the Bush administration. So this, you know, drama of--I mean, I actually personally wish it were more. But it is less. There have been more deportations and less grants of parole and deferred action under the Obama administration than under the Bush administration. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Conyers. Thanks, Zoe. Lamar, did you know that? You couldn't have known that and then written the kind of statement and bill that you have written. I think the basic premise of the bill is that President Obama cannot be trusted to enforce our immigration laws, and I think that is just plain wrong and very unfair to the President, as Ms. Lofgren has pointed out. In the first 2 fiscal years under President Obama, the Department of Homeland Security deported more than 779,000 people. These are record numbers and an 18 percent increase over President George Bush's last 2 years in office. Lamar, did you know that? Because if you did, you couldn't possibly be saying that the President can't be trusted to enforce our immigration laws. Mr. Smith. Well, if the gentleman will yield? The President may be enforcing some of the laws. My point is that he is not enforcing all the laws. And if you want to look to comparisons, look at this current Administration compared to the Bush administration when it comes to worksite enforcement, which is down 70 percent in just 2 years. So, clearly, this President is not taking advantage of the various immigration laws. And in this particular case, we are talking about the application of administrative amnesty possibly to millions of individuals. That was never contemplated by any other Administration. And when we talked about the previous Administration, we talked about prior uses of prosecutorial discretion. In the case of the letter that I wrote--and I don't think the gentlewoman from California was present when I mentioned it, or she wouldn't have said what she did and she would have had the facts. The letter that was referred to mentioned specifically legal permanent residents. It does not apply to illegal immigrants. And it also was on a case-by-case basis, not giving whole groups of individuals administrative amnesty. So I am afraid that that letter can't be relied upon or used in the way that the gentlewoman from California was trying to use it. I will yield back. Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. We have three distinguished witnesses today. In response to the comment that the Ranking Member made as it related to Senator Vitter, Senator Vitter was here. And because of the delay of getting started, almost an hour, he could not stay. As a result of that, without objection, his written statement will be entered into the record of the hearing. [The prepared statement of Mr. Vitter follows:] __________ Mr. Gallegly. The remaining witnesses are as follows. We have Mr. Chris Crane, who currently serves as the president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees. He has been working as an immigration enforcement agent for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security since 2003. In his capacity as an immigration enforcement officer, he worked in the Criminal Alien Program for approximately 5 years and also served as a member of an ICE fugitive operation team. Prior to his service at ICE, Chris served for 11 years in the United States Marine Corps. Ms. Jessica Vaughan serves as the policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies. She has been with the center since 1991, and her area of expertise is in the Administration and implementation of immigration policy, covering such topics as visa programs, immigration benefits, and immigration law enforcement. Prior to joining the center, Ms. Vaughan was a Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State. She holds a master's degree from Georgetown University and a bachelor's degree from Washington College in Maryland. Our third witness, Ms. Margaret Stock, is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alaska in Anchorage. Professor Stock has frequently testified before Congress on issues relating to immigration and national security and has authored numerous articles on immigration and citizenship topics. She is a retired military officer and recently concluded service as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on Immigration Policy. Professor Stock taught at the U.S. military academy at West Point, New York, from June 2001 until June 2010. Welcome to all of you. We will start with you, Mr. Crane. TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ICE COUNCIL Mr. Crane. Good afternoon, Chairman Gallegly, Members of the Committee. On June 25, 2010, ICE union leaders publicly issued a unanimous vote of no confidence in Director John Morton. To my knowledge, it is the only time in ICE or INS history that officers and employees of enforcement removal operations issued a no confidence vote in their leadership. These unprecedented acts by ICE employees should send a loud, clear message that something is seriously wrong at ICE. ICE union leaders are in the media like never before, speaking out about gross mismanagement and matters of public safety, warning that ICE and DHS are misleading the public. And mislead the public they do. A Federal judge recently stated, ``There is ample evidence that ICE and DHS have gone out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities.'' It is reported that the DHS Office of Inspector General will be investigating claims that ICE leadership misled public officials regarding the program. To be clear, ICE officers disagree with efforts to end the Secure Communities Program. But to be equally clear, we abhor the actions of any agency official who lies to or misleads the American public. That is why, in the union's vote of no confidence 13 months ago, we reported ICE's misleading of the public, specifically citing the Secure Communities Program as an example. Federal judges, law enforcement agencies, State representatives, special interest groups, ICE officers in the field, everyone says there is an integrity issue with ICE leadership. That is exactly where this conversation has to begin. Does ICE leadership need oversight? The answer is yes. There needs to be oversight. There needs to be transparency. I was recently appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Committee on Secure Communities. While ICE states that there are immigration agents, plural, on the committee, I am the only one. Approximately 50 percent of the committee's members appear to be immigrants advocates. Not one committee member is a public advocate for reforms through stronger enforcement. A solid majority of members appear to favor the immigrants advocacy viewpoint. The appearance is that ICE has selected a stacked deck for this committee. Most alarming to me, on the second day of our first meeting, the committee was told that our findings and recommendations had been written for us, when we hadn't even begun discussion of either. Members of the Committee protested, but the Chairman overruled the group. When I requested that the agency's misleading of the public regarding Secure Communities be included in the findings, it was not permitted. While I deeply respect the Members of the Committee as individuals, I am troubled by the Committee's activities and the methods used by ICE to select its members. In my opinion, efforts must be made to provide oversight and transparency to the activities of DHS and ICE regarding this Committee. However, oversight and transparency may be most needed with regard to ICE's law enforcement programs. Virtually all of ICE's enforcement policies should be public, but ICE leadership refuses to put many directives in writing because they don't want the public to know that ICE agents and officers, as an example, are under orders not to arrest certain groups of aliens, that officers generally don't have prosecutorial discretion, that ICE is ordering this to happen. Other policies that ICE puts in writing are misleading, much in the same way the Secure Communities Program was publicly misleading. The new prosecutorial discretion memo has been publicly spun by ICE as giving ICE officers more discretion when, in reality, it takes away discretion. It has been advertised as better utilizing limited ICE manpower resources, when, in fact, it has the potential to overwhelm officers with more work. The policy cannot be effectively applied in the field, which may explain why ICE itself has been unable to develop training and guidance to officers in the field on how to enforce its own policy. Other new ICE policies and pilot programs are equally troubling. Call-in letters that rely on aliens incarcerated in jails to self-report to ICE offices after they are released from jail, and new ICE detainers instructing jails to simply release aliens not convicted of a crime. These policies are not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. They are not law enforcement actions. They are the opposite. These policies take away officers' discretion and establish a system that mandates that our Nation's most fundamental immigration laws are not enforced. In conclusion, we applaud the efforts of any Member of Congress who attempts to bring oversight to this troubled agency. And it is a troubled agency. The safety of our officers is of little concern to agency leaders. There is no oversight as ICE investigates itself. As a union and as employees, we would very much like to work with Members of Congress to be your eyes and ears inside the agency, with the goal of providing much-needed oversight of ICE and its leadership. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] __________ Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Crane. Ms. Vaughan? TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES Ms. Vaughan. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today to discuss H.R. 2497. Our work at the Center for Immigration Studies is focused on examining the impact of all forms of immigration on American society and the effects of any proposed changes to our immigration policies. In my analysis, this bill would not have much of an effect on immigration levels, on immigration law enforcement, or on how the immigration agencies and their staff routinely do their jobs. But what it would do is to prevent any further harm to Americans and legal workers that would result if the White House or its appointees in the immigration agencies were able to expand their efforts to bring about an unpopular and ill- advised legalization scheme through executive action. Just to set the stage, the last decade was the largest 10 years of immigration in American history. About 13 million immigrants settled here, legally and illegally. We also admitted several hundred thousand guest workers over the same time period every year. Meanwhile, our economy lost 1 million jobs over that same decade. In 2008 and 2009 alone, 2.4 million new immigrants settled here, while 8.2 million jobs were lost in our economy. In this economic climate, it is pretty hard to make the case that immigration regulations should be relaxed to permit illegal workers to stay, especially when most of them would be vying for the very same jobs as many unemployed U.S. workers and where there is already an oversupply of labor. Yet that is exactly what the Obama administration says it wants to do. In various public statements and memoranda, officials say that the goals are to waive in as many immigrants as possible, to drastically scale back immigration law enforcement, and to legalize as many of the 11 million illegal aliens as possible. And it is not just talk. They have been acting on these plans. For example, telling consular officers and benefits adjudicators to overlook things that should disqualify applicants or restricting what ICE field office staff can do, telling ICE lawyers to drop charges on thousands of illegal aliens at a time, or letting sanctuary States stay out of Secure Communities. These actions display a shocking disregard for the public trust and for congressional authority over immigration law, not to mention the wishes of Americans. At least two-thirds of voters consistently express a desire to see stricter immigration law enforcement, not weaker. Polls show that only about a fourth of voters approve of the way the Obama administration has handled immigration policy. They understand all of the costs and problems. That is why over the last 5 years Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize an amnesty or legalization program on any scale. It is important to consider, too, that there is no shortage of qualified immigrants who are willing to play by the rules and go through the process the right way. At last count, the State Department reported that there were nearly 3 million people who have been sponsored for green cards who are waiting their turn overseas, and some of them for as long as 15 years. Offering illegal immigrants a path to residency in front of these applicants is patently unfair and undermines our legal immigration system. And not enforcing immigration laws just exacerbates the crime and public safety problems. According to ICE statistics, there are nearly 2 million criminal aliens living here, more than half of whom are at large in our communities. ICE is focused on just the worst of the worst, through excessive prosecutorial discretion and stingy use of detention, leaves too many of the worst still on our streets. And as a result, people are getting hurt needlessly. People like 10-year-old Anthony Moore, who a couple of months ago was walking to the bus stop in Florida, when he was mowed down and killed by an unlicensed illegal alien driver. This illegal immigrant had at least two prior charges for DUI and a probation violation, but he was not enough of a priority either for Florida prosecutors or ICE to take action before the fatal accident. And this kind of story is repeated over and over again all over the country, far too regularly. So the lack of enforcement is bad enough, but apprehension numbers for ICE, as opposed to removal numbers, have actually been going down for several years, according to ICE statistics. But just declining to arrest or remove an illegal alien does not give that person real legal status. To accomplish that, the Administration has to rely on the parts of immigration law that are specified in this bill. These tools are designed to be used for exceptionally compelling cases. They are immigration law luxuries and not intended as a way for the executive branch to bypass Congress and its unique authority to make immigration law. Again, while the Administration claims that these are only ideas, in fact, they already have begun trying out different forms of administrative amnesty, for example, by relaxing the extreme hardship standard for the illegal aliens who try to apply for green cards, but are disqualified and come under the 3-year/10-year bar. Last year, about 19,000 people in that category successfully obtained extreme hardship waivers, and you have to ask yourself how extreme can these cases be if that many people are able to qualify every year? And the percentage of people who qualify has about quadrupled in the last 4 years. Common sense tells you these aren't extreme hardship cases. They are certainly bitterly disappointed to be denied, perhaps financially stressed, and inconvenienced certainly, but not really facing what the law defines as extreme hardship. The fact that the Administration has already started tinkering with forms of relief I think illustrates the need for this legislation. The tool of deferred action is especially susceptible to abuse since there are no statutory guidelines, and the agency has never publicly published statistics on how often it is used. So no one can monitor what is being done. Mr. Gallegly. Could you please wrap up? We appreciate your testimony, but we really need to stick with the time limits. Ms. Vaughan. So this bill would help uphold sound principles for immigration policy, namely that immigration to the United States should occur through legal, fair, and open processes. [The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:] __________ Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. Ms. Stock? TESTIMONY OF MARGARET D. STOCK, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA-ANCHORAGE Ms. Stock. Chairman Smith, Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to be here to provide my testimony. I am an attorney with the law firm of Lane Powell PC, working in its Anchorage, Alaska, office, and my other credentials are in the record. The opinions I am expressing today, however, are my own. The HALT Act is costly, misguided, irresponsible, and will undermine immigration law enforcement. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain why the HALT Act should not be enacted. Among other things, the HALT Act would hurt many Americans and their families, hurt hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants, harm the Government's power to respond to foreign policy emergencies, interfere with the President's constitutional authority over foreign affairs, and lead to untold hardship for many noncitizens in cases where the rigid and complex nature of U.S. immigration law provides no avenue for them to enter or stay in the United States legally. I would also disagree vehemently with Ms. Vaughan's no impact assessment. This bill will cause huge harm and impact on all three agencies within DHS, not just ICE, but also CBP and USCIS. The Members of this Subcommittee are undoubtedly aware of the reality of our Nation's broken immigration system. The discretionary authorities that the HALT Act seeks to overturn, albeit temporarily, are important safety valves within this broken system. The following cases are some individual examples of situations where the executive branch has used administrative discretion to promote justice in individual immigration cases, but would be unable to do so if the HALT bill were to become law. The HALT Act would prevent the Government from granting parole to persons in need of urgent medical care where there is no imminent threat to life, such as the Afghan woman who was paroled into the United States last year after her husband cut off her nose and ears. The HALT Act would halt the opportunity that military families have to seek parole in place and deferred action on a case-by-case basis only to prevent separation during deployments and to allow disabled military members and veterans to have their family members with them as they undergo medical treatment. The HALT Act ends all Cuban paroles, a longstanding, decades-old program, and the only categorical program that existed under Doris Meissner and other immigration commissioners. The Members of this Committee are no doubt aware of the case of Hotaru Ferschke, the widow of deceased U.S. Marine Michael Ferschke. Mrs. Ferschke was recently the beneficiary of an exceptionally rare private bill. Only two of those have passed in the last few years. Enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President because the technicalities of U.S. immigration law prevented Mrs. Ferschke, a person who was seeking lawful immigration to the United States, from obtaining an immigrant visa to come here after her husband was killed in combat in Afghanistan. Mrs. Ferschke wanted to come to the U.S. to raise her infant United States citizen son, Michael Ferschke's child, in Sergeant Firski's hometown in Tennessee. While Mrs. Ferschke was ultimately able to obtain relief through a private bill, the process was very lengthy. And during that process, Mrs. Ferschke needed parole in order to remain in the United States and to travel internationally while the private bill was being pursued. The HALT Act would terminate the ability of DHS agencies to allow such persons to remain in the United States and to travel internationally while Members of Congress and Senators pursue the very lengthy legislative process of enacting a private bill. If the HALT Act is enacted, American families will experience more separations and hardship, as their family members will not be able to qualify for cancellation of removal after demonstrating exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a judge. Military families will be harmed by the HALT Act, as cancellation removal has been granted in cases such as the one that I attached to my written testimony. Interestingly, Chairman Smith, the HALT Act would retain cancellation of removal for criminal aliens who have green cards. The noncriminal ones would lose cancellation. In my written testimony, I provide many more examples of individuals and vulnerable, compelling groups who could no longer be protected if the HALT bill becomes law. I am pleased to hear Mr. Gallegly say that he would be willing to support private bills on behalf of these folks, and I will ask the people I listed in my testimony to request private bills because I do believe that is one solution if HALT is enacted. But it is a difficult one and lengthy. Ironically, the HALT Act will create chaos in the legal immigration system, as hundreds of thousands of adjustment applicants, many of them skilled workers, college professors, business executives, outstanding athletes, scientists, and the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens will no longer be able to travel internationally while their adjustment applications are pending. These are the qualified immigrants that Ms. Vaughan was discussing. They will be deprived of their advance parole authority, which they use to travel internationally during the many months it takes for USCIS to process their adjustment applications. The HALT Act's stated purpose is to prevent a backdoor amnesty by the Obama administration. But none of the provisions targeted by HALT provide any amnesty or permanent legal status to anyone. Instead, the HALT Act suspends an extremely narrow set of protections that the Government only extends on a highly selective and case-by-case basis for the most part when there are humanitarian concerns or other compelling circumstances and no other avenue of relief is available. Justice requires some reasonable flexibility and administrative discretion in the enforcement of immigration laws. Ms. Lofgren already quoted the letter from 1999 in which many congressmen on both sides urged the agency to develop guidelines for the use of its prosecutorial discretion. The recent memoranda issued by John Morton, like other prosecutorial discretion memoranda issued by prior agency heads, respond directly to this congressional demand for guidelines on the use of prosecutorial discretion. It makes no sense for Congress to suspend statutory provisions allowing for the use of prosecutorial discretion because an agency head has attempted to answer a congressional suggestion to create guidelines for the use of that discretion. Some level of enforcement and prosecutorial flexibility is present in every law enforcement program in this country. Local police, for example, do not devote the same level of enforcement effort to minor property crimes or prostitution as they do to violent felonies. The costs of deporting someone are substantial. Deportation costs include the expenses of arrest, detention hearings, and physical removal. DHS and specifically ICE need the discretion to be able to prioritize their enforcement activities to those who present threats to our public safety and national security, such as those who have committed violent felonies. Our Nation's safety and security depend upon it. Deportations and worksite enforcement have substantially increased under the Obama administration, as compared to the prior Bush administration. I should note that on the same day the prosecutorial discretion memos were released, the Obama administration broke records by issuing 1,000 notices to employers around the country about worksite enforcement. In fact, this enforcement is so much so that the President's own supporters are complaining about the level of it. There is no basis for asserting that the Obama administration has implemented any amnesty program and, thus, no need for the HALT Act. Instead of improving an already-broken and dysfunctional system, the HALT Act would worsen the current dire situation. Instead of constituting a step toward sensible and comprehensive immigration reform, the HALT Act would constitute a major step backwards. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Stock follows:] __________ Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ms. Stock. First of all, I would like to respond to your reference to me being willing to entertain consideration on special bills. I think the record is clear on this. I have been on this Committee for over 20 years, and I have voted on many, many, many special bills in the affirmative. Not all, but most. And I would say that I am not the only one up here that has voted on special bills. And I would think that the Chairman would certainly be in that category as well, who has voted on special. So that is a mechanism that we do use. Ms. Stock. Could I request one on behalf of two people that are listed in my written testimony? Mr. Gallegly. Through regular order, we will be happy to see that that takes place, through regular order. Ms. Lofgren. Would the Chairman yield? Mr. Gallegly. I have really very limited amount of time, but I would yield. Ms. Lofgren. I would just note, in fact, that the Chairman has voted for private bills. I acknowledge that. But because of the difference between what the Senate is doing, we have only passed 3 private bills in 8 years that have actually become---- And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Gallegly. Well, the leadership on the Senate is a little different than our leadership over here, to my good friend from California, as we will probably see in the next few days. With that, Mr. Crane, the leadership over at DHS and the policies of DHS and the will of DHS in enforcing our immigration laws by many is concerning. How would you define the will of the leadership in DHS to actually enforce our immigration laws? Mr. Crane. I think officers in the field, sir, would tell you that the motivation is purely political. They are trying to do a balancing act between a PR campaign to make the American public think that they are actually taking the necessary law enforcement actions and somehow satisfying immigrants advocacy groups. I don't think our real focus right now at the headquarters level really is law enforcement. And I think if you look at the folks that we have up at ICE headquarters, you will find out that they don't have a background in this business. Most of them are attorneys. They are folks from other law enforcement agencies. They came from homeland security investigations, which really doesn't do immigration work. They don't really have a foundation in what we do, and it has just become a political motivation, I think, in everything that we do. Mr. Gallegly. From your perspective, does ICE have sufficient resources to remove any of the most serious criminal immigrants, or is this simply an excuse not to enforce laws that the Administration doesn't agree with? Mr. Crane. I think that DHS and ICE have both oversimplified our resources out in the field and how it actually works in the field. There are those days when we have the ability, you know, we don't catch all the worst of the worst every single day of the week in every single location across the country. And in that regard, we do have the ability to have a more balanced approach to immigration enforcement but, at the same time, focus on the worst of the worst, which is what we do. But there are those days when we have the ability to concentrate on lower-priority cases, and that is what we do. Now, in terms of resources, absolutely we need more resources. But it is not that simple. We do have the ability to go out---- Mr. Gallegly. Well---- Mr. Crane. I am sorry. Mr. Gallegly [continuing]. The real question really had to do with considering the limited amount of resources you have. Are there sufficient resources to deal with the most serious criminal aliens, or are some of those passed over, as I said, because of philosophical differences with the law, rather than the fact that I guess in the--to do it selectively rather than by the rule of law? Mr. Crane. I think at this point, based on the folks, the people that are here that we are able to identify, I think we do have the resources to remove or apprehend and arrest the worst of the worst. Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Vaughan, is it appropriate for the Administration to use deferred action and other types of prosecutorial discretion in order to achieve the policy goals that Congress has clearly rejected? Ms. Vaughan. No, absolutely not. I mean, Congress has the authority to make immigration laws. And while the executive branch needs some discretion for the most exceptional cases sometimes, it is not appropriate to use these tools to bypass Congress when it can't get its way. And I think deferred action has the potential to be abused on a very grand scale if Congress were not to exercise some oversight over the Administration. And because it doesn't have a statutory basis, like there are definitions for temporary protected status and for other parts--some of the other forms of relief that are listed in the bill, but deferred action has not been utilized in the same way and doesn't have the same kind of controls on it. And deferred action is also one specific form of relief that has been put out there to be used for a general amnesty in memos that were circulated within USCIS. So it is clear that that has been the plan. Mr. Gallegly. Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Vaughan. Ms. Stock, same question? Ms. Stock. Well, I would disagree that you need to enact a law that gets rid of deferred action in order to deal with particular cases where you feel that it may have been granted in error. Mr. Gallegly. That really wasn't the question. Ms. Stock. Well, the bill would eliminate the---- Mr. Gallegly. No. The question I had, if you will indulge me, is, is it appropriate for the Administration to use deferred action or other types of prosecutorial discretion to achieve immigration policy that has clearly been rejected by the U.S. Congress? That is the question. Ms. Stock. Well, the problem is I haven't seen them do that. They usually do it in response to---- Mr. Gallegly. That is still not the question. Ms. Stock. They do it in response to congressional requests. As I put in the record, a letter from Members of Congress on both sides of the House requesting the use of deferred action on behalf of military personnel. Mr. Gallegly. Okay. Ms. Stock. And I put that letter in. I didn't have time to read it all into the record. But---- Mr. Gallegly. Thank you. Ms. Stock [continuing]. The letter in my testimony. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ms. Stock. I still don't think you answered the question, but I respect your right. Ms. Lofgren? Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments. I am a product of a union household. My grandfather was a Teamster. My dad was recording secretary of Local 888 of the Teamsters. My grandfather on the other side was a business agent for the Machinists Union. So I certainly respect unions, but I also respect management. And there is a role for management, and it seems to me when it comes to law enforcement, it is just like a city police department. I mean, when the mayor and the city council and the chief of police say we are going after auto thefts, gangbangers, and burglaries, the guy on the street is not supposed to go out and spend his time ticketing jaywalkers. I mean, the priorities are set by the civilian authorities. And I think that the testimony from Mr. Crane really flies in the face of that. I am not a defender of the department. In fact, I had tremendous criticism of ICE because they told local communities that participation in Secure Communities was optional. And in my county, the chief of police for the City of San Jose, the 10th largest city in the United States, didn't want to participate because it was interfering with his community policing strategy. And the sheriff of the county didn't want to participate. And there was a unanimous vote, Democrats and Republicans on the county board, saying they didn't want to participate. And then it changed. In terms of an IG investigation, I asked the IG to investigate what happened, and I hope to find out what happened. I was not happy with that. But having said that, this bill, I think, as I said before, is a huge mistake. Because it is not about the personalities. We will find out what happened and whatever. If it was wrong instead of error, corrective action will be taken. I have some questions for you, Colonel Stock, if I could? You have talked in your written testimony about the hardship that could result if the HALT Act were enacted. Can you elaborate on some of the use of discretion and how it benefits military men and women? I think about a case that was in Los Angeles, and I wasn't involved in the case, but I read about it in the LA Times of a guy who came back from Iraq with some traumatic injuries. His wife didn't have her documents. He was an American soldier. Their kids were American citizens, and she was caring for him. And I think she got deferred action so she could take care of her husband. Would that be possible if the HALT Act were enacted? Ms. Stock. I believe you are talking about the Barrios case? And she was granted parole in place. She also would have been cancellation eligible, but the agency realized that it didn't make sense from a cost perspective to put her through a whole deportation proceeding to pursue cancellation. Under the HALT Act, however, she would not have been eligible for any relief. Her husband would have been left in the United States with their children. She would have been forced to go back to her home country for 10 years before returning to the United States. Luckily, the HALT Act had not been enacted when her case came into the news. And she, I believe, had also attempted a private bill, but nothing had ever come of that. Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you about the deferred action. The statistics are this. Last year, 12,338 people were granted deferred action. 11,796 of those were victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, or serious crimes, seeking legal protection specifically created by Congress for such vulnerable individuals. Why is deferred action in cases like that important, for example, for domestic violence victims? Ms. Stock. Well, it is very important so they don't get deported, which is usually what their abusers want. In fact, one of the common tools that abusers use to try to subjugate their spouses in this situation is the threat of deportation. They will call agencies and try to have their spouses deported. And it is important understand the reason their spouses don't have any papers is because they won't file them for them. You know, these are people who are entitled to be lawful, but they are being abused---- Ms. Lofgren. So they are victimized. Their abuser is using the system. Ms. Stock. They are victimized, and deferred action is important to allow them to stay in the United States to get work permission so they can get away from their abuser and pursue the remedies which---- Ms. Lofgren. I would note that is why the U Visa was a product of bipartisanship here in the Congress, to prevent that. Let me talk about the extreme hardship, and there has been, Ms. Vaughan mentioned, an increase in the number of extreme hardships granted. It occurs to me that a substantial number of the people who are seeking those waivers are from Mexico. And we now have--we have had over 40,000 people murdered by the drug cartels in Mexico. It seems to me, and we are paying hazard duty pay to Americans who are working in our embassies there because it is so violent and so dangerous. If it is a 10-year bar, you are basically telling the American spouse, and you and your wife are going to live in Ciudad Juarez for the next 10 years, where the bodies are piling up. Could that be a factor in the extreme hardship area? Ms. Stock. Yes, indeed, Ms. Lofgren, it is a factor. In fact, that is one of the reasons why DoD requested the discretionary remedies for military families. Because some of the military families were being targeted by the bad guys down in Mexico. And there are an extremely large number of people seeking waivers in Mexico. To separate them for 10 years, to have a military family that can't have the person providing childcare in the country for 10 years is definitely an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. And it is relatively easy to show that burden by putting in all the proper documentation and the psychological reports, the reports about violence in Mexico, and so forth and so on. Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could ask for a unanimous consent request to put in the record a letter signed by over 70 national, State, and local organizations that work with immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other violent crimes. Letters from five persons who adopted or are in the process of adopting Haitian orphans admitted through humanitarian parole, as well as organizational statements from the First Focus Campaign for Children, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, the ACLU, and the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice. Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record of the hearing. [The information referred to follows:] __________ With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Crane, let me direct a couple of questions to you. You mentioned the unprecedented vote, I think, 13 months ago. It was a vote of no confidence in the ICE officials. Have you seen any action by this Administration since that vote of no confidence to change your mind about this Administration and its apparent unwillingness or intentional desire to not enforce some immigration laws? Mr. Crane. No, sir. I think, from our perspective, things are actually getting worse. I think that the most recent policies kind of point that out. Mr. Smith. What do you mean, specifically? Why are things even worse than 13 months ago? Mr. Crane. Well, I think, you know, issues like the prosecutorial discretion memo, I think those, you know, present some real obstacles for us. We see them as being purely political in nature. The agency, when they issued that policy, didn't even issue guidelines or training to the field to let people know how to enforce it. It was just kind of a knee-jerk reaction to satisfy certain groups. Mr. Smith. Now you mentioned that you feel that there are, in fact, orders not to arrest some individuals, some illegal immigrants. Why do you think that is the case? Do you have evidence of that? Mr. Crane. I don't know if we can actually give you physical evidence of it. We could possibly give you witness statements, officer statements from the field. ICE has gone to a system where they hardly put anything in writing. Everything is done verbally, even the directives coming from headquarters, because they don't want anything slipping out to the media. They don't want the public to see what they are doing behind closed doors. So our officers are absolutely being told on operations you can't run background checks. You can't run criminal checks. You can't run immigration checks. You can't talk to anyone when you go out in the field. If you have a target to arrest and you walk into a house-- and this individual was convicted of drug distribution and you walk into a house, and he is in there with five other individuals, all sleeping on the floor, all with pockets full of cash, you can't talk to anybody. Get your target and get out of the house. Mr. Smith. Do you think there are some ICE agents who would be willing to testify as to what you have just said before a hearing of this Subcommittee, or would they lose their job? Mr. Crane. They will definitely ruin their careers if they do it. ICE is a horrific place for retaliation. That is something that we have been talking about since 2009 when I gave my first testimony. The internal investigations are corrupt. Our management officials, they really lack integrity, and I don't think--I would certainly be willing to ask, sir. But we would be asking a lot for them. They would be putting their whole careers on the line. Mr. Smith. Okay. Perhaps there will be some way for us to get their testimony and still protect their identity. And if so, we will pursue that with you because I think that is incredibly damaging comment about this Administration and certainly reinforces the need for us to pass legislation to try to counter that mindset, that unwillingness to enforce the laws or unwillingness to deport individuals. Because the result of all that is that a lot of Americans may lose their lives, may be injured. You don't know what the consequences are. And that actually takes me to my next question to Ms. Vaughan. Do you feel that Administration policy has already resulted in some innocent Americans losing their lives and in other innocent Americans being unnecessarily injured or maimed? Ms. Vaughan. Yes, I do. I feel quite confident that that is the case, not just Americans, but also immigrants as well. There was one case up near where I live in Massachusetts of a woman and her 4-year-old son who were murdered by an illegal alien who had been arrested and charged with acts of violence on more than one occasion before, both in New York State and in Massachusetts, and who was not detected because he used false names. If the Secure Communities Program, for example, had been in place, he would have been detected. And I have heard from individuals who are in a position to know that that is a case that they would have prioritized, if they had known that he had been arrested. But ICE is allowing States, effectively, to not participate in Secure Communities for political reasons. They have not required Massachusetts to participate, even though they have both the mandate and the authority to do so. So I believe that her life and her son's life, as does the district attorney, who is now trying to extradite that former illegal alien from Ecuador, also believes that it would have saved two lives in that situation. Mr. Smith. And I assume that there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of similar cases across the country where crimes were committed by individuals who should not have been allowed to remain in our country. Ms. Vaughan. Definitely. Their family members often write to me and ask what can be done. Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you all for your testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the Chairman. From Puerto Rico, my good friend Mr. Pierluisi? Mr. Pierluisi. I will yield my time, my turn to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Jackson Lee? Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank my very---- Ms. Lofgren. If I may, Mr. Chairman? That was my mistake, and I don't think Mr. Pierluisi needs to yield his time. Ms. Jackson Lee should be recognized before Mr. Pierluisi. That is my mistake. Mr. Pierluisi. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Gallegly. Very good. Ms. Lofgren. My error. Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I thank both of my colleagues, and I thank Mr. Pierluisi for being such a distinguished colleague and friend. We all have overlapping Members, and I thank the Ranking Member for his courtesies. This is an important hearing, and I thank the Ranking Member for establishing a framework that I know was established before--Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Conyers before I came. But I do want to acknowledge that Mr. Smith and I have worked together in years past on a number of legislative initiatives, and I even enjoyed his support on a letter that I know he knows, the famous letter that was signed by a late colleague and certainly adored Member of this Committee, Mr. Hyde. That in the second paragraph mentioned, ``However, cases of apparent extreme hardship have caused concern,'' and the gist of the letter is asking for discretion. I think 1999 was still the presidency of President Clinton. I also want to say that I look forward to this Committee and Homeland Security embracing our ICE officers to ensure--I will join anyone on their increased pay and compensation. I don't, in any way, want to diminish the important work that they do, and most of all, I want to see them safe and secure and express my sadness for the tragic losses that they have experienced and most recently. I think that is an important statement, and we all need to own up to the important work that ICE does. At the same time, I think it is important for law enforcement to be collaborative and not be afraid of policymakers who are making decisions that are rational and speak to the wide diversity of the work that law enforcement has to do. So, for example, let me be very clear on the record, I abhor criminal aliens who may prey upon our citizens, and I believe that we have provided all manner of resources to ensure that criminal aliens who are violating the rights of our citizens and their family members maybe are brought to justice. We salute ICE for its work. But I can't, for the life of me, believe that Mr. Morton, who has taken an oath of office, would in any way give oral demands to do untoward things. And he is not here today, and I want to say that he has a right to defend himself. And I have, in the course of my interaction with ICE, I have seen the performance of Mr. Morton on behalf of this Nation and his support for his men and women in ICE, fighting for them. We were on an airplane where he was headed down to the family in Brownsville, a tragedy that happened and that we are all working together to ensure that that doesn't not happen. So let me be very clear on that, and I stand as a person that takes no backseat to support of unions and labor and employee organizations. But I think that we have to be balanced in our representation for someone who is not here. Let me, Colonel Stock, pose this question quickly to you. Thank you for your service. Thank you, Mr. Crane, for your service. And Ms. Vaughan. But I believe you served in the U.S. Army and taught at West Point for many years. It is my understanding that it is considered best practice among military, governmental, and public policy decision-makers to be presented with the full range of options available to them, but that outlining all options is not the same as endorsing such options. Does this comport with your understanding of this process? Do you think that the draft USCIS memorandum on administrative options from last year is significant enough to raise concerns of an impending amnesty? Ms. Stock. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and I think that is a really important question because I can't quite understand the uproar that is being caused by people having leaked what looks to me like a standard options memo that every public policy student is allowed to write to decision-makers. That is standard practice in the Federal Government, and in public policy schools, they teach this--that when you have a new boss and he is unfamiliar with the authority that he exercises, you are supposed to write him an options paper, laying out all possible options to solve a problem. This is called the scientific decision-making process. In the Pentagon, they call it the military decision-making model. It doesn't mean you are actually going to implement all the options. It is to lay them all out so you can study their feasibility, acceptability, and suitability, which includes the political aspects of them. So---- Ms. Jackson Lee. Using---- Ms. Stock [continuing]. To criticize that is somewhat misguided, and I suspect that there is an options paper out there at the Internal Revenue Service right now about the amnesty that they have going on. Ms. Jackson Lee. So that the procedures, if I might, that are rumored to be throwing away the keys, letting criminal aliens run wild, and not being with good judgment is not the case. This is a situation where mercy cases, hardship cases are being allowed to be considered by thoughtful law enforcement to decide what to do. Is that what the case is? Ms. Stock. Well, that is my understanding of what is going on. But the memo that they are talking about was simply an options memo that is a standard practice in public policy. It is standard at the Pentagon, except usually there, they classify it so they can jail the guy that leaked it to the Hill. It is a standard thing to lay out these public policy memos, and for example, if you have a crisis in a foreign country, you might say one option is to send in the 82nd Airborne. The second option is to issue temporary protected status to nationals of that country, which will cause a money flow and help stabilize that foreign country. So what they were doing there at DHS was simply standard public policy practice, and it goes on every day in every agency of the Government. And I seriously---- Ms. Jackson Lee. So passing the HALT bill is not something that you think is imperative? Ms. Stock. You don't need to eliminate the discretionary authority of CBP, USCIS, and also some discretionary authority of ICE in order to address the fact that people are laying out options memos internally within an agency, no. That would be a gross mistake. Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman, and I agree---- Mr. Gallegly. Time of the gentlewoman---- Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. The HALT bill should not be an imperative and should not pass. And I thank the Chairman for his courtesy, and I yield back. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers? Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to Pedro Pierluisi, I am going to yield some time to Zoe Lofgren. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gallegly. The gentlelady from California? Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Conyers. I did have a question, Mr. Crane, for you. You are under oath, of course, and you indicated that unnamed individuals would be fearful of coming forth to identify orders that might constitute misconduct. But you are here today, and I am wondering if you can tell the Committee who in ICE gave those directions? Mr. Crane. I am not prepared to give you those names right now, ma'am. I could not. But---- Ms. Lofgren. Well, if you won't give us the names, I don't believe what you are saying is true. I mean, you are here---- Mr. Crane. I will get you the names, ma'am. Ms. Lofgren. You are known. Mr. Crane. I will get you the names. Ms. Lofgren. I have another question for you. We are conducting not an oversight hearing, but a hearing on this bill. In your testimony, you specifically comment on the actions of the Secure Communities Advisory Committee. Now it is my understanding that the bylaws of this Committee require confidentiality of the proceedings to ensure fair process and debate of these issues. How is it that you are able to publicly comment on these activities, when all the other Members of the Committee are prohibited from doing so? Mr. Crane. I don't know that that is completely true, ma'am. I know that there were---- Ms. Lofgren. So you are saying the bylaws permit you to talk about what is going on? Mr. Crane. What I would like to say is that there was actually at the last meeting that we attended, there was some very strong language about our ability to go out and talk publicly about what was being said, that we couldn't give out the actual recommendations and findings. So that is my understanding of the process. They have---- Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Well, we will look into this further then and not in the Committee, as that is not my understanding. But we will come to an understanding of it. I would like to ask you, Colonel Stock, you know, I come from Silicon Valley, and we have a tremendous number of really amazing inventors, engineers. Some of them come from countries where there is tremendous backlog in petitions, for example, India or China. And because Silicon Valley and the technology world is multinational, if you are going to be successful in business, you sometimes have to travel. Many of these individuals get advance parole if they have to go over to Europe or someplace to do something for their company. If the HALT Act was passed, how would these scientists and engineers go and attend to the business overseas and get back in? Ms. Stock. Well, they wouldn't. That is the problem. Once they have applied for adjustment of status, the current requirement is they have to get advance parole to travel internationally, and that is going to be the biggest impact of the HALT bill, if it is enacted, is suspending the ability of hundreds of thousands of these folks while the bill is in effect. Until January 2013, none of them will be able to travel internationally once they have filed for adjustment of status. This is not just going to affect Silicon Valley. It is going to affect the spouses of U.S. citizens, and it is going to affect people who need to go overseas for a funeral. We have had military cases where we have needed advance parole for somebody with a pending adjustment application so they could go to a spouse's funeral overseas. So that is actually the biggest impact. And I looked at the numbers, and we have had more than a million people getting advance parole in the past several years. And during the period that this bill will be in effect, if it is enacted, there will be probably about 500,000 people who are legal, have never broken immigration laws, and will be unable to get travel permission to travel internationally because the parole authority has been eliminated or suspended. Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think that is a serious--I don't know if anybody has done an analysis of the economic impact on the American economy. But it just seems to me that that would be a pretty severe blow to--I mean, the Valley is coming back. The tech world is coming back. Ms. Stock. Yes. Ms. Lofgren. That would be a severe problem, it would seem to me. You know, one of the things that everybody is for is orphans. And I am wondering if you could outline the impact that this--we had a number of letters here from adopting families. How often are these discretionary tools utilized with families that are adopting children? Ms. Stock. It is used frequently, and I have handled some of those cases. And it is not just the traditional ones that you are thinking about. But I handled a case, for example, once where USCIS paroled somebody in because a U.S. citizen was killed overseas, and there was a baby. And the baby had not yet derived U.S. citizenship. I know you are familiar with the complicated rules regarding derivative U.S. citizenship. Ms. Lofgren. Right. Ms. Stock. The grandparents wanted to take custody of the baby and bring the baby back with them to live in the United States of America, and there was no option under immigration law for them to do that, absent parole. There is no grandchild visa for tragic circumstances like this. A private bill would have taken a very, very long time to get through, and this was a baby that needed to be in the immediate care of the grandparents. So that is the kind of situation. There are also orphan and adopted children cases that get messed up for technical reasons. The parole authority is used in those cases. There are after-acquired child cases, where a child is born to somebody who has been approved to come to the United States in some category, and there is no way to get the child in because of the complicated procedures. So the parole authority is used at USCIS headquarters to bring the child in. Those cases would be halted under the HALT Act. Mr. Gallegly. The time of the---- Ms. Lofgren. I would yield back to the gentleman, and thanks---- Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Conyers. Thanks a lot, Zoe. Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, I will give the gentleman one additional minute. Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I think when we talk just about statistics and policies, let me share with you the case of Nelson Delgado, who is a military veteran, a husband, and the father of two young U.S. citizen children, 9-year-old Esmeralda, 4-year-old Angel. He served 1 year in Iraq, 4 years in the Marines on active duty, another 4 in Reserve. Nelson, who immigrated legally, married Olivia, an undocumented immigrant who came from Mexico in 1995. A few years later, Olivia went back to Mexico to visit her sick father and reentered. Because of her departure after years of unlawful presence triggered a 10-year bar, Olivia was barred from seeking legal residency for 10 years, now faces deportation. This baffles Nelson because he served his country, and now he is being separated from his wife and his children. Mr. Crane, could you find it in your heart and within the laws and a flexible policy to be able to be responsive to Mr. Delgado? Mr. Crane. To be honest with you, ma'am, we do see cases that, you know---- Ms. Jackson Lee. And you would be willing to have some flexibility and be well to receive that kind of counsel to be flexible in the deportation of his wife? Would you take into consideration his service, his willingness to die for his country? Mr. Crane. Well, first of all, ma'am, in the process, of course, that wouldn't be my place. Ms. Jackson Lee. But do you see the viability of that? Mr. Crane. Yes, I do, ma'am. Ms. Jackson Lee. And Ms. Stock? Ms. Stock. Well, the problem is, if the HALT Act were passed, there is no solution. You can't solve that. Ms. Jackson Lee. That is correct. And it allows no broad discretion using judgment and determining that this is a viable case in terms of her deportation, separating her from her military spouse and the children. Ms. Stock. That is correct, ma'am. Ms. Jackson Lee. That cuts off everything. Ms. Stock. She is just stuck outside the United States for 10 years. Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentlelady is expired. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Gowdy? Mr. Gowdy. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Crane, I see the word or the phrase ``prosecutorial discretion,'' and I always thought that prosecutorial discretion was held by a prosecutor in deciding whether or not there were sufficient facts to warrant the reasonable likelihood of a successful conviction. Giving discretion to law enforcement officers or ordering law enforcement officers not to pursue certain criminal violations is not prosecutorial discretion. That is something I am not familiar with. So let me ask you from your perspective, it says ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and assets. What do you think about being told which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce? Mr. Crane. Well, I think that prosecutorial discretion as officers is something that we have to exercise because there are simply too many cases that we can't apprehend every single individual. We do have to have law enforcement priorities in the field. However, I think that what we are seeing in the field as officers right now is more of a mandated order to allow certain individuals or certain groups of individuals to not be charged or arrested under immigration law. So that is our issue with it. Mr. Gowdy. I guess a cynic would suggest that the Administration was trying to get through memoranda what it could not get legislatively. Is that an overly cynical way of looking at it? Mr. Crane. I think it certainly has that appearance, sir. Mr. Gowdy. Is there someplace where we can sign up for an email blast and we can find out which criminal laws will be enforced today and which ones will not? Is that kept secret? Because I would love to know which Federal laws will be enforced by Federal law enforcement on a daily basis and which ones are not. That might help me direct my daily activities a little better. Mr. Crane. I couldn't agree with you more, sir. I think everyone in the American public needs to know exactly what ICE is doing. However, there is not even an email like that for employees to see. Mr. Gowdy. I can't imagine the frustration. I have worked with ICE and its predecessor agency for 6 years. A lot of respect for those special agents. I can't imagine having your hands tied by memo. Have you expressed your frustration at having your badge limited? And if so, what was the result? Mr. Crane. We don't really have a lot of interaction with Director Morton. He has not been friendly to the unions, to the employees. I absolutely believe that management has a place in this process, very strongly. But they are not really participating with us in that way. They don't seem to want to know the officers' opinion from the field. Mr. Gowdy. Do you think the policies are driven by something other than an apportionment of law enforcement resources? Could there possibly be a political component to any of this? Mr. Crane. Absolutely. I mean, we are completely confused. I know Secretary Napolitano came to the Appropriations Committee I believe it was last year and told congressmen that ICE doesn't need any more resources. We have all the people that we need because we have this magical thing called Secure Communities, which is this great force multiplier, which is absolutely false. It is incorrect. It is not an arrest multiplier for us by any means. If anything, it creates more work for us. Yet at the same time, we have the agency come out and say we don't have enough resources. We don't have enough manpower to arrest all these folks. So we need to make changes to our policies. So from our perspective, the agency can't have it both ways. They have got to start being straight with the American public about what resources we have and we don't have. And quite frankly, give our officers the appropriate priorities and training, but let us really exercise prosecutorial discretion in the field, and I promise everyone on this Committee that we will do a good job of it. And if we are not, we will be held accountable for it. Mr. Gowdy. Have any officers been disciplined for eschewing the memo and actually following the law as it is passed by the House, Senate, and signed by the President? Mr. Crane. ICE really doesn't do business like that for the most part. Generally, when something like that happens, it involves retaliation at some kind of level. You won't see future promotions. You will find yourself on a different detail. But very rarely do they step out, that wide out into the open and let anyone see that they are actually taking an action against an officer for something that specific. Mr. Gowdy. So the Administration does not ask for additional resources, but hides behind a lack of resources and setting nonlegislative priorities for the enforcement of ICE? Mr. Crane. That is my appearance of the situation, yes, sir. Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Special Agent. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Pierluisi? Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is clear that Members of this Subcommittee hold differing views on immigration policy. But I hope that all of us can agree on one point, that the executive branch should target its limited immigration enforcement resources on the removal of dangerous criminal aliens. If that is, indeed, our goal, as I believe it should be, then the HALT Act represents a step backward, not forward. Passage of this bill would make us less, rather than more, secure. With the Federal Government tightening its budget, ICE does not have unlimited funding. In fact, ICE only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year. With limited resources, whom should ICE deport? Should it deport the alien murderer or rapist? Or should it deport the noncriminal undocumented spouse of a U.S. military serviceman? I think most reasonable people would agree that ICE should deport an alien murderer or rapist above the noncriminal spouse. Yet under the HALT Act, the executive branch would lose its discretion to prioritize its resources. The result would be a de facto lottery, where undocumented immigrants are removed in the order in which they are processed, not on the basis of their danger to the U.S. This approach confounds common sense, and let me add a couple of thoughts, hopefully within the timeframe. I am troubled, actually, that the bill has this language about temptation. I mean, I am tempted to say lots of things, Mr. Ranking Member. But I am going to keep it civil. Now one thing, this is like putting the carriage in front of the horse. There is no record here. I hear you, Mr. Crane. But the statistics do not support what you are saying. And when you are asked to give some names and specifics, you refuse to do so. You say that, well, in due course, you will. Well, that puts us in a very uncomfortable position because the first thing that should be done by this Committee is to do oversight, the oversight that you were complaining about that hasn't been done. Once you do oversight and you determine that there has been abuse, then you take action. But there hasn't been any oversight, and the statistics, by the way, if anything, show a lot of enforcement in this last couple of years by this Administration. In fact, I was even amazed that you have the impression that immigration and advocacy groups are very pleased with this Administration. Let me tell you, sir. It is the opposite. I mean, I have yet to hear any immigration advocacy group praise ICE or DHS. So that confounds me. At the same time, I see that there is talk about these memos, and I tell you there is a difference between a decisional memo and a deliberative memo. A decisional memo binds officers to do X, Y, and Z. A deliberative memo is like what you were saying, Ms. Stock. It is simply options that are laid out, specifics that are laid out for the benefit of the officials who have this prosecutorial discretion. Lastly, prosecutorial discretion, but of course you have it. I am a former attorney general. You have it at the State, at the local, at the county level. You have it. And in the Federal Government, of all places, you have it a lot. And there is more than any time before with the limited resources that we have. So now, having said all of that, let me ask a couple of questions. Ms. Stock, if this were to become law, would the Government now be able to deport all individuals who are not legally present in the United States? Or would the Government still be able to deport only a certain number of individuals? Ms. Stock. Well, the Government would only be able to deport a certain number of individuals because Congress has only given a certain amount of money and resources to the agencies. And there simply are not the resources available to deport every single unauthorized immigrant in the United States. That is borne out by numerous studies. There is a mismatch between the numbers and the resources, and that is why priorities are important. And I think it is also important to point out that ICE is going to take a big budget hit on this particular bill because one of the tools that ICE uses investigatively is parole authority. They will give parole to an undocumented immigrant that they are using for the purpose of an investigation, and they will give that undocumented immigrant work permission to perhaps infiltrate an unscrupulous employer, go to work for that employer and support himself while this informant is in the country working for ICE. They are going to lose the ability to give work permission to those folks. So they are now going to have to support those individuals. They will still be able to use them for law enforcement purpose parole, but they are going to have to come to Congress for the money to support those individuals-- housing, food, et cetera. And they are going to lose the tool of being able to give them a work permit to go use for purposes of the investigation. So there is going to be a budget hit on this, and I also mention in my testimony that the Pentagon is going to have budget implications because they also parole people in and expect them to get work permits and go to work as translators, for example, for the Pentagon. That authority is taken away. Even in the exceptions that are in the bill for national security and law enforcement, those people aren't allowed to work. So there are going to be budget impacts to this bill, and you will have to ask ICE how many people they parole in for law enforcement investigative purposes. But I know because I have worked with them that they do that. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman. The time of the gentleman has expired. I want to thank the three witnesses that were here today for your testimony and your patience, since we had to get a little late start. But unfortunately, there are certain things we don't have total control on around here, if you hadn't noticed. In any event, I look forward to working with you in the future. I thank the Members of the Committee on both sides for attending today and look forward to working on this issue in the near future. With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record