question. heart of somehe issues and the frustrations that we have. the president has issued 2 executive amnesties in 2012 and 2014. under both of these programs, obtain immigrants can work permits, photo ids, social security numbers. let's say we have an open job for a forklift operator in alabama. and it pays $15 lower. two applicants apply. the first is an american citizen, the second applicant answered illegally. and received a presidential id and work permit. who had more right to that job? the american citizen or the person that entered unlawfully? dir. saldana: once a person is given lawful status, i leave it

to the employer to decide who has more right to the job based on their qualification. sen. sessions: so the president then declares those people have the same right. do you support that? dir. saldana: i support the employer having the right to make a decision between people who are lawfully in the country, whether a citizen or other lawful means. sessions: are you aware that ina says that people unlawfully here are not able to work in america? familiar withi am that provision. sen. sessions: the president to claire's despite the law -- declares, despite the law, you still have the right to work. i don't want to hire a foreign person that came here illegally, despite what the president says. does he have that right? dir. saldana: sir we are mixing

apples and oranges. you are assuming there is no law status. -- lawful status. senator cruz referred to it as amnesty. we have a fundamental disagreement with respect to that. i don't think it serves any purpose. sen. sessinos: support the president's power to declare those with unlawful work status, lawful? even though the court has so far ruled otherwise. dir. saldana: the lower district court? i think you understand sir, because you certainly have dealt with this, there are avenues of appeal. i support the president and the department of justice opinion, lengthy and thorough and complete, that said what he did was lawful and what the secretary did was lawful. judge in ans: the long opinion did not agree to

that. we need to go to the next panel. thank you for your patience. the reason this is important is because this is a national issue of importance to the american people. you are epicenter of this. you are getting directions from above, i know that. we expect the highest performance out of your office and your supervisors. dir. saldana: quite frankly, sir, i am working every day very long hours to do that. sen. sessions: thank you very much.

sen. sessions: we would like to begin. be seated. first we have jessica vaughan, director of policy studies for

the center for immigration studies where she has worked since 1992. prior to joining the center, she served as a foreign service officer with the state department. miss vaughan, do you want to do your opening statement now? thank you for your contribution to these discussions. ms. vaughan: good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify. this is certainly an area that is ripe for congressional oversight, because the obama administration is truly causing harm with its relentless efforts to undermine immigration enforcement, with the result that literally hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens remain here in defiance of the a position to harm others. just today, i want to summarize some of the latest official

statistics on immigration enforcement and criminal removals and discuss some of the reasons for these trends and also with this means for public safety in our communities. to put it bluntly, right now immigration enforcement is in a state of collapse. total deportations from the interior, factoring out the cbp apprehensions, have drastically declined and now are about 1/3 of what they were just three years ago. sen. sessions: the cbp, that is the border patrol at the border? ms. vaughan: yes, and also -- sen. sessions: you took those out? ms. vaughan: yes and legal ports of entry also, they catch people sometimes coming in as imposters and so on. so that is down from about 200,000 in 2012, to about 72,000 in 2015. criminal deportations, which as you noted, are supposed to be the highest priority and have been the near exclusive enforcement focus of the obama administration, have also dropped by about half since 2012. last year ice managed to deport just over 63,000 criminal aliens from the interior. out of an estimated population

of more than 2 million. arrests of gang members, talking about illegal aliens involved in gangs, like 18th street, the seranos, again something that is supposed to be a top priority. these arrests have dropped by more than half, from 4600 in 2012 to 1600 in 2014. what is the reason for this decline? it is not for lack of funds, as we have discussed. congress has been responsive to the public in support for enforcement and have provided a reasonable amount of funding, especially for programs to remove criminal aliens. it is not because there are fewer criminal aliens to arrest. the size of the illegal immigrant population has not declined, it actually seems to be increasing. ice estimated that there are about 2 million criminal aliens living in the country today. it is not because criminal aliens are hard to find. this decline has occurred at a time when ice has more resources and a better system to identify criminal aliens than ever before, including the universal

interoperability with a national fingerprint sharing system that is known as secure communities. in recent years, agents have been encountering record numbers of criminal aliens. the decline in criminal alien deportation can be traced to a series of policies implemented by the obama administration with the specific goal of dismantling a fairly effective system of immigration enforcement, so that only the most dangerous criminals are subject to immigration enforcement. the so-called worst of the worst. the problem is that this over prioritization allows a lot of the worst to stay in our communities and continue causing problems. enforcement has been suppressed in several ways. first of all, the prioritization scheme restricts ice officers and who they can process for deportation and when. and at allows exemptions for a long list of things, like having family members here.

and the latest example of this is the pep program that has drawn so much criticism from law enforcement agencies. second, they have suppressed the use of important tools, like detainers, the accelerated forms of due process that avoid the need for long drawn out proceedings in immigration courts, and partnerships of local law enforcement. the result of these policies is that ice officers and up -- end up ignoring perhaps as many as half of the criminal aliens they encounter. or more. for example, one sheriff in the northeast gave me a list of all of the illegal aliens that have been booked in his jail since the beginning of 2014. there are 62 of them on this list. these 62 criminal aliens racked up 225 charges, anywhere between 1-11 charges a piece. about 2/3 of them were violent. we are not talking about traffic offenders or, you know, people who failed to appear for some kind of civil court thing. we are talking about attempted murder, rape, aggravated assault

and so on. 20 of them have committed sex crimes of some kind. and this sheriff sends a letter to ice every time an illegal alien is booked in his jail. and of course ice would get the secure communities alert. but in the last two years, ice has only issued detainers on five out of these 62 offenders. he says, we have to beg the federal government to do its job. that is a local sheriff begging the federal government to come take custody of criminals in his jail, that are deportable. this is happening all over the country. the administration's narrow policies have led ice to release criminal aliens at an alarming rate. last year, just over 30,000 convicted criminal aliens were freed back to the streets. the cumalitive number of released criminal aliens that were once in ice custody, but who are now at large, is up to 357,000. meanwhile, the resources that

congress has provided for their removal are going unused. congress has given ice the resources to maintain a daily detention capacity of 34,000, but the administration has let almost 1/5 of this capacity go unused, even as it releases criminal aliens every day. the administration has declined to take action against the sanctuary jurisdictions that have seen more than 12,000 criminal aliens the ice was seeking to deport last year. it allows other countries to refuse to take back criminal deportees and now, under pep, it is allowing local governments to dictate when ice will issue detainers and which types of criminal aliens will be targeted. creating a patchwork of hundreds of different deportation policies around the country. this is deliberate abdication of the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws and one that subjects american communities to unnecessary harm. from criminals who should not be here to begin with and who could

be removed, but are instead allowed to remain and victimize more people. thank you. sen. sessions: thank you, thank you miss vaughan. and next we have mr. jonathan thompson, the executive director of the national sheriff's association. a national chairman. he previously served as director of external affairs for the department of homeland security's federal emergency management agency. also previously served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. mr. thompson, thank you and welcome. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, thank you. i want to talk to briefly today and summarize remarks and hope that this will be put into the statement. i am the executive director of the national sheriff's association, we represent more than 3000 sheriffs nationwide, from the smallest parish to the largest urban county. in my conversations with sheriffs it has become clear

that the alien removal policies are putting sheriffs in and until level position and in the words of a sheriff in ariza, the current policies are institutionalizing defense issues. in light of these words, let me be clear about one thing. sheriffs support the goal of removing criminal aliens from this country and they stand ready to assist our federal partners in preserving our national security. but sheriffs will not act outside the bounds of the constitution, nor will they ignore their office. any policy advanced by this and ministers must be legal, but within both contacts -- c ontexts, constitutional. otherwise, which law do you want sheriffs to break? unfortunately, the constitutionality is unclear.

there have been no legal opinions from the department of justice, nor from any state. a disagreement comes from across the political spectrum, attorneys all over the country have taken different interpretations leading to a patchwork of local ordinances, state laws and policy directors. sheriffs are left with few options, each with significant risks to public safety and serious liability questions. this is unacceptable. sheriffs have one simple request , the president should instruct the attorney general to put forth a written come a legal opinion on the constitutional questions surrounding pep. to continue ignoring the questions, only furthers the view that the president does not support law enforcement. it is also imperative that congress continue with their oversight, to ensure that this opinion is issued.

in the meantime, i would like to call to your attention specifically an act introduced by you mr. chairman, which nsa supports. the bill would strengthen information sharing between dhs thethe fbi, by requiring inclusion of immigration violators, give state and local law enforcement immigration powers, law also requiring the government -- a biographical and other identifying information about the immigration to federal authorities. and make clear guidelines for custody transfer from a state or local agency to the federal government. we commend you for the introduction of this bill, we thank you very much. the bill does not negate that immigration or force meant that enforcement is a -- too few criminal aliens are deported each year and priorities for deportation are narrow.

some kernel aliens, otherwise subject to removal, and up back in our communities. for lack of travel documentation or bureaucratic excuses. year, theof this arizona sheriffs association issued a statement highlighting three violent criminal aliens released by ice, despite convictions of crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perjury. these are violent crimes and criminals that should be deported, not allowed to terrorize neighborhoods. i am could go of the removal policies put forth by this administration, but i want to emphasize that the many employees at dhs and elsewhere are committed to this mission of removing criminal aliens. i and sheriffs of the country recognize that people are hampered by these policies and i applaud the work of local law enforcement and their

collaboration with sheriffs. a sheriff of marshall county, iowa would tell you that he works very well with local filled offices, but he would also tell you that it is the administration's responsibility to help us identify potentially dangerous aliens and removal prophecies are consistent to establish policies that do not burden our local jails or endanger communities. i encouraged this committee to take meaningful steps, i am gratified to be here to help you with this process and stand ready to do so. sen. sessions: thank you. immigration of the program at the migration policy institute and an associate professor at the university of new orleans. previously, dr. rosenblum worked at the council of foreign relations.

as a member of president obama's team in 2009. so, we would be glad to hear your opening statement. rosenblum: thank you for the opportunity to read i will summarize my comments and requested that my full statement be included in the record. the united states has implemented increasingly forceful measures to combat immigration since the 1980's. mostly by tightening border security and also through programs to detain and the poor unauthorized immigrants in the united states. recently these have paid off, as the u.s. and -- has declined by more than 2 million people by 2007. -- since 2007. there are numerous challenges, because unauthorized immigrants are hard to locate, unlike at the border, there is no control limitedd agents have

authority. it is also expensive, because it is labor expensive and time-consuming. stuckss has for decades to target enforcement resources on certain groups of removable citizens identified as high priority for deportation. in authorizing legislation and bills and informal and formal policies, congress and the president of both parties have focused on the same priorities, national security threats, convicted criminals, border crossers and repeat crossers. articulatedearly priorities, dhs has trade-offs in designing the strategy. most importantly, the is a fundamental tension between the quantity and quality of deportations, with resources, ice can target unauthorized immigrants who are easy to locate, but this means less

focus on others who may be difficult to locate. cost per deportation across different programs i -- illustrates in this tension. , theour main programs most -- and mosts the expensive program. ,veraging over $4000 per arrest compared to $1000 per arrest for other programs. it also must be weighed against potential safety trade-offs. of many law enforcement agencies have actively cooperated with suchhich has benefits of cooperation, but hundreds of other communities have limited their role in enforcement because it reduces community trust in police and takes resources away from law

enforcement responsibility is. my organization estimates that more than 5.9 million unauthorized immigrants, 52% of the unauthorized population, lives under such jurisdictions. this is the main reason that the administration redesigned the approach to federal and local cooperation through the priority enforcement program. stricter immigration control can also inflict damage on american families and communities as many unauthorized immigrants are deeply integrated into the u.s. many have lived in the u.s. at least five years and 39% have children here, most of whom are citizens. policymakers must weigh how to best enforce their mission, while also limiting harm to neighborhoods. they also must ensure that civil and constitutional rights of all u.s. residents are protected. there is little debate whether dhs or other law enforcement agencies should set enforcement

priorities or about which should be the highest priorities for deportation. but real disagreements exist about deeper trade-offs, how important is it to maximize the total number of removals and the number of interior removals, versus focusing resources on high priority cases and exercising discretion in other cases? data from the last decade shows, that even if this prime minister she continues to remove immigrants in record numbers, the answers to these questions have changed over time. betweenions decreased 2003-2009, but you thinking -- shrinking had a criminal convictions. this is outside of core priorities. 2800f removal cases in criminal record at all. now, they have focused on high profile cases. although 50,000 between

2009-2000 or 10, the number of criminals deported increased. by 2013, the last year we have , by 2013,ecords for serious criminals accounted for 60% of interior removals. border removals, another top priority, increased by 100,000 in recent years. as a result, nine & from 2013, fell in a category. has by and large been successful in implementing its goals. i would be happy to answer questions. thank you. sen. sessions: ok, you want to go first? you can go first. sen. sessions: thank you for being patient. i appreciate your attention to

these issues. what ms.r. thompson, vaughan said- ms. the strikes me as being very troubling. when she says that this individual has 62 situations of aliens being arrested for 225 charges, many of them violent and so forth and only five of accept forould removal, is it not true that as you understand the law, they must deport criminal aliens and do you feel like if the federal government is going to take over immigration come a which apparently it is and has a legal right to do, it ought to follow through and follow the law? mr. thompson: absolutely. the answer to your first question me yes. the trick on this one, someone is arrested and put into a

county jail, they are finger printed and fingerprints are divided off to the great in washington. and they hit comes back and says that person is here, detain them. sentectronic document is to the sheriff and in many times it is just a fax, it says, we are requesting that you detain this person. they have reason to believe that he falls into one of these categories. sir, as you know, that is a clear violation of it what the supreme court says we have to do. but we -- a sheriff cannot violate the constitution by saying ok, we will hold this person until you get them, or until you send us a federal warrant. this is a terrible situation for our nation to be in.

i believe it is politically just, ignorance, or incompetence that we are seeing. but i do believe it is a political problem. and as i sat here and listened to the director, i was shaken. as i listened to statistics and talk to sheriff's, every day, there are dozens if not hundreds and thousands of these requests my that say -- request, that hold -- that say, hold this person. they must release these people yet we still have more money going to ice, more officers at ice who are working with hands tied and is the communities at risk. sen. sessions: a simple question. i have asked law enforcement

officers, what happens if a driving has an accident, the officer approaches and find out that the individual .s illegally in the country at the town halls, people say, you turn them over to the feds for deportation. usually you talk to officers and it they say they do not pay attention and there are multiple serious offenses, is that true? mr. thompson: that is the case. sen. sessions: so in average deputy doing his duty, protecting local citizens, when he finds somebody, they will not come and get him? mr. thompson: that is correct sir. vaughan, how: ms. would you comment on this detainer situation, have you given thought to that?

ms. vaughan: i have. first i need to say that the code of federal regulations is clear on this. it says when local law enforcement officers receive a detainer from ice, that they shall maintain custody of that individual for no more than 48 hours after they -- but it does say, the exposition is that they will maintain custody of them. congress has given ice the authority to issue detainers and to the expectation is that they should be compliant with it and more than 90% of sheriffs in the country comply without any problem. they want to comply. even police chiefs. all detainersth issued, so it is not a question legalm being, you know, a

legalconstitutional -- il or unconstitutional, they are accepted instruments for us to use in getting custody of people -- they would like to detain. decadesl by changing interpretation of the regulations and the world they -- and authority they have congress. they are considered obligatory. alwaysse, a sheriff can honor a detainer request from the u.s. marshal or u.s. military police or a probation agenciesf one of those

issued a request, they would not think twice about it. it is the fact that immigration enforcement makes it political and controversial. so, and the a administration policy was done without any legal foundation over the objection of the very senior career people at the agency, so to the extent that there is confusion on this, in my opinion the obama administers has instigated that confusion with the goal of exposing the sheriffs to legal action. it could have been solved with the sanctuary bill that you wrote and introduced, so that is the answer. same is a immunity, that immunity could be offered to any law enforcement officer that receives a detainer. sen. sessions: our time is up on that, but it is something that we need to solve.

could ice issue the detainer before the person is released? would they then be willing to turn the person over when his term is up? mr. thompson: oftentimes they do provide the detainer before they are due to be released. sen. sessions: it can solve the problem? mr. thompson: i can solve part of the problem, but the biggest part of the problem is that over 90% of the time there is no ice officer there to collect the individual, no border patrol officer there to collect the individual and the sheriff can no longer hold that individual. they must be released. sen. sessions: thank you. senator: dr. rosenblum, i would like to say on the trade-off that you mentioned and the relationship between immigration enforcement and public safety, one of the main differences

between the priority enforcement program and its predecessor, secure communities, it limits certain forms of cooperation between dhs and local law enforcement agencies. in your view, how this the pep program work within this tension and how does it enhance public safety, what is the purpose of this? dr. rosenblum: as you know, dhs can identify citizens who get interested. does, a response to two different problems. one, secure communities in its early years, a majority of the people deported after a result of secure communities, had only

committed -- offenses. it is a lot of what generated backlash against the program. not just san francisco and new york objected, hundreds of communities and cities and towns , wichita, kansas. atlanta, these are not -- liberalism that found secure communities problematic. so the main thing that pep does, it says that they will only take custody of people if they committed a serious crime, so limited to people who have committed felonies or multiple misdemeanors, instead of somebody who gets pulled over for a driving offense. that produces a lot of backlash. and it also allows communities to negotiate with the dhs, here is what our community is comfortable with, because many police chiefs and the zero present police -- and those who

represent police, they have argued that to have the federal government mandate that local with dhs, -- compromises the police departments that have strong relationships with immigration communities. so then immigrants do not report crimes, they are unable to cooperate with investigations, so many jurisdictions around the country have weighed the pros and cons and found that they would rather have limited cooperation. senator: is there any doubt about public safety using one approach versus another? dr. rosenblum: we do not have data on pep because it has only been effect for about month. there have been some studies of secure communities that found that after the program was rolled out, that it had no general impact on crimes.

has not operated as a crime control program, it has been an immigration enforcement program. senator: i just meant sanctuary cities versus non-sanctuary cities and whether -- in the whole point was to build trust in a community and on a macro level, what effect has that had, any data regarding that? seenosenblum: i have not that data. senator: some colleagues have argued that a decrease in ice removal's, that we have seen evidence that we are deporting fewer people, or that is, then the decision is uninterested in enforcing immigration laws there would account for these numbers and what does it say about the overall state of enforcement? kind of the subject of this hearing. dr. rosenblum: